7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[Saint Bonaventure]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks!

Off topic, but a possibility for another thread, what do you think about Teilhard de Chardin?

Many of his ideas can be seen as LDS-ish

The science aspects go beyond me, but he seems interesting. When he was "a thing" there was quite a movement against modernists, so he probably ran into some additional scrutiny just because of the zeitgeist.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

I'm going to assume a few things here, such that you're presumably married and sealed in the temple to your family. If so, how would you feel if one of your kids joined a traditional Christian church that periodically criticises the LDS church instead of staying in the church? Would it make you sad? How come, if so? They still practise Christianity, right? 

 

 

 

It would make me sad. And I’m guessing for the same reason that some Catholic parents are sad when their child becomes Baptist or Presbyterian.  And for the same reason that a Methodist family I know of was sad when their child became Evangelical (even though Catholics, baptists, evangelicals, and Presbyterians all still practice Christianity).

But what does any of that have to do with the post I asked you to explain?  I’m more confused now than I was before. 

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

Elder Holland's talk from 16 years ago demonstrates exactly what I'm trying to say, that the church's prophets stood up for our convictions back when we were proud to call ourselves MORMONS. The Holland speech was given prior to the I'M A MORMON campaign, when Hinckley was still the prophet. Meaning, back when Mormons were Mormons, it was a very long time ago. A church prophet today wouldn't risk giving a speech like this. Keep in mind that our goal is to appear as Christian as possible! I understand why you're so determined to look more Christian, but until our doctrine fundamentally changes and the brethren stop thinking they're the only men on earth with authority from God, you won't be totally accepted by the Christian community. I'm not sure whether you are aware of this, but people of other Christian religions don't particularly appreciate it when a religion asserts exclusive authority from God while yet seeking to be regarded as "equal" in terms of being a Christian. 

I'm going to ask my husband to see if he can find a hat manufacturer that will print MAKE MORMONS MORMON AGAIN in white lettering on a red hat.

 

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

I get the impression from reading through several discussions that the majority of LDS believe that their faith is the same as that of a typical Christian. And I claim that it isn't. But if the youth begin to believe it, they will just go somewhere else, inside of traditional Christianity, where they are allowed to consume alcohol, wear bikinis, smoke, and do other things. If the brethern want to retain the youth, promoting Christianity will work against them. I thought the IM A MORMON campaign was fantastic! 

I seriously don't get how you're getting these assumptions after pages of people noting they don't want or need full acceptance into mainstream Christianity when they're asserting their Christian orientation. 

I haven't seen a single comment that's insisting our faith is "the same," that we want to be seen as "equal to" mainstream Christians, etc. We're saying we're christian because we believe in Jesus as our savior and the only way that any of us can become reconciled and return to God...and we deeply value this relationship. It's not about full acceptance. If I wanted that I'd be mainstream xtian and get it over with. No one is expecting (or dar I say wanting) full acceptance as a denomination. No one's needing our baptism recognized. Many of us said it's just fine for us to be called unorthodox and even heretical. Just don't pretend we don't worship and Revere Jesus as Lord and savior of mankind. 

 

Also I really hope our most distinctive traits unorthodox xtian practice isn't epitomized in lack of alcohol consumption. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Nope.  I never said anything about your gender.  You can be whatever gender you like as far as I'm concerned.

I'm glad you noticed that.

What "same activity" do you mean?

"Lost sight of what the gospel actually entails"?  What does that mean?  What did Joseph Smith say about "The fundamental principles of our religion" (I posted that here)?

Showing that you have taken quotes out of context and misconstrued their meaning or application is what it is.  Perhaps you don't realize you are doing that if you are just grabbing quotes from Mormon Think.  You should check the sources more carefully.

I have many of the same books and pamphlets.  I collect them.  The problem is that they take the same quotes out of context, like you did with the Elders' Journal quote which was about Philastus Hurlburt and E. D. Howe, and not about Christians in general.  But at least you are now admitting to your actual sources.  This is a step in the right direction.

And now, like AtlanticMike did, you are trying to ascribe emotions and motives to me that I do not have.  You can disagree with me all you want.  I'm fine with that.  But your attempt to portray me as some kind of emotional child rather than dealing with my responses to your claims is just a logical fallacy, ad-hominem attacks which are meant to distract.  I don't fall for that. 

Perhaps it’s Mike’s wife?  That would explain the similarities and why she sounds so much like him sometimes but she wouldn’t be a sock puppet. 

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

I'm going to assume a few things here, such that you're presumably married and sealed in the temple to your family. If so, how would you feel if one of your kids joined a traditional Christian church that periodically criticises the LDS church instead of staying in the church? Would it make you sad? How come, if so? They still practise Christianity, right? 

 

 

 

Your quote has nothing to do with this. Its context is obviously tied to some form of ethical corruption. 

FTR my little bro left and I was both sad and angry. Angry because he lied to me for a year about what was happening for him. Sad because the form of Christianity he subscribed to is a very conservative orientation that is extremely judgmental of people's worship. It was to such a degree that he wasn't just critical of my faith practice but assumed my faith practice meant I'd go to hell. He softened his tune a little (he decided I was just different/wrong in secondary doctrines I guess... not hell-bound). But it didn't take away the sadness that I know he looks through a lens that quickly condemns people, including some of his family, because they don't ID as christian or the right type of Christian. That to me is in deep conflict for a beautiful part of my brother IMHO, who is naturally a very loving/caring person. I was also sad because to maintain his beliefs he tends to ignore or avoid things that conflict with it and then pretend that's an honest search and discovery of truth. I was sad because I knew this was deeply influenced by not the best reasons. And lastly, because there are things I deeply value in my faith that he dismisses and can't see. 

I would be sad if my daughter left our faith for another christian one for the last reason in general...but honestly that would be easier to manage if the other things weren't a thing too. And I'd also be sad if her LDS practice became hyper rigid and she started to tier/judge people based on whether they smoked, drank, or wore a bikini. The reason is the same. I would see her as missing out on really good things. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[Stormin' Mormon]

33 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I haven't seen a single comment that's insisting our faith is "the same," that we want to be seen as "equal to" mainstream Christians, etc. We're saying we're christian because we believe in Jesus as our savior and the only way that any of us can become reconciled and return to God...and we deeply value this relationship. It's not about full acceptance. If I wanted that I'd be mainstream xtian and get it over with. No one is expecting (or dar I say wanting) full acceptance as a denomination. No one's needing our baptism recognized. Many of us said it's just fine for us to be called unorthodox and even heretical. Just don't pretend we don't worship and Revere Jesus as Lord and savior of mankind. 

 

Yup.  As I said pages and pages and pages back, I'd be satisfied with the label "heterodox Christian" or even "heretical Christian."  I don't need (or want) to be accepted as "mainstream" or "orthodox," but I do want the good things that Christ does through me to be credited to the correct source: to Jesus Christ.  And if I'm not carrying some form of the label "Christian," then my Lord and Master doesn't get the credit He deserves for what He does in and through my life.  

[Saint Bonaventure]

I looked up the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Wikipedia to see if it has an entry on the "Christian Denominations" page. 

It does, and the entry emphasizes that every group is included in the entry according to self-identification.

It notes that Catholics and Orthodox consider themselves pre-denominational. That's true.

Wikipedia gives the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a lot in the "Miscellaneous" district, in the "Nontrinitarian" neighborhood, on "Nontrinitarian Restortationism" lane. Your neighbors are other groups with claimed descent from Joseph Smith (understandable) British Israelism (eccentric, keep to themselves, bet on polo), Swedenborgianism (no one has mowed the lawn since the 19th century), Jehovah's Witnesses (just don't answer the door), groups founded by Herbert Armstrong (run), and Iglesia ni Cristo (don't even knock on the door to drop off cheesy potatoes).

I can see why you all want to be in a better neighborhood.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[MiserereNobis]

23 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Swedenborgianism (no one has mowed the lawn since the 19th century)

This made me laugh out loud.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Couganova said:

No offense taken. Pharisees (the ancestors of Orthodox Judaism) were goood people. 

In most cases, I expect you are correct. Of course there were a few wolves in sheep's clothing, just as there are today among all samples.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Sara H said:

I get the impression from reading through several discussions that the majority of LDS believe that their faith is the same as that of a typical Christian. 

My impression I am getting is you got this impression before you visited the board and it so impressed you for some reason, you insist on interpreting almost everything on the board that way….even when we are saying it is the opposite case.  Which I am saying now.  Your “impression” does not apply to me.  I am assuming this is an actual impression and not just you trolling, though the longer this goes on without you actually engaging with what we say, the higher the probability you are a troll in my view.

Why is it so important to you to see other Saints this way that you refuse to actually ‘hear’ our denials, our repeated comments you are misinterpreting what we say?  Serious question. I am tired of this game where you make a claim about the Saints here and then when most of us correct you, go on as if we said nothing but “you are so right”.  Let’s stop playing that worthless game and get to why you are insisting we all dress up in a costume that does not fit us. 
 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Calm

[Sara H]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

My impression I am getting is you got this impression before you visited the board and it so impressed you for some reason, you insist on interpreting almost everything on the board that way….even when we are saying it is the opposite case.  Which I am saying now.  Your “impression” does not apply to me.  I am assuming this is an actual impression and not just you trolling, though the longer this goes on without you actually engaging with what we say, the higher the probability you are a troll in my view.

Why is it so important to you to see other Saints this way that you refuse to actually ‘hear’ our denials, our repeated comments you are misinterpreting what we say?  Serious question. I am tired of this game where you make a claim about the Saints here and then when most of us correct you, go on as if we said nothing but “you are so right”.  Let’s stop playing that worthless game and get to why you are insisting we all dress up in a costume that does not fit us. 
 

 

 

Why is it that you seem so intent on attempting to persuade traditional Christians that you are a Christian? Let those who follow Christianity have ownership of the word Christian. They will never, ever acknowledge us on the same level as themselves. They think that we worship a different God, or perhaps a more accurate statement would be that they think that we worship various GODS and that they worship the one true God. 

Taken from the book "Articles of Faith," the following is an example of the perspective that the brethren held with regard to Christians during the time that the church was being organised. This is the mindset that led to the development of our doctrine. Because of this, we are continuing our efforts to convert Christians. This is the reason why we continue to baptise Christians after they have passed away. 

 

 

 

[Sara H]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

It would make me sad. And I’m guessing for the same reason that some Catholic parents are sad when their child becomes Baptist or Presbyterian.  And for the same reason that a Methodist family I know of was sad when their child became Evangelical (even though Catholics, baptists, evangelicals, and Presbyterians all still practice Christianity).

But what does any of that have to do with the post I asked you to explain?  I’m more confused now than I was before. 

Before Christ returns to the world, our Doctrine aims to bring the True Christianity, also known as the Restored Gospel, to as many Christians and other people as possible so that they can be saved. It really can be summed up like that. And those who follow Christianity are aware that this is our objective. They are aware that we believe their gospel to be corrupted by Satan and that it is lacking essential elements. They take offence at the fact that we baptise their deceased Christian relatives because we consider the baptisms their ancestors received to be invalid. They get angry when we tell them that after they die, they will go to a place called Spirit Prison, and that unless they accept our gospel, they will not be able to live with God in heaven. When we pretend to have a monopoly on all of the power and authority bestowed to the priesthood by God, they become offended. 

 

What I want to say is that their gospel is neither the same as our gospel, nor is our gospel the same as their gospel. We are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and our purpose in being here is to convince people of the truth. That assertion is validated by each and every aspect of our doctrinal framework. They are going to become more agitated and more determined to oppose the gospel that we adhere to if we pretend to be a member of traditional Christianity. How are they expected to feel about us claiming to be Christians when we claim to hold all of the truth, all of the authority, and all of the genuine saving ordinances, while at the same time claiming that their ordinances do not hold any legitimacy? If I were a Christian, I would be outraged if the LDS church claimed to be Christian while at the same time viewing all of the other 2 billion Christians as adherents of an illegitimate kind of Christianity. 

 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Before Christ returns to the world, our Doctrine aims to bring the True Christianity, also known as the Restored Gospel, to as many Christians and other people as possible so that they can be saved. It really can be summed up like that. And those who follow Christianity are aware that this is our objective. They are aware that we believe their gospel to be corrupted by Satan and that it is lacking essential elements. They take offence at the fact that we baptise their deceased Christian relatives because we consider the baptisms their ancestors received to be invalid. They get angry when we tell them that after they die, they will go to a place called Spirit Prison, and that unless they accept our gospel, they will not be able to live with God in heaven. When we pretend to have a monopoly on all of the power and authority bestowed to the priesthood by God, they become offended. 

 

What I want to say is that their gospel is neither the same as our gospel, nor is our gospel the same as their gospel. We are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and our purpose in being here is to convince people of the truth. That assertion is validated by each and every aspect of our doctrinal framework. They are going to become more agitated and more determined to oppose the gospel that we adhere to if we pretend to be a member of traditional Christianity. How are they expected to feel about us claiming to be Christians when we claim to hold all of the truth, all of the authority, and all of the genuine saving ordinances, while at the same time claiming that their ordinances do not hold any legitimacy? If I were a Christian, I would be outraged if the LDS church claimed to be Christian while at the same time viewing all of the other 2 billion Christians as adherents of an illegitimate kind of Christianity. 

 

I agree.  
That said, I also claim to rely on Jesus Christ to be saved. If that’s not enough to be respected as worthy of salvation to any other religion, I can’t change that opinion.  I’m a Christian, I try to follow Jesus example, but fwiw I’m not a fan of others’ form of Christianity anyway.  

[Sara H]

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I agree.  
That said, I also claim to rely on Jesus Christ to be saved. If that’s not enough to be respected as worthy of salvation to any other religion, I can’t change that opinion.  I’m a Christian, I try to follow Jesus example, but fwiw I’m not a fan of others’ form of Christianity anyway.  

The desire to look more "Christian" is a tremendous error, especially since we consider ourselves to be Saints, in my opinion, and believing ourselves to be "Christians" is kind of a step down from the status that we hold of being Saints. In its most fundamental meaning, a saint is someone who is "holy" and who has been consecrated for the service of God's will. It's almost as if we've gotten too timid to think of ourselves and our doctrine as superior than the apostate form of Christianity that God said Joseph shouldn't embrace because it's not fit for him to do so. If the Brethren want more people to join the church, they should let Christians know that they can shed the label "Christian" and instead call themselves "Saints." This will give them the feeling that they have advanced themselves by becoming members of the church. Simply concentrating on the fact that one is a Christian is not, in my opinion, sufficient reason for one to switch religions. 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Sara H

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

The desire to look more "Christian" is a tremendous error, especially since we consider ourselves to be Saints, in my opinion, and believing ourselves to be "Christians" is kind of a step down from the status that we hold of being Saints.

The Saints who penned the gospels didn't seem to have a problem identifying as Christians, so I think we're in pretty good company. Thanks for your concern though.

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Amulek

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

The desire to look more "Christian" is a tremendous error, especially since we consider ourselves to be Saints, in my opinion, and believing ourselves to be "Christians" is kind of a step down from the status that we hold of being Saints. In its most fundamental meaning, a saint is someone who is "holy" and who has been consecrated for the service of God's will. It's almost as if we've gotten too timid to think of ourselves and our doctrine as superior than the apostate form of Christianity that God said Joseph shouldn't embrace because it's not fit for him to do so. If the Brethren want more people to join the church, they should let Christians know that they can shed the label "Christian" and instead call themselves "Saints." This will give them the feeling that they have advanced themselves by becoming members of the church. Simply concentrating on the fact that one is a Christian is not, in my opinion, sufficient reason for one to switch religions. 

There isn't a "desire to look more Christian".  Where are you seeing that?  Yes, we consider ourselves Christians and have done that since Joseph Smith.  We have not given up any of the doctrine that makes us who we are.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

Let those who follow Christianity have ownership of the word Christian.

This is circular logic. 

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

Why is it that you seem so intent on attempting to persuade traditional Christians that you are a Christian? Let those who follow Christianity have ownership of the word Christian. They will never, ever acknowledge us on the same level as themselves. They think that we worship a different God, or perhaps a more accurate statement would be that they think that we worship various GODS and that they worship the one true God. 

Taken from the book "Articles of Faith," the following is an example of the perspective that the brethren held with regard to Christians during the time that the church was being organised. This is the mindset that led to the development of our doctrine. Because of this, we are continuing our efforts to convert Christians. This is the reason why we continue to baptise Christians after they have passed away. 

 

 

 

In the book "The Articles of Faith", James Talmage does call us Christians.  Page 15, at the end of #23.

Quote

The particular nature of the union of the fathers and the children upon which both Malachi and Moroni laid such stress, has been explained as consisting in the work of vicarious ordinances, including baptism for the dead who have passed from earth without a knowledge of the gospel. In teaching this doctrine, and in complying with its behests, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands today alone amongst all the sects professing Christianity.

By using "amongst", he is including us in the sects that profess Christianity.  So, we are Christians, but we are unique in teaching and practicing vicarious ordinances.

[Stormin' Mormon]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

The desire to look more "Christian" is a tremendous error, especially since we consider ourselves to be Saints, in my opinion, and believing ourselves to be "Christians" is kind of a step down from the status that we hold of being Saints. 

What's with the aversion to taking upon yourself the name of Christ?  Why do you insist that I should not do so?  Calling myself Christian is not a way to worm myself into the cool-kids club.  It is how I fulfil my covenant to take upon me His name. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

The desire to look more "Christian" is a tremendous error, especially since we consider ourselves to be Saints, in my opinion, and believing ourselves to be "Christians" is kind of a step down from the status that we hold of being Saints.

Sara (or whoever you are):

The facts are that the restored church has referred to itself as a "Christian" church since the beginning.  The Book of Mormon even refers to those who followed Christ (the Messiah) as "Christians" (Alma 46:13, 15, 16, 48:10).  Do you believe in the Book of Mormon?

We are "Christian" in our faith, in the same way that the New Testament saints were called Christians.  And in case you doubt what I say, read what Brigham Young said on the matter, from Discourses of Brigham Young, p.350:

"We are Christians professedly, according to our religion. People have gathered to themselves certain ideas, and laid them down as systems, calling them religion, all professing to believe and obey the Scriptures. Their religions are peculiar to themselves—our religion is peculiar to God, to angels, and to the righteous of time and eternity. Why are we persecuted because of our religion? Why was Joseph Smith persecuted? Why was he hunted from neighborhood to neighborhood, from city to city, from state to state, and at last suffered death? Because he received revelations from the Father, from the Son, and was ministered to by holy angels, and published to the world the direct will of the Lord concerning his children on the earth. Again, why was he persecuted? Because he revealed to all mankind a religion so plain and so easily understood, consistent with the Bible, and so true. It is now as it was in the days of the Savior; let people believe and practice these simple, God-like truths and it will be as it was in the old world, they will say, if this man be let alone he will come and take away our peace and nation. 18:231.  (also Journal of Discourses, Vol.18, p.231 - p.232, Brigham Young, September 17, 1876)"

So this is not some new thing, and referring to our church by its true name instead of "Mormon" is not some effort to take away the differences between us and other Christian denominations.  And contrary to what you may think, Christian® is NOT a registered trademark of Evangelical Protestants and it MAY be used by other denominations without express written consent.  It was used in the New Testament for the original Christians.  It was used in the Book of Mormon.  And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restoration of that original church.  So why so much fuss over whether we are Christians or not?  

[MiserereNobis]

26 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Calling myself Christian is not a way to worm myself into the cool-kids club.

You’d have to call yourself Catholic to do that 😉

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

The desire to look more "Christian" is a tremendous error, especially since we consider ourselves to be Saints, in my opinion, and believing ourselves to be "Christians" is kind of a step down from the status that we hold of being Saints. In its most fundamental meaning, a saint is someone who is "holy" and who has been consecrated for the service of God's will. It's almost as if we've gotten too timid to think of ourselves and our doctrine as superior than the apostate form of Christianity that God said Joseph shouldn't embrace because it's not fit for him to do so. If the Brethren want more people to join the church, they should let Christians know that they can shed the label "Christian" and instead call themselves "Saints." This will give them the feeling that they have advanced themselves by becoming members of the church. Simply concentrating on the fact that one is a Christian is not, in my opinion, sufficient reason for one to switch religions. 

 

 

But the LDS are the latter day saints, not the only saints.

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

The desire to look more "Christian" is a tremendous error, especially since we consider ourselves to be Saints, in my opinion, and believing ourselves to be "Christians" is kind of a step down from the status that we hold of being Saints. In its most fundamental meaning, a saint is someone who is "holy" and who has been consecrated for the service of God's will. It's almost as if we've gotten too timid to think of ourselves and our doctrine as superior than the apostate form of Christianity that God said Joseph shouldn't embrace because it's not fit for him to do so. If the Brethren want more people to join the church, they should let Christians know that they can shed the label "Christian" and instead call themselves "Saints." This will give them the feeling that they have advanced themselves by becoming members of the church. Simply concentrating on the fact that one is a Christian is not, in my opinion, sufficient reason for one to switch religions. 

 

 

I’ve never heard anyone describe the desire to look more like disciples of Christ as a “tremendous error” before. You definitely have an interesting perspective. It’s not one I see value in personally though. 

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

Before Christ returns to the world, our Doctrine aims to bring the True Christianity, also known as the Restored Gospel, to as many Christians and other people as possible so that they can be saved. It really can be summed up like that. And those who follow Christianity are aware that this is our objective. They are aware that we believe their gospel to be corrupted by Satan and that it is lacking essential elements. They take offence at the fact that we baptise their deceased Christian relatives because we consider the baptisms their ancestors received to be invalid. They get angry when we tell them that after they die, they will go to a place called Spirit Prison, and that unless they accept our gospel, they will not be able to live with God in heaven. When we pretend to have a monopoly on all of the power and authority bestowed to the priesthood by God, they become offended. 

 

What I want to say is that their gospel is neither the same as our gospel, nor is our gospel the same as their gospel. We are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and our purpose in being here is to convince people of the truth. That assertion is validated by each and every aspect of our doctrinal framework. They are going to become more agitated and more determined to oppose the gospel that we adhere to if we pretend to be a member of traditional Christianity. How are they expected to feel about us claiming to be Christians when we claim to hold all of the truth, all of the authority, and all of the genuine saving ordinances, while at the same time claiming that their ordinances do not hold any legitimacy? If I were a Christian, I would be outraged if the LDS church claimed to be Christian while at the same time viewing all of the other 2 billion Christians as adherents of an illegitimate kind of Christianity. 

 

Maybe I can help. I am one of those "traditional Christians" you keep talking about. The Christian community (not denominations or group) is a large, diverse and wonderful community. There are lots of agreements and disagreements among Christians. That doesn't surprise me. I once went to a diversity conference in a large urban public school district where the facilitators started out by stating that there is often more variation within a group than between groups. That stuck with me.

So therefore, in that acceptance of diversity of thought and belief,  I believe that many of my co-Christians are wrong about some things - sometimes many things. I do disagree with them, and they with me. In essence our faith and perhaps even our gospel in some ways is not the same. That doesn't make me angry, although I will have to admit to taking some offense sometimes, but then we all do, don't we? I think that among my fellow Mennonites and Baptists, there are those with whom I disagree about many things. I have no inkling (to use a Tolkien and Lewis term) however that their gospel is false or that mine is "truer." I simply disagree about some things. Now lets talk about my LDS-Christian friends. I disagree with many of them about certain things. Just like I do with my Catholic, Pentecostal, and Messianic Christian friends. But I certainly don't think any of them, even those with who I disagree are not Christians. I don't have to agree with someone on this forum, to like their post. I don't have to agree with someone who names the name of Christ to consider them a Christian. I have come to a certain peace about simply saying I disagree with some about baptism, others about my baptism, and others about this or that. Because we disagree about certain things that doesn't mean (to me) that we have a different faith. I acknowledge that many of my LDS friends are conditioned to have to state that their faith is different, unique, the only true and living, etc. OK. So be it. Now let's get on to the snickerdoodles, newlywed games, Bible studies, fellowship, ministry opportunities, and eternity together.Don't like snickerdoodles? Don't believe we will be in eternity together? Ok, maybe we can agree on other things. I don't have much fondness for green jello! But, I am going to have a bunch of folks from the church history department in my home tomorrow. We will have snickerdoodles, lemon water, and they will grill me for hours about all things here in the colonies. Won't that be fun? Don't you wish you could be a fly on the wall? No? Ok, maybe that was taking it too far!

Mark mentioned the other day about Moravians. I happen to have the highest regard for Moravians. I could easily be a Moravian Christian. The other day I read something in a Moravian Statement of Faith that has stuck with me. It said, "Moravians believe that God positively wills the existence of a variety of churches to cater for different spiritual needs. Therefore, the Moravian Church does not attempt to win converts from other Christian denominations. We encourage and support Christian Unity." I really like that. And there are many other folks just like them and me in different Christian circles.  They also say, "It is essential that we never lose sight of the fact that our faith is not simply a list of statements about us or our Church. Our faith is relationship - relationship with Jesus Christ. This provides a basis for relationship with each other. This should always be the foundation of our understanding of Moravian identity." Oh, and they are most likely the oldest continually active Protestant group, having been founded in the mid-1400s and having relationships with the Waldensians of the 13th and 14th centuries.

No need for outrage or declaring this or that person as non-Christian because they believe things I don't or don't believe things I do.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Navidad

[MustardSeed]

I would personally rather call myself a Christian than call myself a saint. I’m no saint. And me Christian means what I said it meant.