The LDS Concept of the term "Christian"

[Anakin7]

Navidad, in response to your initial inquiry, I believe that it was either Truman Madsen or Eugene England that produced the articles - "What It Means to be a Mormon Christian", "Are Christians Mormon ?". You would have to google for the links. I hope and pray that you and your family are Blessed by True Grace by way of True Faith.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7 

LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior

Edited December 19, 2019 by Anakin7

[mfbukowski]

21 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.

This is the best answer, and I have said it to our dear friend Navidad repeatedly various ways, but I think this is the best.

Navidad, for us "salvation" includes a continuum of states of glory.

To get to the highest you must follow all the requirements for the highest level.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If you, or any one else believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that “Salvation”, comes in and through his atoning sacrifice, then you are a “Christian”. If you do not, then you are not. 

[MiserereNobis]

23 hours ago, Attalus said:

I was in another church before I joined this one so I think there is still some hope for you too.

This sounds a lot like something @Ahab would say...

[pogi]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

This sounds a lot like something @Ahab would say...

Oh wow, you are right though...it is in that condescension laced tone that I think is intended to come off as caring. 

In fact, it is kind of uncanny that Attalus shows up on these boards only 4 days after Ahab last visited and mysteriously disappeared.  Hmmmm...

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This sounds a lot like something @Ahab would say...

On 12/18/2019 at 12:33 PM, 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.

Yep, the same lengthy run-ons too. This is just too much of a coincidence. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 12/18/2019 at 9:12 AM, 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. 

Could you provide your personal understanding of what the terms Christian and Evangelical mean?

[Jane_Doe]

On 12/18/2019 at 10:12 AM, 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.

Because they don't.

You view all versions of Christians (Baptist, Catholic, LDS, etc) as being equally good and valid.

LDS Christians view being a Christians (a Christ follower as good), but LDS Christian is more good.  

On 12/18/2019 at 10:12 AM, Navidad said:

 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.

The two are similar but not the same.  Sanctification is a becoming a saintly God praiser with your mouth and actions.  Exaltation is praising and becoming completely like God inside and out.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

LDS Christian is more good.  

Not sure if I agree.  I don't think it works very well to compare goodness because it depends so much on the light each person gives.

Perhaps you are not talking about the person, but the opportunity that life brings?

I know LDS Christians who are definitely not "more good".

-----

I would say sanctification is a process, exaltation a destination (state of being) that one gets to in part through sanctification.

Definition of sanctification from the Church's website:

Quote

The process of becoming free from sin, pure, clean, and holy through the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Moses 6:59–60).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/sanctification?lang=eng

Exaltation:

Quote

The highest state of happiness and glory in the celestial kingdom....

They are gods, even the sons of God—wherefore, all things are theirs, D&C 76:58–59

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/exaltation?lang=eng

Edited December 20, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

Not sure if this article has been posted yet:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/06/justification-and-sanctification?lang=eng

Quote

Because of “the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice,” Jesus Christ can satisfy or “answer the ends of the law” on our behalf. Pardon comes by the grace of Him who has satisfied the demands of justice by His own suffering, “the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18). He removes our condemnation without removing the law. We are pardoned and placed in a condition of righteousness with Him. We become, like Him, without sin. We are sustained and protected by the law, by justice. We are, in a word, justified.

Thus, we may appropriately speak of one who is justified as pardoned, without sin, or guiltless. For example, “Whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltlessbefore my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world” (3 Ne. 27:16; emphasis added). Yet glorious as the remission of sins is, the Atonement accomplishes even more. That “more” is expressed by Moroni:

“And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot” (Moro. 10:33; emphasis added).

To be sanctified through the blood of Christ is to become clean, pure, and holy. If justification removes the punishment for past sin, then sanctification removes the stain or effects of sin. The Prophet Joseph Smith testified:

“And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—

“That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear [justify] the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness” (D&C 76:40–41).

 

[Calm]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-e-overcoming-sin-and-obtaining-forgiveness?lang=eng&_r=1

Quote

As it pertains to the consequences of personal sin, the blessings and benefits of the Atonement are forgiveness of sin through repentance, sanctification through obedience to the laws and commandments of God, and the hope of eternal life [exaltation] in the presence of God.

 

Quote

The Doctrine and Covenants adds its voice to that of other scriptures in making this distinction: It is not repentance per se that saves us. It is the blood of Jesus Christ that saves us. Repentance, however, is the condition required so that the Atonement can be applied in our behalf. If we could save ourself by a sincere and honest change of behavior, then it could be said that we save ourself by our own works, but the scriptures clearly teach that such is not the case. As Nephi wrote, “We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23).

 

Quote

Sanctification is purification from sin. Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained: “To be sanctified is to become clean, pure, and spotless; to be free from the blood and sins of the world; to become a new creature of the Holy Ghost, one whose body has been renewed by the rebirth of the Spirit. Sanctification is a state of saintliness, a state attained only by conformity to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. The plan of salvation is the system and means provided whereby men may sanctify their souls and thereby become worthy of a celestial inheritance.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 675.)

One of the greatest aspirations of Latter-day Saints is to become clean enough to see the Savior and eventually to know that they will live in the presence of God the Father. The process of sanctification, whereby one becomes clean enough to obtain such great blessings, is taught in the Doctrine and Covenants. First, we must be willing to repent and accept the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (see D&C 39:18; 133:62). We then must be willing to “live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God” (D&C 84:44). There needs to be a willingness on the part of all who hold the priesthood to serve others and magnify their callings in the priesthood (see D&C 84:33). Also, a humble, submissive spirit is required as the Lord chastens His children unto righteousness (see D&C 101:5) and purges the iniquity from among them (see D&C 43:11). As we comply with these steps, we are purged from sin by the power of the Holy Ghost, for, according to the Doctrine and Covenants, the Holy Ghost is the Sanctifier (see D&C 19:31; 55:1; 84:33).

 

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Oh wow, you are right though...it is in that condescension laced tone that I think is intended to come off as caring. 

In fact, it is kind of uncanny that Attalus shows up on these boards only 4 days after Ahab last visited and mysteriously disappeared.  Hmmmm...

 

Oh my gosh.  I noticed that but never made the connection.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Yep, the same lengthy run-ons too. This is just too much of a coincidence. 

Only he refers to the savior in that Catholic way, "Our Lord".  It is a certainty. No coincidence.

[MiserereNobis]

22 minutes ago, Attalus said:

I wonder how Laman and Lemuel felt as their father and younger brother tried to teach them and help them to become better people.  And I wonder how our Lord felt when most leaders of the so-called Jewish religion got so upset that they wanted to get rid of him.

This is the condescension we're talking about. In your analogy, you place yourself in the role of Jesus and us in the role of the people who wanted to kill him. I don't know the first allusion you are making, but I imagine it is the same, that Laman and Lemuel are the bad guys and their father and brother are the good guys.

It is patronizing and  no one likes to be talked down to. It is also ineffective if your intent is to help people.

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, Attalus said:

I do not intend to come off as condescending and in fact I do care about other people and how they are spiritually.  In fact I care enough to subject myself to your false accusations and slander against me as I continue to try to share light and truth with other people.

I wonder how Laman and Lemuel felt as their father and younger brother tried to teach them and help them to become better people.  And I wonder how our Lord felt when most leaders of the so-called Jewish religion got so upset that they wanted to get rid of him.

I try to see from both perspectives and it seems that no matter what I say or how I say it, some people get upset with me.  I am learning first hand that I can't please everybody even when I try to do what I can to do some good for other people.

False accusations and slander?

What's with the sock-puppet?

Edited December 20, 2019 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

20 minutes ago, Attalus said:

So it's not the words, themselves, but how those words are seen

No, it is exactly your words. The fact that I was able to instantly identify you as Ahab is because of your words, the way you talk. It's not "the truth" or "goodness" or anything else you are trying to convey. It is the way you convey it: patronizing and condescending. And your excusal of the way you talk, that only "bad guys" would see it as condescending, is further condescension. You have a real problem with it and again, the fact that your sock puppet was so quickly outed should show you that it is your messaging, not the message itself.

 

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Attalus said:

I'm aware that people have particular patterns of speech and that the more you hear from someone or see their words the easier it is to identify their words as theirs even if seen in a quote without their name on it.  That is how I was identified.  But the words themselves can be seen from 2 different perspectives, either condescension or a straightforward transmission of truth, depending on the perspective of the person on the receiving end.  Think about what "condescension" is, in the first place.  an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain.  Can't you admit at least the possibility that you really can't judge my attitude as I say what I say to try to help someone see from my perspective?  And what does "patronizing" mean?: apparently kind or helpful but betraying a feeling of superiority; condescending.  Again, how do you consider yourself competent to judge my attitude as I say what I say to apparently be kind or helpful?  I think I know myself better than you do, and my wife knows me better than you do, too.  Feel free to carry on in your own perspective, though. I really can't do anything to stop you.

When I was in high school, I dated an African-American girl for a few months. My grandmother was living with our family at the time. When she first met my girlfriend, she took her hand and said to her, "aren't you just the cutest little negro girl." Her intent was to give a compliment. Her attitude was to give a compliment. She didn't realize, though, that she was being patronizingly racist. The fact that she didn't realize it doesn't change the fact that she was. There is more to messaging than intent. You may not intend to be condescending and patronizing, but you are. I'll say no more about it on this thread -- we've already derailed enough to the point of getting the thread shut down.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Attalus said:

sock puppet has a negative connotation and you have another option than to see my new name with a negative perspective.  Think of it instead as an alias.  I have many true names and you may refer to me by any of them.  Just don't slander me or say false things against me.  

Were you banned under your previous alias and if so, did you get permission to post again from the moderator?

[Jane_Doe]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Not sure if I agree.  I don't think it works very well to compare goodness because it depends so much on the light each person gives.

Perhaps you are not talking about the person, but the opportunity that life brings?

I know LDS Christians who are definitely not "more good".

To clarify what I was saying: I wasn't referring to the person being more good, but theology/chance to grow closer to God. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

To clarify what I was saying: I wasn't referring to the person being more good, but theology/chance to grow closer to God. 

That sounds more like something you would say.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Attalus said:

sock puppet has a negative connotation and you have another option than to see my new name with a negative perspective.  Think of it instead as an alias.  I have many true names and you may refer to me by any of them.  Just don't slander me or say false things against me.  

Quote

A sockpuppet, also known as a sock, is an account on a website, wiki, or forum run by someone who already has an account. Sockpuppetry may be illegal in the United States, if it is forbidden by the website.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sockpuppet

Online-alias, sockpuppet - potato, potahto

Again with the slander and false things?  What are you talking about?

You never answered my question.  What's the deal with the sockpuppet?  Why didn't you reveal who you were when you started posting under the new name?

Edited December 20, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Attalus said:

No I haven't been banned.  Ahab was suspended until January 11th by Nemesis.  But it's the Christmas season and his creator created this account so that I don't have to wait that long to share my thoughts with you people.

I don't ask permission to post.  I just figure that if I have an account that I can post with, then I can post with that account until that account can no longer post.  I'm getting tired of this, though.  The things I go through to try to help people are getting more difficult to put up with.

 

 

So in essence are you saying that even though you agreed to abide by the board rules when you created the alias, you are above them and can break them if you see fit?

Banned behaviours:

Quote

Creating another user name (sock puppet) to get around suspension or banning

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66539-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/

You sure the cost to your personal integrity is worth it?

Edited December 20, 2019 by Calm

[Navidad]

Hi all: I am the original poster, but have been gone traveling for a few days. When I am on the road, I just can't take the time to read and post. I regret that. The nicest thing about this trip is that my bride went with me so we could celebrate our 49th anniversary together. That was really nice. Sometimes when I speak and get beat up for my support of the LDS faith and then I get on the forum and get beat up for my questions or comments here, it became a bit too much. That is why I so very much appreciate the kindness you all have shown me since I "came back" last week. 

Attalus frustrated me because I couldn't connect on common ground with him. He simply wasn't having it. However, he never offended me or upset me with his comments. Two years ago I was in a much more vulnerable place on this forum. Now I am better able to appreciate the give and take. I give much credit to RevTestament and others for helping me through some tough times here. I once spent some years working, teaching, and preaching among the fundamentalist community of the non-LDS Christian world. Attalus reminds me of non-LDS fundamentalism in his approach to helping others. I honor his intent, knowledge, and his steadfast defense of what he believes about his faith. It certainly isn't effective in wooing me. He indicated I should be able to sign a guest book in the ward so the missionaries could come visit me. What he doesn't seem to realize is that my wife and I actively support the work of the two missionary sisters in our community. Even as they have changed personnel, over the past few years we drive them back to their apartment from here (about 10 miles) at least once, often two times a week. We offered our home to them in case they have needs or face challenges here in our community that make them feel at risk. We defend and support them. We also often have fun and active conversations as we drive them back home in the evenings. So, we know our missionaries well. We don't need to sign a guest book to have them in our home. They are often here. 

Thanks again for all of your replies to my thread. I will have some more comments and endeavor to answer the questions I have been asked tomorrow after I rest up a bit. Thanks and God's richest blessings on your all. 

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Attalus said:

I acknowledge that I read those rules and I am not arguing with them.  I simply do not and never did agree to abide by them.  They can ban me if and when they want to, of course.  My sense of my personal integrity is not based on what other people think of me.

Unless things have changed since I joined, there is a button you have to click that states "I agree" to the rules before your account gets activated.  You verbally agreed to it even if you did not mentally.

So you are apparently okay with being dishonest and lying that you agree with the rules, but actually don't and you have no intent to abide by them. (Not claiming it is a massive life changing lie btw).

Promising you will do something while knowing you have no intention on keeping the promise and the other is assuming you will keep the standard...you at least agree that is being dishonest?

I assume you think you are following some higher rule that makes this case of dishonesty okay for you****, like a missionary sneaking into a country to preach even if outsiders without visas preaching is against the law of the country.

****I don't disagree there are cases where the higher morality is to be dishonest, stealing bread from someone who can afford it to feed your family who cannot afford is an acceptable morality in my view for example.  But as a generic application, honesty should be the default position imo.  If someone has actively agreed to something, even if by pressing a button, I see it as meaning something.  I am less set on that assumption if one simply uses something where the use does not cost the owner anything, that it is still an automatic agreement to whatever the owner stipulates (things like no log in, but owners see use of their website as constituting agreement to whatever, for example); is walking down a pathway on private property that is open to all passerbys with just a sign posted 'use of this site means agreement to....' different than walking on a pathway that is fenced and gated with a lock where you get a key from the owner?)

Back to this specific case, I find refusing to wait two weeks in order to share your thoughts and instead choosing to lie when creating an alias as not a case of higher morality though. I know you don't care, but I think it important to be clear on why I think your choice is lacking.  I don't see the urgency when you can just post in two weeks and chances are those who are reading now will also be reading then.  If you had been completely banned but saw it as important to share a particular thought that you were inspired would help someone (as opposed to just having the pride in the value and importance of your thoughts), I can see the possible justification in that.

PS:  to others, sorry for the derail, I just find little windows into people's thoughts like this one fascinating.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Attalus said:

I acknowledge that I read those rules and I am not arguing with them.  I simply do not and never did agree to abide by them.  They can ban me if and when they want to, of course.  My sense of my personal integrity is not based on what other people think of me.

Good day to you.  And if I don't see you or am not able to ever talk to you again here on this board, Good Afternoon, Good Evening, and Good Night.

Quote

A sockpuppet, also known as a sock, is an account on a website, wiki, or forum run by someone who already has an account. Sockpuppetry may be illegal in the United States, if it is forbidden by the website.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sockpuppet

You may be breaking the law.