4th Abrahamic Religion?

[moegypt]

Thank you Ayani & Not4me

Hatter,

Give me the prove that Qur'an "it is Mohammed's writings".Mohammad is only a Rasool no more.

That is what I can say.

 

[Comprehend]

Thank you Ayani & Not4me

Hatter,

Give me the prove that Qur'an "it is Mohammed's writings".Mohammad is only a Rasool no more.

That is what I can say.

Muslim dudes, despite what Mad Hatter is trying to talk about, this thread is about Mormonism not Islam.

Can we save Mohammed and Islam for another thread please?

 

[arthra]

Well I think some Southern Baptists probably have an agenda in mind by trying to identify Mormonism as the "fourth Abrahamic religion". But I was attracted to this thread because being Baha'i we also believe Baha'u'llah is a descendent of Keturah Abraham's third wife and that we are also basically Abrahamic believing that Abraham was also a Manifestation of God. All my Mormon friends identify themselves as Christians and that's good enough for me...

- Art

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Advisory***

This is just a reminder that this is the LDS DIR forum and is specifically intended as a place for discussion between members of the LDS church.

Anyone from outside the LDS coomunity is welcome to post here in accordance with rule #10 regarding the DIR forums;

**10. Discuss Individual Religions Forums
The DIR forums are for the express use for discussion by that specific group. They are not to be used for debate by anyone. People of other groups or faiths may post respectful questions to increase their understanding. Questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR are not permitted. Only posts that comply with the tenets or spirit of that Dir are permitted. The DIR forums are strictly moderated and posts are subject to editing or removal.**

References to other belief systems made by the members of this DIR shouldn't be interpreted as an invitation to the adherants of those belief systems to post here in order to offer outside opinions or clarifications.

Please feel free to start another thread on whatever topic you wish to address in one of the debate or discussion forums.​

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Wou beat me to the post, Gabriel.

What number is Baha'i?

Three... and a half?

:sarcastic

 

[madhatter85]

I am sorry if i seem a little off in regards to islam, it really doesn't matter and it is off-topic anyways, i didn't say anything derogatory towards them. just a mis-understanding from what i read off wikipedia in regard to muhammed and Islam.

the point of this thread is about the LDS church being currently under Christianity.

 

[ayani]

the point of this thread is about the LDS church being currently under Christianity.

right. and with regards to that, i'd say you guys are definitely Christians. that idea might make other Christians uncomfortable, but that's their issue.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

To me Mormonism:Christianity :: Christianity : Judaism.

Diddo!

 

[Doodlebug02]

In my opinion it is rather offensive for us to be called a 4th Abrahamic religion because we are Christians, not some totally different religion. It seems like this Southern Baptist person just wants to avoid calling us Christians.

 

[Scott C.]

How about this:

Jesus:Mormons as Jesus:Other Christians
Peter:Mormons as Peter:Other Christians
Joseph Smith:Mormons as Peter:Other Christians
Joseph Smith:Mormons as Peter:Mormons

As far as I know, Mormons are the only faith who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, accept Him as Savior, and accept the teachings of a prophet, which no other Christian church accepts.

 

[Scott C.]

The LDS church would better be accepted as a new and growing branch of Christianity. It's probably not just another denomination. I tend to generally group Christianity as Catholic, Protestant, and Latter-day Saint. I don't know that Mormons are more different from Catholics, than Catholics are from Protestants. There are distinct differences in all cases, while there are common threads, Jesus Christ the Redeemer being the most impotant common thread. Latter-day Saints share with Catholics the idea of the necessity of Priesthood, of sacraments, and of a universal church governed by a chief priest (Pope or LDS Prophet). Catholics simply believe they have such authority through an unbroken line from Peter. Mormons believe the line was broken and then restored by heavenly messengers in these latter days.

Latter-day Saints share with Protestants the idea that the main Christian church of the middle ages (please no offense intended to my Catholic friends) had got off base on some important theological points and needed correction. Hence, the reformation. Latter-day Saints take the reformation another step futher with a full blown restoration through newly raised up prophets.

Becase of the restoration, new doctrines came forth, doctrines which we believe are not really new, but were part of the original Christian church, but lost in time.

So, how do Catholics and Protestants want to classify us? It's deeply disturbing and confusing to not be considered a Christian. But, we don't claim to be the same as other Christians, Catholic or Protestant. We distance ourselves from some of their key doctrines. But, we want their friendship and respect as fellow Christinas devout in our faiths and united in a belief in Christ. But, even though we have commonality, we believe we have a message worthy of deliverying to all people, Catholic, Protestant, other religion, or non-believer.

So, I want all people to understand what we believe. I want them to learn it from LDS sources. Then they can categorize us as they see fit. If someone concludes that because I believe Jesus Christ visited the Book of Mormon people after his ascension to heaven, that i therefore believe in a different Christ, and therefore a false Christ, and therefore I'm not Christian, that's fine with me. It just tells me that their definition of Christian excludes anyone who belives that Christ visited other people after he ascenced to heaven in Jerusalem. I have a different definition of Christian.

 

[DeepShadow]

I don't see this as a step in the right direction, baby-step or not. If anything, it's a side-step: they are trying to juggle things so that they can keep saying what they have always said: we aren't Christian.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't see this as a step in the right direction, baby-step or not. If anything, it's a side-step: they are trying to juggle things so that they can keep saying what they have always said: we aren't Christian.

As long as people would just let us define our own beliefs, I'd be okay with this 4th Abrahamic religion designation. I would be happier with "Traditional Christianity" and "Latter-day Christianity" or something along that order, but anything is better than being labeled a cult, in my opinion. Besides, for the most part, the people who are constantly telling us we're not "real" Christians are the people I don't particularly want to be lumped together with.

 

[Francine]

As long as people would just let us define our own beliefs, I'd be okay with this 4th Abrahamic religion designation. I would be happier with "Traditional Christianity" and "Latter-day Christianity" or something along that order, but anything is better than being labeled a cult, in my opinion.

When people get together to talk about religion, too often the word "cult" is tossed around as a perjorative to mean any religious movement they don't like. Never mind that Catholicism has been around for 2,000 years and has over 1 billion adherents, it's called a cult by people whose own particular religion was started in 1984 and might claim a total of 75 adherents. What is sorely lacking is an objective standard by which we can identify something as a cult.

The crucial moment for any new religious movement is the death of its founder. If the movement was centered around one strong figure merely to allow him to exercise power over the men and get sexual favors from the women, then it most likely will shatter upon that leader's death. If there is at least a core of truth in the movement, it will survive the death of its leader, such as the lynching of Mormon founder Joseph Smith, and perhaps rally around another one, such as Brigham Young, who led an LDS remnant from Missouri to Utah.

So we can define a cult as any new religious movement whose founder has not died. And by death, we're not talking about those close calls in the operating room where the heart stops for a few moments, we're talking about someone who is whipped to within an inch of His life, nailed to a cross all day, then buried in the ground over the weekend. So right away, Christianity is not a cult because Christ has died.

Overcomer Ministries in South Carolina, however, is a cult because founder R.G. Stair has not died (going to jail doesn't count). Jehovah Witnesses are not a cult because Charles Taze Russell, who founded the movement in 1877, died long ago. Calvary Chapel is a cult because Pope Chuck Smith has not died, but the Worldwide Church of God is not a cult because Herbert W. Armstrong has died.

 

[Katzpur]

Actually, that was about as good a definition of a "cult" as any I've heard yet. As LDS scholar, Daniel Peterson once stated in an excellent article called Easier than Research; More Inflammatory than Truth, "...if you are looking at a religious tradition that has a large number of adherents...if it's a group of any size at all that's lasted for any length of time at all, then there must be something in it that appeals to different people."

 

[Somkid]

I also say Mormons are Christians as are Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[Francine]

I also say Mormons are Christians as are Jehovah's Witnesses.

If it makes someone happy to be called Christian, I will grant them the honor to increase harmony. But inside I know that a name is just a sound, it has no power to build up or tear down.