The LDS Concept of the term "Christian"

[Navidad]

I ask you all to be patient with me, but I still am a bit confused about what the meaning of the word "Christian" is for the informed LDS church member? I am especially interested in how the words "salvation" and "Christian" tie in for the Saint. I am not seeking to debate; just to understand. I find that my LDS friends most often assure me I am a "Christian." But somehow I keep thinking that they don't tie the words salvation and Christian together in the same way I do. I see lots of chapters in books written by both LDS and non-LDS scholars on the subject of "Are Mormons Christians?" That is not something I choose to debate here; I debate that elsewhere with my non-LDS Christian friends. My mind is made up on that one (in the affirmative). I am closer to understanding exaltation. I rarely if ever have heard the word sanctification in the ward. I think though there are some commonalities between the concept of sanctification and exaltation. I wish someone in the church would write a chapter in a book entitled "Are non-LDS Christians Christians? Or what does it mean to a Saint to be a Christian especially if your aren't a Saint? 

I have said before on this forum that my first and foremost identity is as a Christian; my second is as an Evangelical; my third and least important is as a Mennonite. If I converted to the LDS church I would still consider myself a Christian and an Evangelical - my third identity would then become a Saint or a Mormon. I have changed the third identity at different times in my life, as we have moved and sought new affiliation where we lived. I have affiliated with the Christian community as a Baptist, a Mennonite, and as a non-denominationalist in my life. I have always been a Christian and an evangelical. I guess that is why I struggle with the concept of "converting" to Mormonism. Changing my affiliation within the Christian community is not a conversion. Converting to Judaism or Buddhism is a conversion. Moving affiliation within Christianity is just that - a change in affiliation; not in my relationship to Christ or the broader Christian community. 

Anyway, enough - more than enough about me. I really would value it if some of you would try again to explain to me, and perhaps others who may be interested, what the concept of being a Christian means to a Saint, especially as it relates to the non-LDS church member. Thanks so very much. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I ask you all to be patient with me, but I still am a bit confused about what the meaning of the word "Christian" is for the informed LDS church member?

I think we generally go with the standard dictionary meaning of the term.

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am especially interested in how the words "salvation" and "Christian" tie in for the Saint.

Our take on "salvation" is a bit more nuanced.  Latter-day Saints don't subscribe to the binary "heaven/hell" eschatology.  From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

Salvation is the greatest gift of God (D&C 6:13). The root of the word means to be saved, or placed beyond the power of one's enemies (TPJS, pp. 297, 301, 305). It is redemption from the bondage of sin and death, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Some degree of salvation will come to all of God's children except the sons of perdition. Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you" (John 14:2). Paul said, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; So also is the resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor. 15:40-42). Paul also explained that "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22). The Latter-day Saint concept of salvation derives from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the revelations given to ancient and latter-day prophets. It is evident from such teachings that there are different degrees or levels of salvation in the afterlife (see Degrees of Glory).

There are various levels of salvation because there are various levels of belief and works among people (D&C 76:99-101). The Prophet Joseph Smith observed, "If God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body the term "Heaven' as intended for the Saints' eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one" (TPJS, pp. 10-11).

The entire article is worth a read.  So is the Gospel Topics entry on "Salvation."

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not seeking to debate; just to understand. I find that my LDS friends most often assure me I am a "Christian."

Sounds good.

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

But somehow I keep thinking that they don't tie the words salvation and Christian together in the same way I do.

Correct.  "Christian" is a very broad label.  Our soteriology requires acceptance of Jesus Christ.  Such acceptance includes faith, repentance, baptism, good works, and so on.

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I see lots of chapters in books written by both LDS and non-LDS scholars on the subject of "Are Mormons Christians?" That is not something I choose to debate here; I debate that elsewhere with my non-LDS Christian friends. My mind is made up on that one (in the affirmative).

Glad to hear it!

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am closer to understanding exaltation. I rarely if ever have heard the word sanctification in the ward. I think though there are some commonalities between the concept of sanctification and exaltation. I wish someone in the church would write a chapter in a book entitled "Are non-LDS Christians Christians?

I'm not sure a chapter is necessary.  I think the answer is plainly "yes."

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Or what does it mean to a Saint to be a Christian especially if your aren't a Saint? 

"A Christian" is "a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity."

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I have said before on this forum that my first and foremost identity is as a Christian; my second is as an Evangelical; my third and least important is as a Mennonite.

If I had to choose my "first and foremost identity," I suppose it would be "a disciple of Jesus Christ."  For me, discipleship requires faith and obedience.  Obedience includes baptism (among other things).  Baptism requires authority.  That authority was, I believe, restored to the earth through Joseph Smith, and is housed exclusively in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If I converted to the LDS church I would still consider myself a Christian and an Evangelical - my third identity would then become a Saint or a Mormon.

I don't see any problem with that.

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I have changed the third identity at different times in my life, as we have moved and sought new affiliation where we lived. I have affiliated with the Christian community as a Baptist, a Mennonite, and as a non-denominationalist in my life. I have always been a Christian and an evangelical. I guess that is why I struggle with the concept of "converting" to Mormonism. Changing my affiliation within the Christian community is not a conversion. Converting to Judaism or Buddhism is a conversion. Moving affiliation within Christianity is just that - a change in affiliation; not in my relationship to Christ or the broader Christian community. 

I appreciate what you are saying.  

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Anyway, enough - more than enough about me. I really would value it if some of you would try again to explain to me, and perhaps others who may be interested, what the concept of being a Christian means to a Saint, especially as it relates to the non-LDS church member. Thanks so very much. 

Perhaps you could give some time and study toward the issue of priesthood authority, as this is very relevant to the Latter-day Saint worldview.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

I think most (virtually all) Mormons would consider other denominations and professed believers in Jesus to be "Christian".

I believe LDS Theology is fairly unique in that LDS believe that nearly everyone in existence will be "saved" in the sense that they will be saved from eternal torment in hell and receive some level of eternal glory because of Jesus.

But being saved in a lower level of glory, would be considered less than ideal to the LDS because a higher level of glory would better. I mean, who wouldn't want more glory, right? But exaltation comes in the highest degree of glory as God's children achieve Theosis and become like Him. So there are definitely levels of glory, all of which are tied in varying degrees to a person's individual works and the ordinances that individual as received and accepted, but all are possible because of Jesus.

 

I hope that helps a little.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Attalus said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2014/01/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-christian?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/10/being-a-more-christian-christian?lang=eng

 

So Elder Hales' belief is that only baptized and confirmed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christians! You posted the two links to his perspective. Do you believe it accurately represents the doctrine of the Church? Do others on this forum agree? This is where I get confused. Attalus, you just said "After the question of "Are you a Christian?" has been answered with a Yes," but you linked me to to pages where the same author says, that a Christian is one who has been baptized with proper authority (code for in a LDS environment) and confirmed in the same way. I have neither. I was baptized by those with proper authority in my church. No Mormon priest has authority to baptize anywhere other than in the LDS church environment. No Mennonite ordained minister has authority to baptize in an LDS environment. I understand that I can't baptize someone in the LDS church. But no LDS priest can baptize anywhere else either. Authority lies in the individual denomination to perform the specific ordinances of that church. You are a Christian . . . you are not a Christian without proper ordinances by proper authority. . . . makes my head spin. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Navidad

[Calm]

I think he is talking about a process that a Christian goes through/does as they seek Christ, but in short phrases it sounds like he is making gateway requirements.

Eventually a Christian will be baptized if they sincerely desire to obey Christ, but this needs to happen when they understand this is a commandment of Christ, which may not happen until the next life.  

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Quote

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2014/01/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-christian?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/10/being-a-more-christian-christian?lang=eng

So Elder Hales' belief is that only baptized and confirmed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christians!

No.  I think you are misconstruing Elder Hales.

From the first link:

Quote

The word Christian means taking upon us the name of Christ. We do this by being baptized and receiving the Holy Ghost.

A Christian has faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

A Christian believes that through the grace of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, we can repent.

From the second:

Quote

A Christian has faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is the literal Son of God, sent by His Father to suffer for our sins in the supreme act of love we know as the Atonement.

A Christian believes that through the grace of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, we can repent, forgive others, keep the commandments, and inherit eternal life.

The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ. We do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority.

That last sentence is, I think, key (particularly the "We do this" bit).

Moreover, in this talk Elder Hales speaks of "members of other Christian denominations."  He wouldn't have done so had he intended "Christian" to be a label applied exclusively to the Church and its members.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

Just now, smac97 said:

No.  I think you are misconstruing Elder Hales.

From the first link:

From the second:

That last sentence is, I think, key (particularly the "We do this" bit).

Moreover, in this talk Elder Hales speaks of "members of other Christian denominations."  He wouldn't have done so had he intended "Christian" to be a label applied exclusively to the Church and its members.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks my friend. That helps a lot. I missed the "We do this" bit. I understand completely that Saints baptize - same mode and method using their own authority in their own group (I am trying to avoid the word denomination because I think that is offensive to some Saints and I don't want to be offensive). I also know that I was baptized by one in authority in my own church - "how WE do it." We have two different purposes for our baptisms, but the method and mode are pretty much the same. I don't want to get lost in baptism, especially since I don't think baptism is necessary for one to be a Christian. Thanks - oh and I really enjoyed spending time with your dad. He is a good man and appreciates LDS history! I like that a lot. I have also studied a lot about your g g grandfather (is that right?) A. F. MacDonald. He was a real force here in the colonies for many years! 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Anyway, enough - more than enough about me. I really would value it if some of you would try again to explain to me, and perhaps others who may be interested, what the concept of being a Christian means to a Saint, especially as it relates to the non-LDS church member. Thanks so very much. 

The sacrament prayer every week uses the phrase, “sanctify this bread/water to the souls” which means sanctification, or always having, or at least having, His Spirit with you. The dynamic between having and always having is the process of sanctification.

I think it is good to take upon us the name of Christ however one understands that to be, and everyone starts somewhere.

There is no catechism defining “Christian” in the Church, but the sacrament and its blessings of sanctification and salvation are availed to anyone who partakes of it in good faith. Salvation of course is found in the merits of Jesus’ Atonement, and is expressed in terms of a resurrection from physical death and a return to the Father’s presence from spiritual death. Ultimately everyone must make choices to accept (whether fully or partially) or reject these blessings.

[CA Steve]

Wouldn't we need to come to some sort of agreement on the nature of Christ and His mission before deciding what "Christian" means?

[InCognitus]

Christian® is a registered trademark of Evangelical Protestants and may not be used by any denomination without express written consent. All rights reserved.

Edited December 18, 2019 by InCognitus

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think most (virtually all) Mormons would consider other denominations and professed believers in Jesus to be "Christian".

I believe LDS Theology is fairly unique in that LDS believe that nearly everyone in existence will be "saved" in the sense that they will be saved from eternal torment in hell and receive some level of eternal glory because of Jesus.

But being saved in a lower level of glory, would be considered less than ideal to the LDS because a higher level of glory would better. I mean, who wouldn't want more glory, right? But exaltation comes in the highest degree of glory as God's children achieve Theosis and become like Him. So there are definitely levels of glory, all of which are tied in varying degrees to a person's individual works and the ordinances that individual as received and accepted, but all are possible because of Jesus.

 

I hope that helps a little.

Thanks. Being saved in a lower level of glory is less than ideal for me too! Heaven is not paradise without the presence of Christ and God the Father. I wonder how similar achieving Theosis is to sanctification, which I believe will continue after death? 

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Attalus said:

I think it should be obvious that is not true and not what he meant given the fact that he knew the church known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a church for latter-day saints (who are Christians) and that there were saints/Christians in previous dispensations of the gospel, such as when our Lord was here for his mortal ministry.  So no, being a Christian is not dependent on being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It does involve coming unto Christ, though, and one of the first things we do as we begin to come unto him is to be baptized into his church by someone who has the authority to baptize us into his church, involving not only immersion in water but also being given the gift of the Holy Ghost while being confirmed as a member of the church of Christ.  From there we then learn more and more about how to become more like Jesus Christ, with the Holy Ghost to guide us.

Your church. Not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which our Lord has told us is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which our Lord is well pleased.

Our Lord has authorized us to baptize anyone on the face of the whole earth and by doing so we bring people into his church.  Not your church, but his church.  I would like you to understand that distinction.

And the authority they do have is not recognized by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which our Lord is well pleased.

The authority we have is from our Lord.  Do you suppose your church received its authority from our Lord, as ours did? I do not believe your church has the authority of our Lord as ours does.

We become a Christian by coming unto Christ and becoming like him by doing what he wants us to do.  We do not become a Christian by turning away from him or by not complying with he has authorized his servants to do for others with his authority.

Well my friend, I have a strong testimony that "His Church" is the entire community of Christ, inclusive of all those who rely on his atonement, claim Him as Lord and Savior, and many others whose faith has made them whole through the gift of God's grace (only Christ can judge them). Oh, and it also includes Christians from within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just as it does Christians from my church, the Mennonite Church USA. I would like you understand that distinction. You asked me another question I need to answer. "Do you suppose your church received its authority from our Lord, as ours did? 

In answer, I want to clarify that I have a testimony that no church has authority in and of itself. Believers, individual Christians have authority. Ro 13:1; II John 1:9; Matt 16: 15-19; Mark 1: 27: II Thess. 2: 14-15; II Tim. 2:2. Individual believers who have authority through the shed blood of Jesus Christ join together with others to form churches for the purpose of worship, teaching, and fellowship. No church has authority because Christ did not die for churches. He died for individuals. Individual Christians (with their authority) gather together under an organization of called out ones that we call churches. They join together and decide what beliefs, values, doctrines and church polity they will agree to share. They include ordinances that are important to them that may not be to other churches. For example my church practices the ordinance of foot washing. The Saints have an ordinance of grave dedication. There are differences. They (those who gather together) then authorize certain people to become leaders, deacons, elders, bishops, etc. to whom they jointly grant authority to perform ordinances. The requirements for such leadership vary by church. The authority of the leaders is granted by the church and is only valid within that church. No Mennonite pastor has the right or authority to walk into a Mormon ward and demand to baptize anyone. The local leadership would not allow it, right? In the same way, no LDS elder or priest could walk into a Mennonite Church and demand to baptize anyone. The local leadership would not allow it, right?

Individual leaders with spiritual authority join together to form churches and agree to grant administrative authority to those whom they deem fit. They do all this under the direction and leadership of the Holy Spirit as they assess giftedness and levels of commitment and Godliness in those they choose as leaders. All churches do this, right? Christ said "I am the vine; ye are the branches," referring to individual Christians. We draw our spiritual nourishment from Christ the vine. We join together to form the forest that is Christianity. For me there is strong evidence that the Christians within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are a part of that forest, as is their (your) church. I have a testimony of that. I agree with you in a way. It is not my church, nor yours that has the authority of our Lord. It is the individual Christian who has authority and reflects that in the particular church within which he worships.

There is a huge difference from the tabernacle and the temple and the church of today. In the tabernacle and temple the Shekinah glory of God was the physical visible representation of God and dwelt on the ark of the covenant. In Ezekiel it with withdrawn from the earth and the great apostasy was the result. Then for 33 years the physical visible Shekinah glory of God was on earth in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. Then he ascended and the Holy Spirit remained to indwell the individual Christian. The indwelt individual Christian, in this dispensation is the physical visible representation of God on earth. We have an awesome responsibility and authority - you and me both. Some day Christ will return physically and will once again be the physical visible representation of God the Father on earth. That is my testimony in 684 words or less!

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I ask you all to be patient with me, but I still am a bit confused about what the meaning of the word "Christian" is for the informed LDS church member? I am especially interested in how the words "salvation" and "Christian" tie in for the Saint. I am not seeking to debate; just to understand. I find that my LDS friends most often assure me I am a "Christian." But somehow I keep thinking that they don't tie the words salvation and Christian together in the same way I do. I see lots of chapters in books written by both LDS and non-LDS scholars on the subject of "Are Mormons Christians?" That is not something I choose to debate here; I debate that elsewhere with my non-LDS Christian friends. My mind is made up on that one (in the affirmative). I am closer to understanding exaltation. I rarely if ever have heard the word sanctification in the ward. I think though there are some commonalities between the concept of sanctification and exaltation. I wish someone in the church would write a chapter in a book entitled "Are non-LDS Christians Christians? Or what does it mean to a Saint to be a Christian especially if your aren't a Saint? 

I have said before on this forum that my first and foremost identity is as a Christian; my second is as an Evangelical; my third and least important is as a Mennonite. If I converted to the LDS church I would still consider myself a Christian and an Evangelical - my third identity would then become a Saint or a Mormon. I have changed the third identity at different times in my life, as we have moved and sought new affiliation where we lived. I have affiliated with the Christian community as a Baptist, a Mennonite, and as a non-denominationalist in my life. I have always been a Christian and an evangelical. I guess that is why I struggle with the concept of "converting" to Mormonism. Changing my affiliation within the Christian community is not a conversion. Converting to Judaism or Buddhism is a conversion. Moving affiliation within Christianity is just that - a change in affiliation; not in my relationship to Christ or the broader Christian community. 

Anyway, enough - more than enough about me. I really would value it if some of you would try again to explain to me, and perhaps others who may be interested, what the concept of being a Christian means to a Saint, especially as it relates to the non-LDS church member. Thanks so very much. 

Terminology can be specific to different culture groups, and Mormons clearly use terms somewhat differently than other groups.  So, for example, although your use of "Saint" is well-intentioned, it isn't something Mormons often use about themselves as a generic term of identity.  Of course, it might appear in the LDS Hymnal in a specific context, but that is obviated by Roman Catholic use of "Saint," or the generic use of "St Paul," and the like.  So "LDS" is more specific as a religious commitment and identification.  "Mormon" fits a broader cultural identification.  And so it goes for a range of terms which are mutually unintelligible among various sorts of so-called "Christians."[1]

It is true that "sanctification" is very rarely used by any Mormon, who instead would speak of "setting apart, consecration," additional translations of the actual Greek and Hebrew term.[2]  Likewise, one never hears of "Communion, Eucharist" among Mormons.  Instead they say "Sacrament," when in fact there are actually a lot of sacraments in the LDS Church and in the Roman Catholic Church.  Mormons mean by "Sacrament," the "Sacrament of the Lord's Supper."  I'm sure you know all this, but most people use terminology carelessly, and rarely think about the underlying meaning.

The term "Christian" is used in the Book of Mormon, but is really the KJV translation of a term first used of followers of Christ in Antioch, Syria ca. 43 A.D. (Latin christianus/christiani > Greek christianoi, christianous Acts 11:26, 26:28, christianos 1 Peter 4:16; Didache 12:4; Pliny the Younger, Letters, 10.96).[3]  This was the Gentile equivalent of the Jewish term “the sect of the Nazarenes” (Greek nazōraioi, Syriac nṣrn’ Acts 24:5; Greek nazōraios “Nazarene” Matthew 2:23; Arabic naṣara “Christians” ).  Cf. other terms for early Christians: Greek hoi pistoi, Syriac mhimnin “believers” (Acts 5:14); adelphoi, Syriac ’ḥyn “brethren” (Acts 6:3).

The best source for "Christian" might even be Hebrew noṣrei-habbrit “keepers of the covenant” (Psalms 23:8, 119; noṣrei-brito “keepers of his covenant”; ǁ šomrei-habbrit 1QS iv, 2), which Robert Eisenman saw as the true source of the Hebrew word for “Christians,” noṣrim.[4]

 

[1]Greek hoi hagioi, Syriac qdišin “saints” (Acts 9:13); M. Wilkins, “Christian,” in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, I:925-926.

[2] Hebrew hiqdîš “set apart, sanctify, consecrate” (Exodus 13:12, Leviticus 20:7-8,26, Deuteronomy 7:6, 1 Chronicles 23:13, Psalm 4:3).

[3] LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 635; see the LDS Gospel Topics Essay, online at https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng .

[4] Eisenman, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians (Element, 1996), 429.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Terminology can be specific to different culture groups, and Mormons clearly use terms somewhat differently than other groups.  So, for example, although your use of "Saint" is well-intentioned, it isn't something Mormons often use about themselves as a generic term of identity.  Of course, it might appear in the LDS Hymnal in a specific context, but that is obviated by Roman Catholic use of "Saint," or the generic use of "St Paul," and the like.  So "LDS" is more specific as a religious commitment and identification.  "Mormon" fits a broader cultural identification.  And so it goes for a range of terms which are mutually unintelligible among various sorts of so-called "Christians."[1]

It is true that "sanctification" is very rarely used by any Mormon, who instead would speak of "setting apart, consecration," additional translations of the actual Greek and Hebrew term.[2]  Likewise, one never hears of "Communion, Eucharist" among Mormons.  Instead they say "Sacrament," when in fact there are actually a lot of sacraments in the LDS Church and in the Roman Catholic Church.  Mormons mean by "Sacrament," the "Sacrament of the Lord's Supper."  I'm sure you know all this, but most people use terminology carelessly, and rarely think about the underlying meaning.

The term "Christian" is used in the Book of Mormon, but is really the KJV translation of a term first used of followers of Christ in Antioch, Syria ca. 43 A.D. (Latin christianus/christiani > Greek christianoi, christianous Acts 11:26, 26:28, christianos 1 Peter 4:16; Didache 12:4; Pliny the Younger, Letters, 10.96).[3]  This was the Gentile equivalent of the Jewish term “the sect of the Nazarenes” (Greek nazōraioi, Syriac nṣrn’ Acts 24:5; Greek nazōraios “Nazarene” Matthew 2:23; Arabic naṣara “Christians” ).  Cf. other terms for early Christians: Greek hoi pistoi, Syriac mhimnin “believers” (Acts 5:14); adelphoi, Syriac ’ḥyn “brethren” (Acts 6:3).

The best source for "Christian" might even be Hebrew noṣrei-habbrit “keepers of the covenant” (Psalms 23:8, 119; noṣrei-brito “keepers of his covenant”; ǁ šomrei-habbrit 1QS iv, 2), which Robert Eisenman saw as the true source of the Hebrew word for “Christians,” noṣrim.[4]

 

[1]Greek hoi hagioi, Syriac qdišin “saints” (Acts 9:13); M. Wilkins, “Christian,” in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, I:925-926.

[2] Hebrew hiqdîš “set apart, sanctify, consecrate” (Exodus 13:12, Leviticus 20:7-8,26, Deuteronomy 7:6, 1 Chronicles 23:13, Psalm 4:3).

[3] LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 635; see the LDS Gospel Topics Essay, online at https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng .

[4] Eisenman, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians (Element, 1996), 429.

Thanks so much for the post. It is very helpful and instructive. I love the concept of the Christian being the "keeper of the covenant." That resonates with me a lot. I also thought that the term "Saint" was appropriate one to use. My bad. I just like singing "Come, Come Ye Saints!"

I personally very much like the term sanctification. Thanks for the guidance. 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, for example, although your use of "Saint" is well-intentioned, it isn't something Mormons often use about themselves as a generic term of identity. 

Since we have been counseled not to call ourselves Mormon or use abbreviations, not much left besides "Saints".  Given it is the title of the Church's volumes about church members (the history), I suspect it will become more popular if we stick with 'please don't use "Mormon"'.  But that view may rest on the fact I have ended up using "Saints" as the best remaining option after Mormon and LDS are removed, though I use LDS Christians when comparing to nonLDS Christians, etc.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I also thought that the term "Saint" was appropriate one to use.

I think it is appropriate as long as it is clear from context one is not talking about Catholic saints or as a shorthand for names like St. Paul.  (One of my few disagreements with Robert apparently)

But it isn't that popular yet.

Still as I pointed out above, the Church chose to use it as the title of the story of its People, Saints.  So who knows, it might catch on.

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/saints?lang=eng&cid=rdb_v_saints_eng

I may try and figure out if "Saints" is now being used more often in conference talks as a stand alone term and not as part of Latter-day Saints, but I haven't had much success using the database set up for such things.

PS:  there is a bit of smugness baggage in using the term given its similarity to "saintly" as it may be seen as implying members are better than nonmembers.  Not sure how to deal with that.  That may be why not as popular as I would expect given the usage of the term by leaders over the years.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Calm

[Navidad]

8 minutes ago, Attalus said:

I think it's fascinating that you say this and then talk about different churches as your next issue. Our Lord has only one Church and we are either in it or we are in a church established by men who did not have our Lord's authority to set up their own churches.  You disagree, apparently, which is why you are a member of some other church now.

I'll offer some ideas here to try to help you understand things as I understand them.

A church is a body or organization of believers.  There is only one true church of Jesus Christ and all other churches are not that one, even though they may have many things in common with it.  The church, itself, has authority from our Lord by virtue of our Lord authorizing men to establish or organize that church (body of believers), calling people to it, and officiating in the entrance ordinances.  Everyone in the world is invited to join it, but not all who are called are choosing to join it.  Some believers are led astray by false doctrines and have even set up their own churches, based on their own understanding, thinking they are right to do so, but only the one church authorized by Jesus Christ himself, under his direct supervision, is the one true church of Jesus Christ.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that one church.

I think it helps to think in very physical terms when trying to understand the kingdom of God, which is what the church of Christ is.  It is as real a kingdom as any other you know, with real people both in heaven and on this earth whether living or dead or not born on this planet yet.  Those in heaven in the kingdom of God actually communicate with men and women in leadership positions in the kingdom of God on this earth and give them directions about how to do things, including specifying ordinances which must be done in a particular way.  They confer authority to do things, like to baptize people or to confer authority to other people under their guidelines and the laying on of their hands, and only when something is done as they specify is it considered valid in the kingdom of God. 

Other churches on this earth are like other kingdoms apart from the kingdom of God.  They may be very similar, or they may be very different, depending on who guides those churches and whatever rules or guidelines they want to make.  God tries to help them, too, and to help people who are in other organizations that are not considered "churches", but those people are still outside of the church and must choose to join the church, if they can find it, if they want to be in it.

I am trying to find some common ground with you. It seems that is not possible. I regret that. Almost each of your posts is a series of declarative statements. I feel lectured. I try and assure you of my positive regard for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and many of its members who I have had the privilege to interact. You try and assure me of your positive regard for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well. I get that. I have actually attended an LDS ward for three years now. It doesn't seem to me you have ever darkened the door of another community of Christ (not referring to the RLDS). At any rate, I mean no disrespect or offense. Our back and forth seems to be reaching no common ground except that we both think highly of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Blessings on you. 

[Navidad]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it is appropriate as long as it is clear from context one is not talking about Catholic saints or as a shorthand for names like St. Paul.  (One of my few disagreements with Robert apparently)

But it isn't that popular yet.

Still as I pointed out above, the Church chose to use it as the title of the story of its People, Saints.  So who knows, it might catch on.

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/saints?lang=eng&cid=rdb_v_saints_eng

I may try and figure out if "Saints" is now being used more often in conference talks as a stand alone term and not as part of Latter-day Saints, but I haven't had much success using the database set up for such things.

PS:  there is a bit of smugness baggage in using the term given its similarity to "saintly" as it may be seen as implying members are better than nonmembers.  Not sure how to deal with that.  That may be why not as popular as I would expect given the usage of the term by leaders over the years.

Hi Calm: I really like the new Saints series. There are good folks in the Church History Department who are overseeing it. I kiddingly scolded one of the chief editors of the series for not adding that it was a Baptist church that sheltered the folks of Zion's Camp on the Fishing River during the huge storm just a few days before the cholera outbreak. I spent several days in Missouri researching the church, its history, members, and minutes. I need to put all that in an article some day. I often use it in my interfaith talks - the night that Joseph Smith preached his shortest sermon. Woodruff tells us in his diary that the men found the light on and the door open of the church and sheltered down for the night in the midst of the storm. Joseph Smith walked in, took his coat off and said to the men "Brethren, I believe God is in this storm!" Then he lay down and fell asleep. See, not all Baptists were mean to the Saints! Now why did I launch into that. Oh you mentioned Saints! You made me tell the story! Ha!

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Navidad said:

for not adding that it was a Baptist church that sheltered the folks of Zion's Camp on the Fishing River during the huge storm just a few days before the cholera outbreak.

That would have been a great detail to add.  Too bad it got left out.

[2BizE]

I have visited a Mennonite colony in Chihuahua, Mexico.  ( not as a missionary). At the time (many years ago) large numbers were moving to Quitanan Roo.

I enjoyed the kind, hard working people.  It was my first time seeing a refrigerator that operated on propane and turpentine.

Mormon views of salvation are much different than other Christians mostly because of us mormons distorted belief in Grace or lack of belief in grace.

Edited December 19, 2019 by 2BizE

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

I have visited a Mennonite colony in Chihuahua, Mexico.  ( not as a missionary). At the time (many years ago) large numbers were moving to Quitanan Roo.

I enjoyed the kind, hard working people.  It was my first time seeing a refrigerator that operated on propane and turpentine.

Mormon views of salvation are much different than other Christians mostly because of us mormons distorted belief in Grace or lack of belief in grace.

Hi, yes many Mennonites are moving south to Belize and Bolivia. They view current Mexico as being too liberal and offering too many enticements for the children to stray from the church. When I did my mission in Africa we had a refrigerator that worked on propane and turpentine. it was a first for me as well. I am a strong believer in God's grace. Grace is God's gift to us. It is a precious gift. Take care.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

............................

PS:  there is a bit of smugness baggage in using the term given its similarity to "saintly" as it may be seen as implying members are better than nonmembers.  Not sure how to deal with that.  That may be why not as popular as I would expect given the usage of the term by leaders over the years.

When someone says in normal American English parlance, "He's no saint," the meaning is clear and has nothing to do with not being LDS.  So your are right to be hesitant.  Inside a Mormon congregation in Utah I have gotten up at a Fast & Testimony Mtg and stated how happy I was to be "among the Saints," and everyone there understood exactly what I meant.  And we all know what it means to sing "Come, Come, Ye Saints."  However, the term has not become so general in the English language that it can be used as an identifying feature for Mormons.  Three are too many other applications of the term, including this British one from my youth:  

 

[Calm]

How cool would it be if we could open every Sacrament Meeting with that theme song?

They used to have Angel Moroni pins in that style.  That could become our new logo.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

............................ I just like singing "Come, Come Ye Saints!"................................

My favorite LDS hymn, because my ancestors lived it coming out to the Great Basin.  I can't sing it without my eyes welling up.

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My favorite LDS hymn, because my ancestors lived it coming out to the Great Basin.  I can't sing it without my eyes welling up.

 

I was privileged to sing it this year in the Tabernacle, sitting in the second to last row right of the choir loft in front of the big wooden bass pipes. Now that was an experience. The lady in front of me said she was blessed by my singing. Wow, that made it even more special! My friend Rick Turley gave us a devotional on the history of the Tabernacle. I learned from that talk that Fundamentalist Evangelist Dwight Moody preached twice in the tabernacle, the first time at Brigham Young's invitation. The press said there wasn't a dry eye in the place when he was done! What a special June morning for me.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Navidad