Rider

To be clear, when I talk about Christ's teachings, I'm including Paul's letters and other NT books. Jesus taught Paul and Paul expanded on Christ's teachings in the Gospels. Do you consider all of the teachings in Paul's books as fundamental as baptism? Are there any teachings more fundamental, more foundational than others?

Christ never said he expects us to follow Him perfectly. We just need to follow the fundamentals of his teachings. Do you believe baptism for the remission of sins is one of the fundamentals?

When I talk about this, I make sure I word it like 'the fundamentals of Christ's teachings.' Many churches disagree about end times theology, creation and what type of songs we should sing in church, but those aren't part of the fundamentals of Christ's teachings. So two people can disagree on those issues and still both be following Christ.Yes, if Catholics and Baptists disagree on the fundamentals, then they can't both be Christians. The same goes for all those groups.

Yes, it is a man-made word. But the definition of that word includes 'following Christ's teachings.' So it points to something that isn't man-made.

To be clear, I'm not saying Mormons aren't Christian. That's not my point. Most LDS say we're both Christians, but I don't see how that's possible. How can two groups who contradict each other on the fundamentals of Christ's teachings both be Christian? How can they both be following Christ when they're beliefs are going down different paths?

No, that's not it at all. You want us to respect and learn from each other? Well, it seems pretty clear that hasn't been happening very much and it's partially due to this issue.I've seen many LDS respond to claims by saying 'Of course we're Christian. We have Christ in the name of our church.' Or they quote this passage: 'And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ.' BYU professors Daniel C. Peterson, and Stephen D. Ricks wrote the book 'Offenders for a Word' as a response to the claim. They spend most of the book talking about how Evangelicals have changed the definition of Christian to fit their claim. None of these responses address the original claim. So what do you want me to do? Should I abandon my convictions about what it means to be a Christian? Should I avoid all contact with LDS church members? Or should I do what I can to clear up misunderstandings and maybe prevent some arguments. This isn't about baptism. This is about what is required to be a Christian.

I wanted to talk about this issue because I've seen many cases of LDS getting annoyed, or even offended, when they hear claims that Mormons aren't Christians. From what I've seen, many of those problems are caused by unclear wording from the Protestant side and misunderstandings on the LDS side. So I want to talk to you guys about it to get a better idea of how to word things as well as help clear up any misunderstandings you may have. But you do say the LDS church is the only church with the full gospel. When people claim Mormons aren't Christians, they're making the same basic claim as you do when you say you're the only church with the full gospel. They're not saying you don't have faith in Christ and they're not saying you're not trying to follow Him. They're saying your gospel is missing some essential elements. I'm not trying to deceive you at all. I just want to get a better understanding of what you believe about being a Christian.How can two groups who contradict each other on the basics of Christ's teachings both be Christians? How can they both be following Christ when they're beliefs are going down different paths?

How many times have you heard or read something claiming Mormons aren't Christians? Out of those, how many insist Mormons stop calling themselves Christians? I haven't read any that do so.When you say you believe the LDS church is the only church with full gospel, are you insisting I leave my church and join yours? What about atheists, agnostics, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc.? Do you butt in and tell them about what you believe?

Why does the existence of disagreements matter so much? Many people disagree about whether or not God exists at all, but we don't change the definitions of our belief because of that. Just because two people disagree about Christ's teachings doesn't change the fact that they can't both be right. At least one of us is not acting in harmony with the Savior's teachings. If you are in harmony, then I wouldn't be. Is there something wrong with acknowledging that? Right, Wirthlin did list two standards, but then he listed the four principles of the gospels as part of those two standards. For instance, he said baptism for the remission of sins is part of acting in harmony with the Savior's teachings. Do you agree with that? If not, then what are the Savior's teachings and how do we act in harmony with them?

Do you agree with Wirthlin's definition? "Thus two characteristics identify Christians: (1) they profess belief in a Savior, and (2) they act in harmony with the Savior’s teachings." Does someone have to do those to be a Christian? If not, what is required to be a Christian?

I'll rephrase my question. Do you believe Jesus taught baptism is required for the remission of sins? If so, do you believe following that teaching is required to be a Christian? If so, how could I be a Christian since I don't believe that?

Let's look at his article again. Here is the full paragraph with the definition: Wirthlin sums up the definition in two words, 'belief' and 'action'. He spends the rest of the article backing up that last sentence. The next section is called, 'Our Profession of Belief,' which has the first principle. The second section is called 'How We Live Our Lives.' He brings the definition back up by saying this: He then describes that living and acting by listing the other three principles. So, according to the article, the only way to live and act according to the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ, is to follow those principles.If this is true, how can I be a Christian?

Wirthlin starts off the article buy saying, "Some people erroneously believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members are not Christian. We have difficulty understanding why anyone could accept and promote an idea that is so far from the truth." I doesn't sound like he's just talking about your version of Christianity. He never makes a distinction between different versions of Christianity. If he was saying 'This is what our version of Christianity is,' then it would make sense. But he seems to be saying 'This is what a Christian is.' So if it's required, then wouldn't that mean I'm not a Christian because I haven't been baptized for the remission of my sins?

I'm a Protestant and I've always been interested in learning about other faiths. After talking with some LDS, I wanted to do more research and I found an article by Elder Joseph Wirthlin, LDS.org - Ensign Article - Christians in Belief and Action The article was helpful in some ways, but also very confusing. I'll give you a few quotes to explain. I completely agree with that definition and statement.Wirthlin then goes on to list the four principles of the gospel, which show how LDS are Christians according to that definition. I also believe the first and second principle of the gospel he lists, which are 'faith in the Lord Jesus Christ' and 'repentance.' Here are the third and forth principles: I don't believe in either of those principles. According to Wirthlin's definition, I'm not a Christian.Do you agree with Wirthlin that those principles are essential to being a Christian? If so, do you believe I can be a Christian if I don't follow some of those principles?