mordorbund

I'm intentionally creating hypothetical religions so that we can still remain respectful of other religions in discussing this. There's plenty of LDS on this board that would prefer to be recognized as Christians and I think we should grant other religions the same privilege - especially those that aren't represented. I noticed you didn't answer the question. What is theologically required for a religion to be Christian? Must they believe in the divinity of Christ? The Trinity? or perhaps just accepting that Jesus is a spiritual Savior? What if he's just a temporal or moral Savior?

I notice in this thread there have been some diplomatic posts essentially stating that we can't decide if a person is a "Christian" - someone who truly follows Christ; that is something that only Christ can judge. Fair enough. I think of that as the trivial solution. What I'm wondering about is the belief system (and I think that was the point of this thread as well). If we take the creeds and tenets of a particular faith, what must be present for that system (or church) to be considered Christian? Even if it meets the minimum requirements, is there something that can make it fall out (like my previous social cult)?

So it turns out that Rhode Island is neither an island nor an independent nation, so my social cult got shut down pretty quickly. I have formed another group, with completely different beliefs from the previous one. There's no weird practices, rites liturgies to frighten outsiders. We believe in God in a strictly monotheistic sense. His greatest desire for us is to socially progress towards harmony and unity on a global scale. This is achieved through "mutual ethical enlightenment". That is, the more individuals become "ethically enlightened", the more they'll behave in ways that does the most good for society. A person receives more enlightenment the more they partake of the divine nature of God (it is the heavenly gift). For the sake of this conversation, we do believe that Jesus was fully divine by the time he was baptized (at that time God accepts him as his Son). We reverence Jesus as the greatest example of ethical enlightenment and strive to be like him. We would like to build a communal society that helps us to practice the level of charity he taught and showed in his life, but we are by no means cut off from the outside world. We are not a social cult. Are we Christian. We believe in Jesus. We believe him to be "divine". Is that enough?

I'm afraid this interpretation still condems Joseph, just not in the way lazy anti tracts would have us believe.

I will point out that just seeing the Father and Son in the grove is not what pushes us away from believing in the Trinity. Many on this thread agree that they are 3 persons because of similar evidences with the baptism of Jesus. It's not until D&C 130 that we deviate with the Father having a body of flesh and bones. And I suspect we could probably fight our way past John's "no man has seen the Father at any time", by arguing he was right, back then. We moved away from the Trinity doctrine, not because of what Joseph saw (the Father and the Son standing together), but because of what he heard - "they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt". The closest thing we have to a Godhead creed would be excerpts from D&C 20: And even this doesn't really expose the relationship of the Godhead with each other, how there are 3 distinct "personages", but one God. I would submit that their oneness is more than just unity of will; that it is truly a "mystery" - something that can only be known through revelation. Without that revelation, we are left to split hairs over "ousia" and "purpose", but with that revelation we can just say "they are one" and there will be no ambiguity.

Don't forget that the last book in the Bible has been titled "Revelation of St John the Divine" :)

Just a reminder of the original topic... You might want to post that in its own thread so you don't derail this nostalgic food thread.

I was specifically thinking of the snake handlers when I posted, but thought I'd escalate just to see how inclusive we would be. Depending on who the conversation was with (most of these conversations happen with my Indian coworkers), I might concede the Christianity of this hypothetical group, but I would have to add some of my own commentary or disclaimer. "I can see where they get some of their stuff from, but I don't think Jesus taught us to kill to be saved. I also don't think they'll survive as a religion unless they mellow out." If I was talking with another Christian, I would probably say that they aren't Christian (for reasons that I'll post later when I form a second cult, I mean religion). I think any public associations would only be a loose one. If they only had the fire-walking aspect, I don't think that would necessarily be problematic. Again, though, I'd probably put in a disclaimer in conversation, "They're Christian, just a bit wilder than what I'm used to." I wonder if that kind of a stance would still be offensive though.

Nah, I'm not looking for converts. I stated earlier that this group claims to follow biblical teachings and I'm willing to just leave it at that. I'm looking for where people are comfortable with drawing the Christian line. PrisonChaplain has been pretty open about his stance in the past and where he sees the line graying. I was hoping to hear from those that generously classify any group that claims to follow Jesus as Christians. I can see where as LDS we would want that to apply, but there is a point where you can be so inclusive that the term becomes meaningless.

Don't worry so much about the legalities, we've collected enough tithing to have a small island-nation (we call it "Mt Zion"). You've both dropped the "cult" bomb on me, so let's clarify a bit. I'm assuming that since you're calling us a cult, you also mean we're not Christian. I'm not hearing any theological complaints, so it must be our bizarre practices. Is it just the morally-reprehensible child sacrifice (and again, not everyone has to do it)? or are we still a non-Christian cult with the baptism of fire? No one has ever died performing this rite. Is it just too "wierd" to be Christian? is that actually a criterion we want on the table (I think you can both provide arguments for why we wouldn't really want that as a metric)?

Whoa, whoa, WHOA!! How do you explain THIS?

conAllow me to break the spirit of Godwin's law and propose an extreme. I have founded a religion on the teachings of Jesus Christ. We hold the Bible to be the word of God; we believe in the Trinity as well. We'll leave the grace/works debate out for the moment (maybe we're more works-based, you'll see why). Some of our customs are admittedly a bit different. Just as baptism is a symbol of birth for when you're born again, so is the baptism of fire a symbol of final purification mirroring our death ritual. To receive the Holy Spirit, you walk across hot coals between two walls of fire. This also symbolized the death of the sinner for us because we burn our dead. This has gotten us in hot water with some other Christians in the past because they like to compare this to having our children pass through the fires of Molech and such, but we feel there's enough justification for the practice. The practice that gives us the most trouble centers in our beliefs about family. We believe in strict celibacy as practiced by Jesus and Paul ("follow me as I follow Christ", and "follow me"). Those that do marry are to sanctify their family by crucifying their first-born (matters not if it's boy or girl). The celibate often compare their godly walk with that of Jesus'. The sacrifants experience a godly walk similar to the Father's. Both are considered saved. Anyway, we consider ourselves Christians, and it sounds like your definitions include us as well (if anything, we're even MORE Christian, since we follow Christ's life a lot more closely - maybe a debate saved for another day). We've decided to host a Christian fellowship and brotherhood conference and invite our fellow Christians to join us and celebrate how much we have in common. Is your Church represented as fellow-Christians? or are we too "other" to be considered in the same basket?

WHOA!!! Are you serious? The earth just crazy shrunk and your first thought is of the moon? How's about what the devil shrunk the earth? Did it also shrink everything on the earth? I certainly hope so, because I can't solve this if I'm only breathing space-vacuum.If I do survive, the moon is still 3,476 km. Apparently only the earth shrunk. I'm glad you added that note to clarify how the shrink ray works. In fact, I'm starting to suspect that it's based on the moon (Bond villain maybe? Marvin the Martian?). Refer to Lizzy's post for the numbers, but I'm concerned that such a sudden change in distance is actually projecting the earth towards a lunar collision! Further shrinkage? Send out the space marines to destroy that moon base. Once again, we are fortunate that only the sun was shrunk and not the basketball-earth. Lizzy has the exact numbers, but we now have a basketball-earth launched at a basketball sun. This should get addressed immediately. I propose the Justice League of America. Thank heaven that the distance has been restored. Superman, our worlds thank you. I'm afraid light can only travel to school and back until he gets his head on straight. So probably ~20 miles, a few blocks at a time. A few seconds, but due to the laws of Relativity, it always feel faster coming back (unless the moon is a popular tourist destination, and everyone's leaving at once). Uh, are we still on a basketball-planet? Cuz it's gonna be a cold year if our light is still from the basketball-sun 93 million miles away. Not because of how long it takes the light to get here, but because of the amount of coverage. I won't even answer this propoganda question so long as Pluto does not have a voice on the solar council of planets. Who do you think you are to kick Pluto out of the club without giving her a chance to defend herself (yes, Pluto is a girl. I guess you should have looked into that before naming her). You apparently don't think Mercurial beings should be in charge of your so-called rational decisions. And yet with no Plutonian representation you've given them the boot. Maybe you deserve to be moon shrunk.

PrisonChaplain, I think you're coffee maker is broken. It runs water through a filter and it comes out brown. You might want to have that looked at.

Seems a little suspicious that with Provo's need for another temple the tabernacle conveniently burns down. Mighty suspicious indeed. I'll make it a point to be at the groundbreaking looking for the culprit with the shifty eyes.

Oh, and there have been numerous threads about the LDS perspective on the cross, and some historical background. LDS Social Network Forums - Search Results

Most Temples are illuminated to remind us of the light of the world; have fountains to remind us of the source of the wellspring of eternal life; have a baptistry where we symbollically die and are resurrected with Christ; bestow tokens as symbols of Jesus' death on the cross; contain other symbols of the triumph of the Atonement. I don't see the problem with adding another symbol to remind us of Christ and the Atonement.

Of all the responses, I think the Priesthood-as-a-government-body may be the best. My problem with it is that I don't know what business is officially supposed to happen there that isn't already done elsewhere. Keeping track of ordinations and baptisms (as outlined in D&C 20) are now handled via MLS. The solemn assembly where we sustain a new Prophet on a per quorum basis is done in a general session. Any idea what business should be transacted in the Priesthood meeting?

Motives aside, Satan and his host provide us with an example of intelligences not giving honor to God. Did that make God less-powerful? Does that honor then go to whoever the intelligence offers it? or is it lost forever? How many intelligences must give God honor in order for Him to maintain His glory? If only 1 intelligence gives him honor, is He still God? Does He remain God even over those intelligences that reject Him and give Him no honor? I do agree with some aspects of Skousen's ideas - primarily that there is some (finer) matter that acts and some matter that is acted upon. This idea though, that God is God only so long as He is being honored rubs me the wrong way.

I was reading the Church Handbook of Instruction today and came across this: I'm really curious now and want to ask my Bishop if I can receive the translating ordinances, but I'm concerned about what rules may be in handbook 1 to prevent me. Like, maybe the 3 Nephite disciples received it because they didn't come right out and ask for it, in which case I would clearly not get it. But John made a point-blank request and was granted it. I'm not sure what to do. I just want to be translated correctly.

These comments remind me of a non-statistically significant xkcd comic:

I can imagine Sister Monson selecting a tie for President Monson and telling him to have a good time with all the other men. As he leaves, the driveway fills with cars that spill out into the street. 20, maybe 50 women get out and bring enough twister mats and prunes to have a really good time.

The church of the Lamb is more general than the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Nephi uses the phrase "church of the devil" as a synonym for "great and abominable church". When taken in connection with the Book of Mormon, modern revelation suggests that early missionaries were to proselytize to churches within the Church of the Lamb.

When I dance, that's what I imagine everyone is seeing. I'm told the reality is closer to the truffle shuffle.

This doesn't frighten anyone else? When the robot revolution starts, it will be fought by an army of COWS!!!!