• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A living Apostle answers the question...

SoyLeche

meh...
How does that undercut the foundation of your belief system? Is your belief predicated upon what others think about you?
The foundation of my belief system is Jesus Christ. Saying that someone is not "Christian" implies that that person does not hold Jesus Christ supreme - even if they only claim that they are not "Christian" because of differences of oppinion on the question of authority. It is offensive to me for someone to tell me that I don't believe in Christ - which is what they are doing when they say that I'm not "Christian" - even if that isn't what they intend to say.
And there is no reason for you to care whether or not someone thinks you're a Christian.
I care that they don't understand what they are actually saying, and I will correct them.
I think "moronic" is very strong. I would say "narrow." Some Christians have narrow definitions of what it means to be Christian...just as some have narrow definitions of doctrine and authority.
I think moronic is an appropriate word. If they would actually sit down and think about what the word implies (or just try to define the word before thinking about who they want to exclude) then most everyone's definition would fall in line with mine. I believe it to be the best definition I've yet seen of the word Christian.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
We all recognize our authority as God's authority, whether we are Mormon, Catholic, or Pentecostal. There are not multiple Gods; how can there be any but "the same" authority, if the authority is from the same God?
What some recognize as authority may not actually be authority - that's how.
You just don't get to make the call as to where God bestows God's authority. You can believe what you want, but, once again, your beliefs do not affect God's actions one way or the other.
I never said they did. You are the one that said I had to recognize their authority. I never said you couldn't.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
doppelgänger;967032 said:
So if they think they are the only "Christians" with the only real "apostles" that's their prerogative too, right?
They can think what they want, but it's ridiculous for them to disparage someone for thinking in a certain way, when they think that way, themselves.

It's really not about "who's a 'real Christian.'" The argument is about a gatekeeping mentality, whatever that entails. The Mormons gatekeep with regard to who has God's authority, yet they dis those who gatekeep with regard to who is a real Christian.

That's the real issue here. I say that, unless the LDS are prepared to give up their own gatekeeping, they have no room to complain.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
They can think what they want, but it's ridiculous for them to disparage someone for thinking in a certain way, when they think that way, themselves.

It's really not about "who's a 'real Christian.'" The argument is about a gatekeeping mentality, whatever that entails. The Mormons gatekeep with regard to who has God's authority, yet they dis those who gatekeep with regard to who is a real Christian.

That's the real issue here. I say that, unless the LDS are prepared to give up their own gatekeeping, they have no room to complain.
To be fair - I've never used the word "real".

And, like I've said, gatekeep all you want in your subset.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The foundation of my belief system is Jesus Christ. Saying that someone is not "Christian" implies that that person does not hold Jesus Christ supreme - even if they only claim that they are not "Christian" because of differences of oppinion on the question of authority. It is offensive to me for someone to tell me that I don't believe in Christ - which is what they are doing when they say that I'm not "Christian" - even if that isn't what they intend to say.
Do you not see how it is offensive to others for you to tell them that they do not have God's authority?
I care that they don't understand what they are actually saying, and I will correct them.
As you perceive me "correcting" you, perhaps?

I think moronic is an appropriate word. If they would actually sit down and think about what the word implies (or just try to define the word before thinking about who they want to exclude) then most everyone's definition would fall in line with mine. I believe it to be the best definition I've yet seen of the word Christian.
My, but you're full of yourself. What about people who don't believe that Jesus is supreme, but call themselves "Christian???" Must everyone agree with you, or risk being called "moronic?" What may work for you may not work for someone else. Give folks a little latitude, for Pete's sake!
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
What some recognize as authority may not actually be authority - that's how.
"May not be." That means that there's an equal chance that it may be. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I never said they did. You are the one that said I had to recognize their authority. I never said you couldn't.
Sure you did! You believe that they do not have authority. Therefore, they must not have authority. That means that God has not acted to give them authority. That means that your beliefs do affect how God acts.

maybe God acts without getting your prior approval, no?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
To be fair - I've never used the word "real".

And, like I've said, gatekeep all you want in your subset.
I didn't say you did. I said that you gatekeep, just as they gatekeep.

I don't gatekeep. That's my point. There are no bars or barriers.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
Do you not see how it is offensive to others for you to tell them that they do not have God's authority?
Sure. If they don't have authority though, I don't see why I should pretend they do. I'd let them know that we are probalby using different definitions of what "authority" means though.

Someone saying that my leaders don't have authority is much, much less offensive then telling me I don't believe in Christ.
As you perceive me "correcting" you, perhaps?
I don't perceive you "correcting" me. I see us disagreeing.
My, but you're full of yourself. What about people who don't believe that Jesus is supreme, but call themselves "Christian???" Must everyone agree with you, or risk being called "moronic?" What may work for you may not work for someone else. Give folks a little latitude, for Pete's sake!
Yeah, I'm a bit full of myself. When something seems to me to be as self-evident as this, I don't mind not giving latitude on it.

Go out in the street and ask as many people as you can find to tell you what the word "Christian" means. I guarantee that the large majority of the responses won't have anything to do with authority, the trinity, sola scriptura, or anything else except a belief in Christ.

If you start telling them what groups they just described they'll probably start adding constraints to keep some out though.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
I didn't say you did. I said that you gatekeep, just as they gatekeep.

I don't gatekeep. That's my point. There are no bars or barriers.
I gatekeep in my subset. So do most people. I have no problem with that at all.

If you can find someone who doesn't fit my definition that wants to be called a Christian let me know and I'll consider an amendment.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
Sure you did! You believe that they do not have authority. Therefore, they must not have authority. That means that God has not acted to give them authority. That means that your beliefs do affect how God acts.

maybe God acts without getting your prior approval, no?
No I didn't. I said what I believe about God's authority. I do not equate my beliefs with "musts". I can accept that I may be wrong.

My beliefs don't affect how God acts. How I perceive God acts affects my beliefs. You're putting the cart before the horse.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sure. If they don't have authority though, I don't see why I should pretend they do. I'd let them know that we are probalby using different definitions of what "authority" means though.
Why should others pretend that you're a Chiristian, if you're not? Maybe they should tell you that your definition of what it means to be Christian is "moronic?"
Yeah, I'm a bit full of myself. When something seems to me to be as self-evident as this, I don't mind not giving latitude on it.
Maybe it's not as self-evident as you suppose it to be...
Go out in the street and ask as many people as you can find to tell you what the word "Christian" means. I guarantee that the large majority of the responses won't have anything to do with authority, the trinity, sola scriptura, or anything else except a belief in Christ.
I'm not so convinced as you are.
If you start telling them what groups they just described they'll probably start adding constraints to keep some out though.
Just as you say that, "Oh, they're not LDS, therefore it's not real authority?"
Someone saying that my leaders don't have authority is much, much less offensive then telling me I don't believe in Christ.
Maybe other people feel strongly about other things?

The apparent levels of compassion and self-righteousness of your thoughts here appear to put them on the same footing with those of the Pharisees, that Jesus described as "hypocritical."
Just a little leaven for the bread...
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I gatekeep in my subset. So do most people. I have no problem with that at all.
Most people lie, too. Does that make it OK? Have you considered that when you make statements about the spiritual situation of others who are not LDS that you are engaging in gatekeeping outside your own sheep-pen?
 

SoyLeche

meh...
Why should others pretend that you're a Chiristian, if you're not?
But I am.
Maybe they should tell you that your definition of what it means to be Christian is "moronic?"
Then they're going to have a heck of a time justifying their definition.
Maybe it's not as self-evident as you suppose it to be...
Maybe
I'm not so convinced as you are.

Just as you say that, "Oh, they're not LDS, therefore it's not real authority?"
Maybe other people feel strongly about other things?
Perhaps. They are free to make their arguments.
The apparent levels of compassion and self-righteousness of your thoughts here appear to put them on the same footing with those of the Pharisees, that Jesus described as "hypocritical."
Just a little leaven for the bread...
Right back at ya - buddy.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No I didn't. I said what I believe about God's authority. I do not equate my beliefs with "musts". I can accept that I may be wrong.

My beliefs don't affect how God acts. How I perceive God acts affects my beliefs. You're putting the cart before the horse.
If your perception of how God acts informs your beliefs, and those beliefs "may be wrong," why not give others the benefit of the doubt, as you are asking them to do for you?
 

SoyLeche

meh...
Most people lie, too. Does that make it OK? Have you considered that when you make statements about the spiritual situation of others who are not LDS that you are engaging in gatekeeping outside your own sheep-pen?
Nope. Only within my subset.
 

Polaris

Active Member
sojourner said:
Theology demands that God is what God is. That's the absolute with which we're dealing. Everything else is human speculation about that absolute.

Everything else is human speculation about that absolute UNLESS God declares his absolute truths to his prophet.

The bottom line is this:

If there exist two men who claim to be Apostles and who claim to teach by the Holy Spirit but teach doctrines that contradict each other then at least one of them is mistaken.

Either Christ was the Son of God or he wasn't.
Either Christ called Apostles to lead his church or he didn't.
Either baptism is absolutely required for salvation or it's not.
Either Apostolic authority survived the death of the Apostles or it didn't.
Either a complete Apostasy occurred or it didn't.
Either a restoration of authority was needed or it wasn't.
Either Joseph Smith was called to be the Prophet of the Restoration or he wasn't.

Two men cannot claim opposing views on these issues and both be in harmony with the truth. If you disagree please provide an example to the contrary.
 
Top