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

[Sonny]

First off I want to say, when I use CAPS I am not screaming. I mean it as 'emphasis' or something very important that should not be missed. If any have issues with that I will not use them again. Most of my files have some caps in them. I want to apologize (Sorry) now if it is offensive. It is not meant to be- unless one is offended that I've posted beliefs they would rather not have 'out there'. We are talking about truth, not feelings.

In their own words...
"We are situated differently from any other people under the face of the heavens. There is no people, no government, no kingdom, no assembly of people, civil, religious, political, or otherwise, that enjoy the blessings that we are in possession of this day;" (JoD 11:217)
And,
“As it regards our religious status, we feel just the same in relation to that (do our duty, obey our leaders, and maintain our integrity before God- p.217), for everything is connected with our religion and our God. We are not indebted to any church in existence for the position which we occupy, nor for the intelligence we are in possession of. We have no need to trace our authority through the Popes, or through any other medium, we care nothing about them. We do not need either to go to Rome or to the Greek Church to find out whether we are right or wrong, where our religion commenced, and whether we are placed on the right or on the wrong foundation.

We are not under the necessity of searching the Jewish records, or any other records, in relation to these matters. We are not indebted to any of the schools, academies, or systems of divinity, or theology, or any of the religious systems extant, nor to any of the heathen nations. There is no nation, people, kingdom, government; NO RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL AUTHORITY OF ANY KIND THAT IS OF AN EARTHLY NATURE, THAT WE HAVE TO GO TO IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER.

WE DISCLAIM THE WHOLE OF THEM; CLAIM NO AFFINITY TO ANY OF THEM; ARE NOT OF THEM OR FROM THEM; AND, CONSEQUENTLY, SO FAR AS THEY ARE CONCERNED, WE ARE PERFECTLY INDEPENDENT OF THEM. OUR RELIGION CAME GOD; IT IS A REVELATION FROM THE MOST HIGH; it is that everlasting Gospel which John saw an angel bring to be preached in all the earth, and to every people, nation, kindred, and tongue, crying with a loud voice, fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come.

Then God is the author of our religion; He has REVEALED IT FROM THE HEAVENS; he has sent His holy angels for that purpose, who communicated it to Joseph Smith and others. Having restored the everlasting Gospel, He has sent it forth to all the world, and those men who have delivered that Gospel to us have received it by revelation directly from God, and have been ordained by that authority. If God had not spoken, if the heavens have not been opened, if the angels of God have not appeared then we have no religion- it is all a farce; for as I have said before WE CLAIM NO KINDRED, NO AFFINITY, OR RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM-GOD FORBID THAT WE SHOULD, WE DO NOT WANT IT. This, then, is the platform we stand; this is the position that we occupy before God; for this is God’s work that we are engaged in.” (JoD 11:218).

“We are not associated with them; our interest is not bound up with them; they have nothing which we can sustain. … Is there a religious society under the heavens that we are indebted to for any ideas or intelligence which we possess? NOT ONE. Is there any priest in Christiandom that has helped us forward in the least in our religious career? Not one.” (JoD 11:219).
Clearly, this church wanted nothing to do with Christianity or any other known religion/church. And, just as clearly, they had nothing in common with the others whether teachings, practice or beliefs.

Next will be a few quotes they made about Christianity/Christians.

 

[dianaiad]

snip all the Journal of Discourses quotes

Next will be a few quotes they made about Christianity/Christians.

You ARE aware, are you not, that the Journal of Discourses is not one of our standard works, is not scripture, and does not contain doctrine? The Journal of Discourses is a collection of speeches made by different leaders, taken down by someone in the audience, sent to England for publication, and that none of the speakers had the opportunity to go over them for content and accuracy?

The antis love the Journal of Discourses, elevating it to the level of Catholic 'Tradition' or the Bible in determining what the 'church really teaches.'

In reality it is a collection of individual speeches, some by VERY 'blood and thunder' pulpit pounders (BY was a really good example of that) who took their audience and the local circumstances very seriously, and addressed those.

In other words, they do NOT establish church doctrine or policy, or indeed anything but the individual opinion of the speakers.

They ARE fun to read. They ARE informative as to the mindset and history of the time and place. What they are NOT, is church doctrine, policy or belief.

.......................and you can absolutely depend that any Mormon who sees a JoD quote from an opponent who is attempting to tell us what we 'really' think/believe is going to roll eyes and think 'here we go again.....'

Sheesh.

 

[Katzpur]

You ARE aware, are you not, that the Journal of Discourses is not one of our standard works, is not scripture, and does not contain doctrine?

I've told Sonny that several times, but he has replied that he doesn't care. As far as he's concerned, if he can find something in print somewhere, that's good enough. If he can use it to turn people against us, the end justifies the means. It's as simple as that.

.......................and you can absolutely depend that any Mormon who sees a JoD quote from an opponent who is attempting to tell us what we 'really' think/believe is going to roll eyes and think 'here we go again.....'

But you and I don't really know what's Mormon doctrine and what's not, dianaiad. That's why we have people like Sonny to educate us.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

It seems to me that the very fact that this question can be asked suggests that God is a VERY poor communicator. Not only do different religions disagree on who/what God is, but even those within the same religion can't seem to agree.

 

[McBell]

"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.

Again, says you.
Since all you are doing is parroting a dictionary...
Do you even know who it is you declare has the authority to make said definition?
And no, "the dictionary" is not an answer any more than "GodDidIt" is an answer.
Dictionaries have editors, publishers, etc.


What happens if next week all the dictionaries change their definitions of "Christian" to something you disagree with?
Are you still going to claim "the dictionary" as the final authority of what makes a Christian a Christian?

 

[McBell]

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.

ROTFLMAO

You assume way to much.

Perhaps you could actually address the point you so sloppily attempted to avoid?

 

[dianaiad]

Again, says you.
Since all you are doing is parroting a dictionary...
Do you even know who it is you declare has the authority to make said definition?
And no, "the dictionary" is not an answer any more than "GodDidIt" is an answer.
Dictionaries have editors, publishers, etc.


What happens if next week all the dictionaries change their definitions of "Christian" to something you disagree with?
Are you still going to claim "the dictionary" as the final authority of what makes a Christian a Christian?

Insofar as it tells us how it is used mostly by English speakers, yes. I explained this. Dictionaries do not dictate the meanings of words. They report on the meanings. In academia it's called 'prescriptive' vs. 'descriptive.'

What dictionaries do NOT do is prescribe what a word must mean. it DESCRIBES how everybody uses it. You ask me what I would do if the dictionary changed the definition of a word to one I didn't like?

Well, I rather resent the way everybody has changed the definition of "gay" to the point that one of my favorite Christmas songs couldn't be sung or played in my high school classrooms because of the s******ing. There's just something about "Don we now our gay apparel" that has a whole different connotation nowdays. I miss the old one...but I don't get to define it. Everybody ELSE did, when the word evolved.

So, if you folks can get enough people together so that everybody...every English speaker, that is...identifies "Christian" as "he who believes exactly what Mestemia does" well, then I'll put up with it because I'll have been outvoted.

Until then?

YOU are committing a fallacy by insisting that only those who absolutely agree with you can be 'real' Christians. It's called the "true Scott' fallacy.

...and Mestemia? YOUR definition isn't going to take over the world. Sorry. You really need to settle for figuring that you are saved and that everybody you disagree with is going to hell. You don't need to hit 'em over the head with it as well.

....................and remember: he whom one would persecute one must first make 'other."

So....why is it so important to you to throw everybody who doesn't agree with you under the bus?

 

[McBell]

Insofar as it tells us how it is used mostly by English speakers, yes. I explained this. Dictionaries do not dictate the meanings of words. They report on the meanings. In academia it's called 'prescriptive' vs. 'descriptive.'

What dictionaries do NOT do is prescribe what a word must mean. it DESCRIBES how everybody uses it. You ask me what I would do if the dictionary changed the definition of a word to one I didn't like?

Well, I rather resent the way everybody has changed the definition of "gay" to the point that one of my favorite Christmas songs couldn't be sung or played in my high school classrooms because of the s******ing. There's just something about "Don we now our gay apparel" that has a whole different connotation nowdays. I miss the old one...but I don't get to define it. Everybody ELSE did, when the word evolved.

So, if you folks can get enough people together so that everybody...every English speaker, that is...identifies "Christian" as "he who believes exactly what Mestemia does" well, then I'll put up with it because I'll have been outvoted.

Until then?

YOU are committing a fallacy by insisting that only those who absolutely agree with you can be 'real' Christians. It's called the "true Scott' fallacy.

...and Mestemia? YOUR definition isn't going to take over the world. Sorry. You really need to settle for figuring that you are saved and that everybody you disagree with is going to hell. You don't need to hit 'em over the head with it as well.

....................and remember: he whom one would persecute one must first make 'other."

So....why is it so important to you to throw everybody who doesn't agree with you under the bus?

rotflmao

Strike a nerve did I?


Please be so kind as to reveal to me my definition?
then please be so kind as to ask Katzpur how I define Christian.

I have not committed a fallacy.
I never once said nor even implied that my definition is the end all be all definition.
No idea why you would go there, to be honest about it.

However, it still remains that according to you, no one but the dictionary has the authority to define Christian.
Though I can see that perhaps maybe you are claiming it is not the authority of the dictionary, but the authority of the people...
Interesting how that does not help your claim either given you claimed that NO ONE has the authority to change the definition of Christian... but the PEOPLE who set the standard as claimed by the dictionary.


I do find it comical how you so over aggressively attacked your strawmen.
straight whooped its ***, I must say.

Now if you would like to get back on topic, please be so kind as to let me know.

 

[Katzpur]

...and Mestemia? YOUR definition isn't going to take over the world. Sorry. You really need to settle for figuring that you are saved and that everybody you disagree with is going to hell. You don't need to hit 'em over the head with it as well.

Actually, Mestemia isn't even a Christian and I don't think he's ever given much thought to whether he or anyone else is "saved" or not. Having clarified that, I can definitely say that, for the most part, I'm pretty much on the same page as you are. I think that when a word has the potential to cause emotions to flare to the extent the word "Christian" does, there is probably no better way to settle the argument that by going to the dictionary, which is probably more objective than any of us are.

 

[Watchmen]

Reading through several pages of this thread it's clear there's a lot of disagreement and controversy, which suggests it's not settled what a "Christian" is. So, if Mormons want to identify as Christian who are we to argue? They believe in Christ, they talk of Christ, the follow Christ. Seriously, folks. What more is needed?

 

[McBell]

Actually, Mestemia isn't even a Christian and I don't think he's ever given much thought to whether he or anyone else is "saved" or not. Having clarified that, I can definitely say that, for the most part, I'm pretty much on the same page as you are. I think that when a word has the potential to cause emotions to flare to the extent the word "Christian" does, there is probably no better way to settle the argument that by going to the dictionary, which is probably more objective than any of us are.

I suspect it is actually not as easy as that:

Merriam Webster

Dictionary.com

Wikipedia

Oxford

Learners

Cambridge​

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, Mestemia isn't even a Christian and I don't think he's ever given much thought to whether he or anyone else is "saved" or not. Having clarified that, I can definitely say that, for the most part, I'm pretty much on the same page as you are. I think that when a word has the potential to cause emotions to flare to the extent the word "Christian" does, there is probably no better way to settle the argument that by going to the dictionary, which is probably more objective than any of us are.

Ah, I see.

All right...Mestemia, I owe you an apology. I will say this, however: 99% of the time, when someone gets aggressive and challenges my definition of "Christian" (which is the dictionary definition) and tells me that I don't have the authority to define it, the aggressive one is an 'evangelical' Christian whose definition includes a list of 'must believes' which just happen to march along with his own.

I don't think I've ever had someone who was not a Christian...even by the very broad and loose one the dictionary uses...give me grief about it.

As for going to the dictionary....where else would one go to find the definition of an English word?

Now, if anybody were to ask me what the definition of "True Religion" is, or "correct beliefs,' or "What Jesus REALLY taught," they would get an entirely different answer. ')

 

[omega2xx]

Where in the bible is word "Christian" defined?

Jn 3:16 - ...whoever believes in Him(Jesus) has eternal life. That defines 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?

I also include the OT.

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

I just did. There are many more, but if you don't accept that one, you will not accept the others.

"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."

It does in conservative Christianity.

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.

A Christian is one who believes in Jesus. It is as simple as that. IMO, you don't understand the Bible well enough or you would know the definition.

 

[Katzpur]

I suspect it is actually not as easy as that:

Merriam Webster

Dictionary.com

Wikipedia

Oxford

Learners

Cambridge​

Okay, so I oversimplified. But I doubt the various dictionaries in the world would vary all that much in their definitions, not anywhere near as much as we humans do.

 

[dianaiad]

Jn 3:16 - ...whoever believes in Him(Jesus) has eternal life. That defines a Christian.



I also include the OT.



I just did. There are many more, but if you don't accept that one, you will not accept the others.



It does in conservative Christianity.




A Christian is one who believes in Jesus. It is as simple as that. IMO, you don't understand the Bible well enough or you would know the definition.

Well, I believe that I pretty much DID define a "Christian" as someone who believes in Jesus, didn't I?

(thinking) yes, I do believe I did. I DID also add the 'and claims to be a Christian" to that, because, well...all sorts of people believe in Jesus who don't claim to be Christian. Muslims also believe in Jesus. Not quite the way Christians do, of course, but they do believe in Him. They don't even have problems with the virgin birth. They DO, if I have their beliefs right (and I may not) have problems with the crucifixion/resurrection, but they believe He existed and might even have been the Jewish Messiah.

Again, I COULD have that wrong. Any Muslim reading this who wants to correct me, feel free. I would be grateful. They don't put His teachings at the center of their belief system, though, and they do NOT claim to be Christian.

As to your reference to scripture...I surely did not see the word 'Christian' in there anywhere.

The NT has several letters in it written by apostles to erring churches who were beginning to stray from the 'straight and narrow,' so to speak. In other words, their beliefs weren't, quite, correct. Yet they were....as the disciples of Christ were 'first called Christian' in Antioch (Acts 11:26)...called 'Christian" themselves. So...believing in Jesus is important. Being RIGHT about those beliefs? Not so much. Not to be "Christian."

All that does is mention that other people decided to call this particular group "Christians." Who knows why? Did they call THEMSELVES that? Or, as happened with the Mormons, was the word first applied to them in an extremely mocking manner meant to denigrate and demean, but which was adopted by those followers of Christ as a sort of 'badge of honor?'

That's what happened, with the Baptists, Lutherans, Quakers, the Shakers and the Mormons, come to think of it. It seems a fairly common thing to do, for the despised minority to grab a mocking and supposedly demeaning appellation and turn it around and flaunt it. Certainly the only other two times it was used in the NT, it WAS used in a manner that more than hinted at its demeaning origin.

What the NT does NOT do is associate "Christian" with salvation...or even to believing the 'correct things' about Jesus.

"Christian" means, as you have just indicated, that someone puts the teachings of Jesus ('believes in Jesus") at the center of his belief system, and claims the classification.

Anything else? "True Christian" territory.

 

[McBell]

All right...Mestemia, I owe you an apology.

Accepted

I will say this, however: 99% of the time, when someone gets aggressive and challenges my definition of "Christian" (which is the dictionary definition) and tells me that I don't have the authority to define it, the aggressive one is an 'evangelical' Christian whose definition includes a list of 'must believes' which just happen to march along with his own.

Truth be told, I agree with the definition you presented.
I never made any claims of it being "right" or "Wrong".
I never made any claims of who has what authority or lack of.
I merely was pointing out that you contradicted yourself.

I don't think I've ever had someone who was not a Christian...even by the very broad and loose one the dictionary uses...give me grief about it.

It is not the definition I was pointing out.
It is the inconsistency you present concerning said authority.

As for going to the dictionary....where else would one go to find the definition of an English word?

I have found that words like "Christian", "God", "spirit", "soul", it is best to learn what the user of the word means by it.

Now, if anybody were to ask me what the definition of "True Religion" is, or "correct beliefs,' or "What Jesus REALLY taught," they would get an entirely different answer. ')

My experience has been that problems arise when people think their religion is the one true religion for every one, not just them.

 

[McBell]

Okay, so I oversimplified. But I doubt the various dictionaries in the world would vary all that much in their definitions, not anywhere near as much as we humans do.

I prefer to learn from the one using the word what they mean by it.
Less likely to get into a side tangent over dictionaries.

 

[Katzpur]

I prefer to learn from the one using the word what they mean by it.
Less likely to get into a side tangent over dictionaries.

But if I tell you what a Christian is, and if Sonny tells you what a Christian is, it seems to me that all you're really learning about the word is that we can't agree what it means. Maybe we're both completely wrong about it. How are you personally going to make any kind of a determination as to what the word really means? Or do you see it as a word that really can't be defined?

 

[McBell]

But if I tell you what a Christian is, and if Sonny tells you what a Christian is, it seems to me that all you're really learning about the word is that we can't agree what it means. Maybe we're both completely wrong about it. How are you personally going to make any kind of a determination as to what the word really means? Or do you see it as a word that really can't be defined?

What is the reason for learning what the word means?
Is it not to better understand what the person using the word is saying?

In this case it matters not if each person who uses the word means something different by it.
As you will know what is meant by each person when they use the word.

 

[Katzpur]

What is the reason for learning what the word means?
Is it not to better understand what the person using the word is saying?

I'd have to say that depends upon the word we're talking about. In terms of the word "Christian," you're probably right. In case of other, less subjective words, a definition people can all (or mostly all) agree on is pretty essential for us to be able to communicate effectively with one another.