Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 'Christian'.

[dianaiad]

Well no. Do you not know what is required to be a Christian?

Yep.

to be a Christian, there are two requirements:

1. one should place the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, called "Christ" at the center of one's moral, ethical and religious belief system. One does not necessarily have to have the same opinion of what those teachings ARE as everybody else who thinks of him/herself as a Christian.

2. One should believe that s/he is, and identify him/herself as a Christian.

That's it. Don't believe me? Look it up in the dictionary.

the point is, omega, that there isn't a single Christian out there who has the right or authority to define 'Christian' beyond the above so that it excludes anybody else.

Now, that doesn't make anybody 'saved.' It doesn't make anybody 'correct." It doesn't mean that the Christian involved isn't so far off the rails as to be headed for Mars, but....it DOES make him a Christian.

........and that is a very good thing, honestly. Because if "Christian" meant 'agree with me about religious beliefs," or even 'believing the correct things about Jesus, then we Mormons would just have to say that we are the Christians and you folks, er....ain't.

Trouble is, that would be untrue too. There is some truth to be found in all religions, more truth (mostly) in Christian ones, and the most truth in ours. If I didn't think this, I'd leave Mormonism and find the belief system I thought DID have the most truth. To deny others who claim to believe in Jesus Christ the right to BE 'Christians' is not only wrong, but incredibly counterproductive....as well as utterly without use.

 

[Katzpur]

As far as I'm concerned, if you cannot honestly recite the Apostle's Creed then no matter what you call yourself your faith has nothing to do with mine no matter how "Christian" your themes may be. I don't recognise your "Jesus".

Who came up with the "apostles creed", and when?

The very first mention anywhere of the Apostles Creed was in 390 A.D. Apparently Musing Bassist would not recognize the Jesus of the first, second and third centuries.

 

[Watchmen]

Of course they were credible. You don't have to agree with their beliefs or philosophies, but they were all respected, upstanding members of the community and would have been seen as credible witnesses by their peers, who were certainly in a better position to judge their credibility than you are. And even though several of them eventually had a falling out with Joseph Smith, none of them ever denied their statements regarding the Book of Mormon.

With respect to Martin Harris, this is his deathbed statement: "The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these things are true."

Somehow, I doubt that very much.

Didn't Harris see the plates with his "spiritual" eyes?

 

[Katzpur]

Didn't Harris see the plates with his "spiritual" eyes?

I couldn't even tell you what "spiritual eyes" are, but I believe Harris' deathbed quote to be representative of what he actually believed, and more than likely not made under coercion.

 

[Milton Platt]

My sole purpose in starting this Thread is to openly, honestly and in a civil manner discuss whether the LDS church fits the criteria of a Christian church. All of us have our own personal opinions about many issues, including religion and politics. But, how many of us know what the facts say?
My hope is we can discuss our opinions, the evidence, speculation and myths and learn as we have a civil, rational and reasonable debate. After all, isn't this why we have a Religious Debate Forum? To share what we think, feel, believe and know about Religion.
I would also like to add, if you have info that may be useful or applicable please post it so we all can enjoy or learn it (references and quotes are always helpful and encouraged).
Thanks! And, tell us all what you think.

What are the criteria and who gets to decide what they are?

 

[McBell]

Since I started this thread let me be the first to comment. This thread, like every Thread, can be interesting. There are people here on both sides and in the middle. Expressing our feelings and our facts about any issue is American. One thing is certain, both the Christian and Mormon beliefs are open for debate and consideration. And, this not about which one- whether one, both or neither - is true or not. This is about whether one is part of the other or if it stands as it's own individual version of beliefs. But it is intended, by design, to say nothing about either's truthfulness or falseness- that is not the point to this Thread.

Oh goody.
First thing first...
Get Christians to agree on what the word "Christian" means.


I'll wait.

 

[McBell]

The point is, omega, that there isn't a single Christian out there who has the right or authority to define 'Christian' beyond the above so that it excludes anybody else.

Interesting.
Let me ask you, who has the right to declare that your favoured definition is the "right" definition?

 

[McBell]

As far as I'm concerned, if you cannot honestly recite the Apostle's Creed then no matter what you call yourself your faith has nothing to do with mine no matter how "Christian" your themes may be. I don't recognise your "Jesus".

Interesting that you believe there were no Christians before 390 AD.
Also interesting that you believe Ambrose to be THE definer of "Christianity".

One cannot help but wonder what your god thinks of your beliefs

 

[dianaiad]

Interesting.
Let me ask you, who has the right to declare that your favoured definition is the "right" definition?

The dictionary. "Christian" is a classification of belief, not a declaration of salvation. "Christian" is a word, with a definition.

Now dictionaries are weird beasties: they do not declare what the definition of a word MUST be, especially in English. They describe the most common definitions of words as they are used by most people, most of the time. Now definitions may change; new ones show up and old ones expire....take the word 'gay,' for instance. I remember when the definition of 'gay' was 'colorful and happy.." and now the first definition is 'homosexual, usually male." That's fine. That's how people all USE the word.

"Christian" is defined as I just defined it. That's how the majority of English speakers define it, period. There is NO dictionary of which I am aware that has a list of doctrines that 'MUST BE BELIEVED" in order to be a 'real' Christian. No dictionary quotes the Apostles or Athanasian Creed as a qualification. Nobody mentions the Trinity.

This tells us at least two things: there IS no list of beliefs that identify 'Christian' to which everybody can agree, and those that insist upon such a list are definite minorities; their definition doesn't even show up fifteenth or sixteenth in the list of possible definitions.

I have found, over my lifetime, that as many people who have told me that I am NOT a Christian have as many different reasons why I can't be. Some of these same folks deny Catholics the right to call themselves Christian. So, boiled down to the barest minimum, that's it.

"Christian" means someone who puts what he believes to be the teachings of Jesus Christ at the center of his beliefs, and who says he is one.

Anything else is...add ons with which a bunch of OTHER Christians will disagree.

I don't get to tell you that YOU are not a Christian, and you don't get to tell me I'm not. You don't have the right or authority, and certainly Jesus Himself never defined the word.

 

[Glaurung]

The bottom line to me is that if one says they're a Christian, I will take them at their word.

Yet when that "Christian" denies or twists almost every article of established Christian orthodoxy, then their identification is frankly meaningless. To be fair though, meaningless and relativism is the fashionable spirit of the age.

However, with that being said, there are all too many, imo, that believe about Jesus but not in him, and I strongly feel that many churches today would kick Jesus out of their church if he came in without saying who he is, and then preaching his message of love, compassion, justice for all, care for the poor and downtrodden, etc. Many would probably laugh at that "hippie" and ask what drugs he's on.

Myopic understanding about what Jesus taught goes both ways. Yes, there's love thy neighbour, however Jesus also said go and sin no more. He also said that it's better to lose a member of your body than to burn in hell. It's not just about mercy, it's also about moral law and justice.

I think that, based on what Jesus supposedly taught, that he would much rather be around a Muslim that believes in Jesus' message of compassion and justice for all versus a self-professed Christian who doesn't. There are some of the latter that I'm sometimes tempted to ask if they're members of the Church of the Rabid Pit-Bull, as they are so aggressive, judgmental, and demeaning towards anyone who dares disagree with them?

You know, Islam isn't all that compassionate when it comes to those who "disagree".

But of course I'm sure there are many Muslims out there in the world who exemplify many Christian virtues, and many, many Christians who fall abysmally short of them. Christians do not cease to be human. And as for me, I can tell you that if I were not a Christian, I'd be far more irascible.

The very first mention anywhere of the Apostles Creed was in 390 A.D. Apparently Musing Bassist would not recognize the Jesus of the first, second and third centuries.

The creeds were written up for a reason, to address those who had fallen out with what the Chruch had always taught. You seem to imply that just because something wasn't explicitly enunciated from day one, it must therefore have been pulled out of thin air. That's deeply flawed thinking.

It took many counsels over many centuries to completely enunciate everything explicitly. No one denies this. So just because we don't have a formal creed before a particular date does not imply that the content of that creed was novel at the time. It's precisely the opposite actually, they were a response to novelty.

And on an aside, I can say the same thing to you as there's no proof at all LDS teaching before Joseph Smith. The nineteenth century. Any accusation of novelty you levy at Catholicism is a million times more applicable to Mormonism. Heck, the core justification of your sect (whether you admit it or not) is the belief that the majority of the church apostatised by the second century. The hypocrisy is palpable.

Interesting that you believe there were no Christians before 390 AD.

A cheap strawman, see my response to Katzpur.

Also interesting that you believe Ambrose to be THE definer of "Christianity".

That actually goes to the Chruch. It's called Sacred Tradition, or the Magisterium if your prefer. The idea that you can "read the Bible for yourself" is an entirely Protestant notion.

One cannot help but wonder what your god thinks of your beliefs

Coming from you, is this meant to mean anything to me?

 

[psychoslice]

You may as well call it a Christian church, because the word Christian has no meaning, there are many off shots calling them selves Christians, so what is the hell does it mean........it means nothing !!.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A Christian Worships God ...
Some Believe he shares divinity with Jesus as his son, and with the Holy Spirit.
Others believe in the Trinity, which is a specific form of Triune God. as laid down in AD 390 at the command of the emperor.
Others Believe in a Monotheistic or Unitarian understanding where the exact relationship of Jesus to God is not defined.

The common Factor for all Christians is that they love God and follow the teachings and instructions of Jesus
There is no common Bible shared by all churches, though there is considerable overlap. The bible does not define Christianity, but it's various versions do contain some of the earliest surviving scripture and instruction.

I have three Bibles My favourite being The KJV, the most accurate translation into British English, is the New Revised Standard Version. I have none of the various Orthodox or Coptic Bibles.

 

[metis]

Yet when that "Christian" denies or twists almost every article of established Christian orthodoxy, then their identification is frankly meaningless.

But the issue of "orthodoxy" was one that evolved, and we even see in Acts that there was substantial confusion in the early church on many important issues. For example, the concept of the Trinity was hardly a slam-dunk, nor was the issue of the Law as pertaining or not to gentiles spelled out well at all at first.

The creeds were put out largely due to reacting to "heretical" elements, but they came about much later after Jesus died, and the church had already gone through significant changes. I'm not going to get into whether these changes were good or bad-- just that there were many that gradually altered both the nature and added some of the teachings within the early church.

So, it's important for us not to confuse the basic concepts behind what Jesus taught versus reactions to competing groups, and those basic concepts are primarily two: love of God and compassion and justice for all. I'm not saying that these are the only things he taught but that is where his overwhelming ("basic") emphasis was.

He also said that it's better to lose a member of your body than to burn in hell. It's not just about mercy, it's also about moral law and justice.

See above.

You know, Islam isn't all that compassionate when it comes to those who "disagree".

Too broad a statement, and there's times one could have made similar statements against the CC and other Christian groups.

I've been involved within ecumenism for around four decades now, and I will tell ya right now that I've been around some Muslims that I much prefer to be around than some Catholics, some other Christians, and some of my fellow Jews. Since Jesus' main emphasis was on compassion and justice, I do believe a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, ... who tries to practice that is far closer to Jesus than a Christian or fellow Jew who acts like a rabid pit-bull towards others (I'm not implying the latter applies to you or anyone else here at RF, btw).

IOW, I do believe that Jesus was far less concerned about politically-correct dogmatic-theologies than about basic compassion and justice for others, and I do believe Jesus would be especially pleased with those who especially live the latter regardless as to which building they walk into on the weekend.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No sir, there is but one faith. The LDS worships Jesus, Jesus stated It is Jehovah your God you must worship and to Him alone render sacred service Mat 4:10

I believe Jesus.

capumetu @yours.com no space after u

I would be very surprised If a large majority Mormons, like other Christians, do not worship God. however they see Jesus as his Son. and as such part of the Godhead. This is not the same as a Trinitarian View of the Trinity, as expressed in the Apostles creed.

 

[Katzpur]

The creeds were written up for a reason, to address those who had fallen out with what the Chruch had always taught. You seem to imply that just because something wasn't explicitly enunciated from day one, it must therefore have been pulled out of thin air. That's deeply flawed thinking.

It took many counsels over many centuries to completely enunciate everything explicitly. No one denies this. So just because we don't have a formal creed before a particular date does not imply that the content of that creed was novel at the time. It's precisely the opposite actually, they were a response to novelty.

I never said any of the Creeds were pulled out of thin air, so before you call my thinking flawed, make sure you know what it is I'm actually thinking. There is actually very little I disagree with in the Apostles Creed. I just don't recite it so that people who would not otherwise consider me a Christian know that I am. If people can't tell that I'm a Christian by the way I live, then I'm certainly not a very good one. I just think it's misleading to call something the Apostles Creed when it was almost certainly not written by the Apostles.

And on an aside, I can say the same thing to you as there's no proof at all LDS teaching before Joseph Smith. The nineteenth century.

Interesting. I thought you just got through saying that just because something wasn't explicitly enunciated from day one, it must have been pulled out of thin air. As you said, that's deeply flawed thinking. You seriously have no idea of how much of Mormonism can be found in early Christian documents. And I'm not talking about documents from "heretical" sources, but from the early Church Fathers. The fact that these didn't survive through the centuries doesn't prove that Joseph Smith merely invented them, and that they weren't at one time considered doctrine by the Church. And that, my friend, is a statement I make using your own logic.

Any accusation of novelty you levy at Catholicism is a million times more applicable to Mormonism. Heck, the core justification of your sect (whether you admit it or not) is the belief that the majority of the church apostatised by the second century. The hypocrisy is palpable.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. And actually, I have a rather high regard for Catholicism. I would definitely choose to be Catholic before I'd choose to be Protestant, and I most certainly do consider Catholics to be Christians.

 

[Katzpur]

I would be very surprised If a large majority Mormons, like other Christians, do not worship God. however they see Jesus as his Son. and as such part of the Godhead. This is not the same as a Trinitarian View of the Trinity, as expressed in the Apostles creed.

Just for purposes of clarification, we Mormons to pray to God the Father. We do so in the name of the Son, and we believe the Holy Ghost to be the means through which God communicates to us.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But the issue of "orthodoxy" was one that evolved, and we even see in Acts that there was substantial confusion in the early church on many important issues. For example, the concept of the Trinity was hardly a slam-dunk, nor was the issue of the Law as pertaining or not to gentiles spelled out well at all at first.

The creeds were put out largely due to reacting to "heretical" elements, but they came about much later after Jesus died, and the church had already gone through significant changes. I'm not going to get into whether these changes were good or bad-- just that there were many that gradually altered both the nature and added some of the teachings within the early church.

So, it's important for us not to confuse the basic concepts behind what Jesus taught versus reactions to competing groups, and those basic concepts are primarily two: love of God and compassion and justice for all. I'm not saying that these are the only things he taught but that is where his overwhelming ("basic") emphasis was.

See above.

Too broad a statement, and there's times one could have made similar statements against the CC and other Christian groups.

I've been involved within ecumenism for around four decades now, and I will tell ya right now that I've been around some Muslims that I much prefer to be around than some Catholics, some other Christians, and some of my fellow Jews. Since Jesus' main emphasis was on compassion and justice, I do believe a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, ... who tries to practice that is far closer to Jesus than a Christian or fellow Jew who acts like a rabid pit-bull towards others (I'm not implying the latter applies to you or anyone else here at RF, btw).

IOW, I do believe that Jesus was far less concerned about politically-correct dogmatic-theologies than about basic compassion and justice for others, and I do believe Jesus would be especially pleased with those who especially live the latter regardless as to which building they walk into on the weekend.

Heretics are not necessarily wrong. It describes those on the losing side in an argument.
Arianism for instance is still a well understood belief about the Nature of Jesus.

Jesus went to great length to confirm that Love was the greatest commandment, and confirmed that it applied to all people, in the story of the Good Samaritan.
I would go further and say that "Salvation" is not restricted to those with a modern understanding of Christianity but there for all men, who prove their Love.
Jesus never taught anyone how to be a Christian. He taught them how to love God and his creation.

 

[metis]

Heretics are not necessarily wrong. It describes those on the losing side in an argument.

Yes, which is why I put "heretics" and "heresy" in parenthesis.

Jesus went to great length to confirm that Love was the greatest commandment, and confirmed that it applied to all people, in the story of the Good Samaritan.

Agreed.

 

[dianaiad]

You need to look it up in te only place that counts---God's word.



Not true. You just need more knowledge of the Bible.

Where in the bible is the word "Christian" defined?

If someone is not saved, they are not a Christian.

You have referred me to "God's Word" in this post. By that I think I can safely assume you mean the Bible, more specifically, the New Testament, yes?

OK, with that in mind: would you show me where, anywhere in there at all, "Christian" is defined as "one who is saved?"

"Christian," as I have already written, is NOT a stamp of salvation. It's a classification of belief and a very broad classification, at that. In order to get more information ABOUT what the Christian in question actually believes, then the use of adjectives must be employed: "evangelical" Christian; "born again" Christian; "liberal" Christian. The fact that "Christian" has already been broken down into smaller groups, such as "Orthodox" and "Protestant," tells us that nobody really believes that "Christian" means "saved."

Of course, I have often thought that the "no true Scott" fallacy should be renamed the "No True Christian" fallacy, because that's the area in which I see it most used.

Still....you have made the claim. Would mind supporting it?

Show me in the bible where "Christian" is defined as "one who is 'saved."

Show me in the bible where "Christian" is defined AT ALL, except that a group of people were first called that for one reason or another.

 

[Sonny]

Oh goody.
First thing first...
Get Christians to agree on what the word "Christian" means.


I'll wait.

What? The definition of the word 'Christian' was set in stone about 1,600 years ago. It is not my wish not anyone else's right to re-define the word. Since the Bible is a Christian work it becomes the standard of measure for what Christianity is. I'm sorry if you are in a church that has tried to rewrite what Christianity is. But, that is not the fault of Christianity or any real Christian. It is your fault that you didn't fully research some church before joining.
I'll add this. If any church/religion goes against the Bible's teachings, without any proof they should or are right, then it isn't, can't be, a Christian church, by definition. These organizations that leech onto the title Christian (whatever, whoever's church it is) but do not believe or teach what the Bible does are called pseud-Christian churches or cults. They are called such bc they do not follow what Christianity teaches/believes.
I know one church that teaches it didn't get any of its beliefs from any other institution, organization or church. They got their beliefs by revelation and directly from God. Today, bc the world encroached on their little commune, of sorts, they want to be called 'Christian'. No doubt, in my mind, to attract members. I'll post what they actually 'taught' about where they got their belief system and some quotes of what they thought (think?) of Christianity/Christians next.