Rider

There's a big difference between a mortal man with a physical object and a supernatural being with an intangible spiritual blessing/force. Let's say you had the ability to effortlessly transport the quarter to me instantly. Would you still make me come get it? If so, why?Regardless, I wasn't trying to debate this with you. I was just wondering what you guys think it means and if you think it's a good quote to use.

I'm a freelance writer for DemandStudios.com. Writers on the site pick stories from a wide range of topics and write short 'how to' or informational articles. I've written a few articles on religion, like a brief summary of the origin stories from the major world religions. Anyway, I'm working on an article to explain two controversial doctrines between Mormons and Evangelicals. I'm really trying to be as balanced and accurate as possible. I certainly don't agree with some of your doctrines, but I've seen how distorting your beliefs only makes the situation worse. I'd like your help clarifying a quote I found. I'm trying to do a summary of what each group teaches about salvation, and I found this article, LDS.org - Ensign Article - Salvation: By Grace or by Works?. Near the end, it says this: How is a gift free if we have to work for it? Would you say this is a good quote to use? Keep in mind it's a short article, so I can't have too many long quotes.

How can we make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19) without pointing out false teachings? Of course, nothing would happen over night. It would take time to filter down to the basic ways people think of Christians. Nothing we say or do will magically make whole cultures change their mind. This is more an issue of doing the right thing and praying God will work in people's hearts. Muslims wouldn't agree that Jesus is God's son. Does that change how you talk about Jesus?You don't have to re-arrange any language. Wirthlin was taking his definition from the American Heritage Dictionary, "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ and . . . One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus." That sets the bar higher than just saying "I'm a Christian." As I said, the LDS because you believe their doctrine is the true doctrine. I don't know enough about Martyr to know what he would think about specific doctrines, but his quote makes it very clear he wouldn't consider someone Christian based on conflicting key doctrine points. He even instructs other people to take the same stance. I think, for the most part, if someone genuinely believes the right doctrines, they won't have those behavioral problems. And if people are following false doctrines, then they don't have a good foundation and it makes sense they would fall into a sinful lifestyle.

I care because I believe the Bible teaches us to call out false teachers and point out false doctrines. I don't call them Christians just because they say 'I'm a Christian.' One of the problems is the impact it has on people trying to choose what faith to believe in. Have you heard of this quote from Ghandi: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” People of other faiths, or no faith, look at Christians and see people who say one thing and do another. They see the Puritans who taught sex is evil and basically discouraged pleasure, and other "Christians" involved in adultery and homosexuality. They see all that coming from one group, Christians.Wouldn't that problem be easier to deal with if Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, etc., could all agree that being a Christian is about more than just saying "I'm a Christian?" Isn't LDS doctrine "true doctrine?" You said we need a way to classify groups. Those names fit that need. I'm not saying one group should sue another group for misusing 'Christian.' Just don't call people Christian if they're not following Christ's teachings. The Catholic church of the 2nd century is vastly different from the Catholic church of today.You made it sound like newer sects had hijacked 'Christian.' I was just showing how that's not true.

Most of that last post is stuff I haven't talked about yet.

Why do you care what those other groups do? Why should true Christians with the full gospel change how they talk about 'Christian' just because false teachers pop up? False teachers shouldn't get to dictate how truth is discussed or defined.If what I'm saying is true, if two contradictory groups can't both be Christians, then Protestants and Catholics can't both be Christians. They contradict each other on foundational issues like salvation. How so? Doctrine isn't based on preferences. How far are you taking it then? Would the guy with the 'Christian hair' be a Christian just because he says he is? Can someone be a Christian even if they don't believe in Christ at all or any of His teachings? We have plenty of names to classify people. Catholic, Protestant, LDS, agnostic, atheist, Muslim. Wouldn't it be easier to call them all by those names than to lump them all into 'Christian' just because they say they're one?What I'm talking about, this narrow definition of 'Christian,' is not new. It's not an invention of a newer sect. Justin Martyr (early to mid-second century church father) said this: Martyr was using a narrow definition of 'Christian.' He was saying even if people are called 'Christian,' if their doctrine isn't accurate, then they aren't Christians. If there was any hijacking, it sounds like the term was hijacked by the people who insist on using it broadly, not the other way around.

If all you have to do to be a Christian is say 'I'm a Christian,' then isn't the term meaningless? If being a Christian has nothing to do with doctrine, then it has nothing to do with Christ and is just based on people's preferences. If you take this too far, you'll take the Christ out of Christian.Someone could say 'I don't believe Jesus was God and I don't really like his teachings, but I like his hair style. I'll grow out my hair and make it look like Jesus in those paintings. So I'm a Christian.' I don't see how it's a good thing to water down the term like that.

What do you mean?

I think it's a huge leap to compare aggressive proselytizing, like coming out and telling someone you believe they're not following Christ, to the crusades. It may be offensive and over the line at times, but it doesn't force anyone to do anything. I don't see how it could interfere with anyone's agency or freewill. We strongly believe any religious decision must must be a personal choice, or it's probably not a real choice. For instance, I don't believe parents should force their teenagers to go to church. They're old enough to make a religious decision and forcing them to go to church might make them hate church later on.

You don't have to decide. You believe you're heading in the right direction. Ask someone what they believe about some the basics of following Christ. If they're heading in a different direction then you, then it must be wrong. I'm curious, why did you call Mormonism "my right path?" Do you believe it's THE right path, or do you believe it's a path for some people and not for others? I'm concerned people in all faiths contrary to mine are headed in the wrong direction, and we also believe strongly in prayer. But that doesn't mean we should sit back and hope those other people find the right path. Christ commanded us to go into all nations, not pray that they'll get it right. I don't go to forums to just see a few responses to my questions. I go to have a discussion, to get a better idea of how you think.

I'm not talking about being perfect. There's no way we could completely stop sinning. I'm talking about accurately following Christ. If you're accurately following Him, you may not be perfect, but at least you're going in the right direction. However, if you're not accurately following Him, then you're not heading in the right direction.

Why does striving to following Christ equal following Christ? Striving isn't the same as doing. If you're striving to do something, you may or may not actually do it. Even if Wirthlin can't respond, I would still love to hear what someone else from the church has to say about this.

Yes, I agree. So if one group is wrong about how to follow Christ, what are they following? If they're not follow Christ, are they still Christian There are a variety of reasons. For one, I recently graduated college with a journalism degree and I enjoy writing about religious topics. Talking about stuff like this is a good way to get a better idea of what Mormons believe and how they think. Plus, I like debates anyway. I would word it more like 'the thread is about how broad the term Christian is.' If I wanted to argue Mormons aren't Christian, I would quote various Bible verses and show why I believe LDS doctrine contradicts them. But I haven't done that.

Yes, I believe that. But the thread is only about the bolded part, nothing else.

My point with this thread is discuss the question of whether or not LDS and Protestants can both be Christian. It was never meant to prove LDS aren't Christian, or anything like that.

What have I said that makes you think that?

I agree with that, a Christian is one who follows Christ. Let's say Christ taught we must do A to follow Him, but some people are trying to follow Him by doing B. What are those people following? It doesn't matter how much people believe they're following Christ, if they're not doing what Christ taught, they're not following Him. Is it possible for someone to believe they're following Christ when they're actually following false teachings? How can you follow both at the same time? No, it's not a random question because it's happened many times. There are many websites and articles that claim Mormons aren't Christians.Yes, they have asked God and compared your teachings to what they see in the Bible. They see you doctrines contradicting Christ's teachings of how to follow Him.

I believe baptism is important, but not required for the remission of sins. Yes, I those other two are required to be a Christian.I believe Christ taught we need to have faith in Him, and Him alone, to pay for our sins and get us to heaven with God. Any belief that adds in a requirement to work or obey in order to go to heaven with God corrupts that faith because it means we're trusting in our own abilities, and not on Christ alone. I believe working and obeying should be done completely out of love for God, not because we have to in order to get to some level of heaven. Do you believe Christ taught that? Where do you get that definition? What do you base your position on?What would you say to someone who says they don't believe your a Christian? Do you understand that claim isn't doubting your faith in Christ, but rather saying your gospel is incomplete? So if someone tells you they're a Christian, but they don't believe Christ was God, what do say to them? Do you tell them your church has the fullness of the gospel, in essence telling them you believe their view is wrong?

Yes, I agree with the definition Wirthlin gave, part of which says a Christian is someone who acts 'in harmony with the Savior’s teachings.' What do you believe are the saviors teachings? I'm asking why your position makes sense to you.And I'm not a troll. I'm not here to cause trouble or arguments. I'm asking a question about an issue that has caused many misunderstandings.

It's not the answer to my question because I wasn't asking 'Do Mormons believe non-Mormons can be Christians.' I already knew they believe that. I was asking 'How can two groups that contradict each other on the fundamentals of Christ's teachings both be Christians.' So what are his teachings? No, Wirthlin made it very clear he believes 'acknowledging a Savior' includes believing Jesus was God's Son and atoned for our sins.But that doesn't answer the question. Do you believe someone has to believe Christ is the Son of God to be Christian?

Is believing Christ is the Son of God required to be Christian? Is believing He rose from the dead required?

I don't think that's a good comparison. Most Americans because they were born in America. No one is born a Christian. No one is saying an infallible, all knowing, all powerful god wrote a book telling people how to be an American. But Christianity is based on a book like that. I've talked with some people who are following Christ's teachings as best as they can, but they don't believe Christ is the Son of God or rose from the dead. Are those people Christian?

If you're fundamentals are right, then the Nazarene's fundamentals are wrong. Don't you believe your fundamentals are right? Is so, what wrong with saying the logical conclusion, that those contradicting your fundamentals would be wrong. You're right, they can't all be complete. What I'm saying goes for all those groups as well. If Quakers and Pentecostals contradict each other on the fundamentals of Christ's teachings, then at least one isn't a Christian.

Baptism is just the example I'm using. I'm not talking about whether or not baptism is required for salvation. I'm asking how two people can both be following Christ when they disagree about that. I could also use 'grace' or 'works' as examples.If 2 denominations disagree on the fundamentals, then at least one of them is not Christian. I'm saying a Christian isn't just someone who says they're following Christ. A Christian is someone who is actually following Christ. If that say they're a Christian, but they're not following his teachings, then they're not a Christian. Is there something wrong with saying that? Here is my point: How can two groups who contradict each other on the fundamentals, the basics of Christ's teachings both be Christian?

Then how can you say the LDS church is the only church with the full gospel? Is that a man-made value judgment to say other gospels are incomplete?When someone says Mormons aren't Christian, they are saying the LDS gospel is incomplete. If you can say other gospels are incomplete, can't other people say the same about yours? I'm fully aware of that time line. What do you believe this passage is talking about? We believe that's talking about a period when Paul was taken into Paradise and taught directly by Christ.