Fourth Abrahamic religion?

[Leaf474]

18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Sorry again. I don't know what you mean by saying that "Jesus wasn't Jehovah in any way?" Jehovah is a term I think of applying to the Father. Jehovah-Jireh for example means God will provide. Christ is what is provided by Jehovah - the Father. He is the sacrifice - his is the atonement. He Jesus is the Christ, the Savior, the Lord-Adonai - the Messiah.

 

18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not used to thinking of Jesus as Jehovah. Does that make me a non-Christian?

It was just a mental exercise. How different can a Christ be before it's a different Christ?

 

JW's say Jesus is not Jehovah. I think the Saints say that he is. Is that enough to make a different Christ?

 

If not, what would be enough to make a different Christ?

 

18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I believe the Saints to understand Jesus as Jehovah as well as those names I listed. I will of course, allow them to speak to that. Was Christ active in the Old Testament, or was he in the Old Testament portrayed as the coming Messiah? I am uncertain about the first, and provisionally certain about the second. You will probably rarely ever hear me say I am "certain" about faith matters. I think certainty leads to a host of problems.

 

[Navidad]

41 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

This indicates, does it not, a set of characteristics (or actions?) that a group must attribute to Jesus in order to qualify as Christians?

I know you didn't ask me, but my answer would be no. No group attribution makes someone qualify as a Christian. . . . only a personal individual attribution as I described above qualifies someone as a Christian.  Group attributions need not apply because no group attribution qualifies. Christ didn't atone for groups, but for individuals? So does a group attribution then disqualify? No again. Its all individual. There are wide variances of individual beliefs in every group.

[Leaf474]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

For whom are these characteristics a requirement to believe about Jesus?  Saints or me or Christians in general?

My apologies, I don't think I was very clear in my post.

 

In your post, you evaluate what is said an article about the Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

I believe you indicate that there is nothing there that would cause you to conclude that they are not Christians. It follows that there must be some things that a group could believe that would disqualify them as Christians.

 

So, it sounds to me that you have some idea of requirements of certain characteristics or activities that group must attribute to Christ in order to be called Christian.

 

Does that make more sense? Thanks for your post 🙂

[Leaf474]

25 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

That's what I get for taking shortcuts.  The working definition of Christian that I use is one who looks to Christ as someone who was "uniquely normative."  I tried to sidestep the "normative" part of the definition and ended up with a number of exceptions that would have otherwise been ruled out.  Muslims may see Him as unique because there was only one penultimate messenger of God, but what makes Him normative in Islamic thought (His role as a messenger of God) is not unique.

Please pardon me if I'm being too nitpicky here, but are there not some ways in which Christ is normative in LDS teaching, as well? For example, he is the offspring of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, as we all are? And in other universes or worlds there could also be offspring of Heavenly Fathers and Heavenly Mothers, and one of those offspring would be the first?

 

25 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

While I'm not in the habit of throwing people out of the Christian tent, I do recognize that there has to be SOME definition and line drawing.  A definition with no boundaries has no utility whatsoever.  

Would you be interested in talking about where you put the boundary? Or is "...one who looks to Christ as someone who was 'uniquely normative'" as close as you want to get? It's cool if it is 🙂

[Leaf474]

30 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yep!  Attention all - a short answer from Navidad!

That's cool. Just to follow up, though, that means that to the question:

Are Saints Christians?

The answer would be No, because "Saints" is a group, and Christian can only be applied to individuals. The same would hold true for Baptists, Catholics, etc.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Leaf474
Added some more words 😄

[Leaf474]

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I know you didn't ask me, but my answer would be no. No group attribution makes someone qualify as a Christian. . . . only a personal individual attribution as I described above qualifies someone as a Christian.  Group attributions need not apply because no group attribution qualifies. Christ didn't atone for groups, but for individuals? So does a group attribution then disqualify? No again. Its all individual. There are wide variances of individual beliefs in every group.

Thanks for your input 👍

 

My sense from your posts is that you see Christian as indicating "someone on the path to salvation."

 

(I think most people in the thread have been evaluating Christian as applied to groups.)

 

I would associate the idea that only an individual can be a Christian with an Evangelical worldview. This may help to explain why some Evangelicals don't regard the Saints as Christians: the Saints present a path to salvation (Temple ordinances, etc.) that Evangelicals don't recognize.

[Navidad]

9 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

That's cool. Just to follow up, though, that means that to the question:

Are Saints Christians?

The answer would be No, because "Saints" is a group, and Christian can only be applied to individuals. The same would hold true for Baptists, Catholics, etc.

I prefer the questions - Can Saints be Christians?or May Saints be Christians? or Is it possible for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ to be a Christian? The answer to each of these, for me would be in the affirmative. For me, it makes no sense to say Are Saints Christians? or are Lutherans Christians? or identification of Christian by any class or group name. There must be a term for a question that can't be answered by either yes or no! Maybe our own SMAC would know that term! Or someone else? I just looked it up on google. Some refer to it as an open-ended question. I guess that works.

[Navidad]

6 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Thanks for your input 👍

 

My sense from your posts is that you see Christian as indicating "someone on the path to salvation."

 

(I think most people in the thread have been evaluating Christian as applied to groups.)

 

I would associate the idea that only an individual can be a Christian with an Evangelical worldview. This may help to explain why some Evangelicals don't regard the Saints as Christians: the Saints present a path to salvation (Temple ordinances, etc.) that Evangelicals don't recognize.

Perhaps Temple ordinances are a path to exaltation, not salvation. Let's let our LDS friends weigh in on that. I tend to see exaltation and sanctification as somewhat similar, but not exactly the same. I sometimes get confused whether for our LDS friends exaltation is a part of salvation or a separate process - I have heard both.

[Navidad]

9 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

My sense from your posts is that you see Christian as indicating "someone on the path to salvation."

I don't think I agree with that. I don't see salvation as a path down which one trods, runs, or ambles. I see it as a decision made in an aorist sense - it is a point-in-time occurence, not a process. Sanctification (as separate from salvation) is a path - a process. Salvation is "I sat in the chair." Sanctification is "I sat and am now sitting in the chair." Or something like that! 🙃

[Sara H]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps Temple ordinances are a path to exaltation, not salvation. Let's let our LDS friends weigh in on that. I tend to see exaltation and sanctification as somewhat similar, but not exactly the same. I sometimes get confused whether for our LDS friends exaltation is a part of salvation or a separate process - I have heard both.

As is the case with the word Christian, salvation is, at best, a terrestrial concept. You cannot enter the kingdom in which Jesus and the heavenly father reside simply by receiving salvation. Exaltation on the other hand can bring you into the presence of both God the Son and God the Father. 

Remember, I'm just telling you how I interpret our doctrine 🙂. Don't get mad.

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

...in which Jesus and the heavenly father reside...

While using the definite article when referring to our heavenly father is a common practice in many protestant circles, it is virtually unheard of in LDS rhetoric.  It's exceedingly strange to see it used by a faithful LDS person who is concerned about the modern church's drift into mainstream protestant phraseology.  In my nearly 20 years on this board, I've never accepted another poster as being anything less than genuine, less than honest about who they say they are.  And I'm not going to start now. But this certainly reinforces my doubts about Sara H's ability to speak on behalf of orthodox Mormon culture.  

Edited September 13, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

While using the definite article when referring to our heavenly father is a common practice in many protestant circles, it is virtually unheard of in LDS rhetoric.  It's exceedingly strange to see it used by a faithful LDS person who is concerned about the modern church's drift into mainstream protestant phraseology. 

Remember that Sara believe in multiple fathers in heaven, of which ours is one of the inferior ones as evidenced by our inferior DNA that he passed on to us that only allows us to live only short lives.  Also Joseph needed to put his seer stone in a hat to be able to read it because of the low amount of lumens our father in heaven could impart to the stone.  Inferior workmanship.  These don't really sound like current mainstream protestant thinking.

Or it could be a mistake that I commonly seem to make.  I'll write a sentence and then go back and edit it, but leave one word in that made sense in the original but not in the edited version.

Edited September 13, 2023 by ksfisher

[Sara H]

44 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

While using the definite article when referring to our heavenly father is a common practice in many protestant circles, it is virtually unheard of in LDS rhetoric.  It's exceedingly strange to see it used by a faithful LDS person who is concerned about the modern church's drift into mainstream protestant phraseology.  In my nearly 20 years on this board, I've never accepted another poster as being anything less than genuine, less than honest about who they say they are.  And I'm not going to start now. But this certainly reinforces my doubts about Sara H's ability to speak on behalf of orthodox Mormon culture.  

When I write a post,  I've probably used the phrases "heavenly father" and "heavenly mother" hundreds of times, but the moment I say "the" in front of "heavenly father," I turn into a Protestant? 😄

[Sara H]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Remember that Sara believe in multiple fathers in heaven

Yes, we believe in multiple God's.

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

of which ours is one of the inferior ones as evidenced by our inferior DNA that he passed on to us that only allows us to live only short lives. 

Not inferior, just not as knowledgeable. 

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Joseph needed to put his seer stone in a hat to be able to read it because of the low amount of lumens our father in heaven could impart to the stone.  Inferior workmanship.

Correct. Higher lumen output equals no need for a hat. 

25 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

These don't really sound like current mainstream protestant thinking

Correct 

26 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Or it could be a mistake that I commonly seem to make.  I'll write a sentence and then go back and edit it, but leave one word in that made sense in the original but not in the edited version.

Thanks

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by mfbukowski
Cannot erase this

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I prefer the questions - Can Saints be Christians?or May Saints be Christians? or Is it possible for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ to be a Christian? The answer to each of these, for me would be in the affirmative.

 

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

For me, it makes no sense to say Are Saints Christians?

That's cool. It is a question that some Saints feel makes sense, though. There was the quote from Gordon B. Hinckley earlier on this thread,

"Are we Christians? Of course we are!"

 

(I tried to quote just the relevant section of the post, but either my browser doesn't interface correctly with this website or I'm doing something wrong 😄 )

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

or are Lutherans Christians? or identification of Christian by any class or group name. There must be a term for a question that can't be answered by either yes or no! Maybe our own SMAC would know that term! Or someone else? I just looked it up on google. Some refer to it as an open-ended question. I guess that works.

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Leaf474
Voice typing errors

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps Temple ordinances are a path to exaltation, not salvation. Let's let our LDS friends weigh in on that. I tend to see exaltation and sanctification as somewhat similar, but not exactly the same. I sometimes get confused whether for our LDS friends exaltation is a part of salvation or a separate process - I have heard both.

Well, perhaps different terms would help. Jesus said that he was *the way*, the truth, and the life.

 

So is it fair to say that you are saying that a Christian is an individual (not a group) that is on that *way*?

 

This passage from Acts 9 also came to my mind

"Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.'

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't think I agree with that. I don't see salvation as a path down which one trods, runs, or ambles. I see it as a decision made in an aorist sense - it is a point-in-time occurence, not a process.

Well, a Christian then is someone who has made that decision? Sat in that chair?

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Sanctification (as separate from salvation) is a path - a process. Salvation is "I sat in the chair." Sanctification is "I sat and am now sitting in the chair." Or something like that! 🙃

 

[Calm]

20 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

So, it sounds to me that you have some idea of requirements of certain characteristics or activities that group must attribute to Christ in order to be called Christian.

If someone or some group calls themselves Christian, I don’t see any reason to debate that unless I see very good evidence they are just doing it to manipulate people and their beliefs as they describe them contradict that claim.

In my own mind I think (but it is not a requirement to claim the name, I am just saying this is where my mind goes when I hear the label) of a Christian as someone who sees Christ as Savior, as divine, and to be followed and worshipped.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

On 9/13/2023 at 12:19 PM, Navidad said:

Perhaps Temple ordinances are a path to exaltation, not salvation. Let's let our LDS friends weigh in on that. I tend to see exaltation and sanctification as somewhat similar, but not exactly the same. I sometimes get confused whether for our LDS friends exaltation is a part of salvation or a separate process - I have heard both.

I would say the easiest way to understand them is same path of Santification, Salvation is a very important point on the path and exaltation is just further down it, getting closer to where God is…but I am not sure that follows the Church’s uses of those terms as we as a church use Salvation multiple ways.

It doesn’t really matter to me how they are related as I believe Christ has promised me both (added:  and anyone else who truly desires such or desires what will lead to such, as in oneness with God) and both are my destination.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/salvation?lang=eng#p59
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/pages/salvation-and-exaltation?lang=eng

Quote

Salvation” and “exaltation” are two very important words relating to what we hope to receive after this life. Elder Russell M. Nelson explained that “to be saved—or to gain salvation—means to be saved from physical and spiritual death.” Exaltation, he further taught, “refers to the highest state of happiness and glory in the celestial realm.”

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

While using the definite article when referring to our heavenly father is a common practice in many protestant circles, it is virtually unheard of in LDS rhetoric.  It's exceedingly strange to see it used by a faithful LDS person who is concerned about the modern church's drift into mainstream protestant phraseology.  In my nearly 20 years on this board, I've never accepted another poster as being anything less than genuine, less than honest about who they say they are.  And I'm not going to start now. But this certainly reinforces my doubts about Sara H's ability to speak on behalf of orthodox Mormon culture.  

The use of “Bruce” to refer to Elder McConkie is a usage I have only heard from critics as far as I remember, so I am having the same reaction as you are.  There were a couple of other instances of phrasing I can’t remember now which I had only heard from Evangelicals or critics.  I would urge caution in assuming her interpretations are typical ones.  Most are not in my experience. The only reason this matters to me is to avoid confusion among our nonLDS friends and readers here.  I have no issue with different Saints having different interpretations. I do take issue if they insist theirs is typical or traditional when I don’t see much evidence supporting their position and I see other evidence contradicting it, such as her interpretation on how early leaders saw Christianity. 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Calm

[Sara H]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

The use of “Bruce” to refer to Elder McConkie is a usage I have only heard from critics as far as I remember, so I am having the same reaction as you are.  There were a couple of other instances of phrasing I can’t remember now which I had only heard from Evangelicals or critics.  I would urge caution in assuming her interpretations are typical ones.  Most are not in my experience. The only reason this matters to me is to avoid confusion among our nonLDS friends and readers here.  I have no issue with different Saints having different interpretations. I do take issue if they insist theirs is typical or traditional when I don’t see much evidence supporting their position and I see other evidence contradicting it, such as her interpretation on how early leaders saw Christianity. 

Please behave responsibly when posting on my threads as you have already assisted in getting one of them closed this week. For goodness sake, also! Stop convincing our non-LDS friends that we're a cult by insisting that all LDS must refer to the brethren in a specific way or their membership will be questioned if you're really worried about how they perceive us. By doubting my intentions simply because I addressed someone by their first name, you're behaving exactly like a cult member. I will not address you again in this thread, you obviously crave attention. 

[Leaf474]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

If someone or some group calls themselves Christian, I don’t see any reason to debate that unless I see a very good reason they are just doing it to manipulate people and their beliefs as they describe them contradict that claim.

In my own mind I think (but it is not a requirement to claim the name, I am just saying this is where my mind goes when I hear the label) of a Christian as someone who sees Christ as Savior, as divine, and to be followed and worshipped.

Thanks for the nice message ❤️

 

Just as a kind of footnote, I think the JW's might be "iffy" about Jesus being divine. I'm fairly certain they say he is not to be worshiped.

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Sara H said:

Stop convincing our non-LDS friends that we're a cult by insisting that all LDS must refer to the brethren in a specific way or their membership will be questioned if you're really worried about how they perceive us. By doubting my intentions simply because I addressed someone by their first name, you're behaving exactly like a cult member.

Please stop saying I said things I didn’t. I said nothing about doubting your intentions, just that your interpretations are not typical.  Quite a few of my interpretations are not typical either, which is why I try to document any response by using the Church’s official website when someone asks for what LDS believe, not what my belief is.

Nor do I state there is only one way to refer to leadership.  I use a couple of them, first and last name, last name, last name with their title.  Noting that one style is not used is not the same as saying only one style should be used.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Calm

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, Sara H said:

For goodness sake, also! Stop convincing our non-LDS friends that we're a cult by insisting that all LDS must refer to the brethren in a specific way or their membership will be questioned if you're really worried about how they perceive us.

Many members of the church, when speaking or writing about general authorities or other church officers will use President, Elder, or Sister followed by the persons name.  We do this out of respect for the position they hold.  So we’d say President Nelson, not Russ. And Sister Johnson, not Camille.

We would do the same when referring to the leaders of other religions.  So we’d write Pope Francis, not Francis.  Or Bishop Solis, not Oscar.  Again, we do this out of respect.

I don’t believe that we’re acting in any way cultish by showing respect for religious leaders.  Nor do I believe that someone who doesn’t show this respect will or should have their membership questioned.  However, being respectful does add a sense of dignity to ones writing.