I don't want to be Christian

[August]

If people ask me what religion I am I always say that I am a Latter Day Saint. If I have oppourtunity to elaborate then I try to emphasise that we live by the teachings of Jesus Christ. If asked if I was a Christian I would say yes I am as I am a follower of Christ.

That makes sense. I sort of approach it the same way. I always say Catholic if I'm asked, if I just say that I'm Christian they assume that I'm an evangelical.

[Guest Godless]

Elgama, I commend you for wanting to seperate yourself from the rest of Christianity. I would never question an LDS member's devotion to Christ, but unfortunately there seems to be more to being a Christian than just that. There are major doctrinal issues involved as well, so I think it's best to use seperate titles. As has been already been said, the full title of the LDS church bears the name of Christ, thus naming you as followers of him. Calling yourself a Christian would be a bit redundant, no?

[countrygirl66]

I guess for me Christianity is really something I left behind to become LDS. And it seems like a step back

-Charley

hi when people ask me (mostly my family) I say I am a Latter Day Saint. If people ask if I am christian I say yes. First and formost I am a Latter Day Saint. I love the title of Latter Day Saint because it reminds me of the time in which I live and what my responsibilty in that is. Take care.

[Starfish]

But when you aren't clear that you're Christian, as a LDS, then doesn't that send a message that we don't follow Christ? Doesn't that add to an already false perception of us by mainstream Christianity?

I kind of liken this to my affiliation with the Republican Party. I don't agree with the direction it has gone, so do I leave it, or stay and work towards trying to bring it back to what it used to be? Abandon it or try to save it? Maybe that was a poor analogy . . .

[Guest Godless]

But when you aren't clear that you're Christian, as a LDS, then doesn't that send a message that we don't follow Christ? Doesn't that add to an already false perception of us by mainstream Christianity?

Perhaps, but it would also give you a great opportunity to fully explain your beliefs for the sake of clarification and understanding. Some people may still not accept the fact that you follow Christ, but such people probably have their own pre-existing prejudices anyway.

[Elgama]

But when you aren't clear that you're Christian, as a LDS, then doesn't that send a message that we don't follow Christ? Doesn't that add to an already false perception of us by mainstream Christianity? . .

OK maybe this is just a UK thing but tbh most of the people who say they are Christian don't follow Christ they mean it was the church my parents took me too.

I think personally that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints says it more clearly and distinctly.

-Charley

[prisonchaplain]

I have found that Christians have defined themselves more than just following Christ. That was the old definition.

The "new" definition is that you must believe in the "gospel" that is preached in the Bible.. not that "other" gospel (more than one heaven & one hell, no baptism for the dead, etc).

You must believe that Satan.. is not the brother of Jesus.

And most importantly.. you must believe in the trinity.

So folks.. that leaves us out! Until the "Christians" change the definition back to one who follows Christ.. I go by LDS as well.

Don't get caught telling people you are Christian and then later on fine tune the Christian to LDS. They will preceive that as a deception! Seems to be their major grip about us anyway. We just don't give enough of a history lesson on Joseph Smith (34 wives, Book of Abraham, etc), and Brigham Young (Adam/God Theory, etc) and all the problems the Saints had with the world (MMM, destroying the press in Nauvoo, blacks and the priesthood, etc.)... before someone is baptized.

So if I were you.. I would totally be on the up and up.

Just to turn the tables a bit, consider that this redefining of Christianity to include doctrinal distinctives flows somewhat both ways. I offer the following excerpt from a column I did for my local newspaper, long before I joined LDS.net. Were I to write it today, I might be more nuanced and empathetic to both sides, but much of what I said remains valid:

Is it really an effort a vilification, a display of ignorance and evidence of hypocrisy for Christian churches to point out that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), as one Mormon critic said in his letter, believes that it is the restoration of the true Christian church?

As explanation, the official LDS website states that there was a "general falling away from the truth after the Apostles died." In other words, all other churches are part of apostate Christianity, and the LDS have restored the truth faith.

Historically, I have been led to believe that LDS used to use the "LDS" or "Mormon" label predominantly, and then there was something of a change in emphasis under President Hinckley--a greater desire to emphasize the Church's common ground with Christianity.

[Elgama]

Is it really an effort a vilification, a display of ignorance and evidence of hypocrisy for Christian churches to point out that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), as one Mormon critic said in his letter, believes that it is the restoration of the true Christian church?

As explanation, the official LDS website states that there was a "general falling away from the truth after the Apostles died." In other words, all other churches are part of apostate Christianity, and the LDS have restored the truth faith.

/QUOTE]

PC I think you have put your finger on my big issue - for me we are no more the same religion than if I was to talk to a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Pagan.

And I feel uncomfortable using a term that identifies me with a group quite frankly I struggle often to understand (I do try and I love a lot of Christianity) personally as a Latter Day Saint I see as much similarities in other religions. I really wish I could find that talk of President Hinckley where he talked about similarities and the huge differences between ourselves and other Christians. I willwork on finding it

-Charley

[OneEternalSonata]

Personally, I feel the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true with or without Joseph Smith. (Yes, I believe he was inspired to teach true principles, but that aside, the Gospel was true before he was born, too.)This is not to say I don't revere the call he was given, however, first and foremost I am Christ's. That being said, my Christian identity is very important to me, especially using the definition found in Alma 46:15.

Edited November 3, 2008 by OneEternalSonata

[Moksha]

I consider myself first and foremost a Christian and a Progressive Christian to boot. The LDS Church is my vehicle to magnify Christ's teachings in my life and to bring me closer to God. I think it well behooves us to never confuse the message with the medium.

[prisonchaplain]

I consider myself first and foremost a Christian and a Progressive Christian to boot. The LDS Church is my vehicle to magnify Christ's teachings in my life and to bring me closer to God. I think it well behooves us to never confuse the message with the medium.

Is your church a vehicle, or the vehicle? If you answer the latter, then perhaps you would better be described as a progressive Mormon?

[Moksha]

Is your church a vehicle, or the vehicle? If you answer the latter, then perhaps you would better be described as a progressive Mormon?

I like the title progressive Mormon. Sounds so much better than a regressive Mormon. However, I am still a Christian first and foremost. I suspect I would make a terrible missionary, since I would no doubt wish all those I spoke with, smooth sailing on their spiritual journey. However, I would do my best to help teach the lessons to anyone that asked.

[prisonchaplain]

Moksha, my guess is that most missionaries, by about month 4, are doing the same.

[Old Tex]

I think part of the problem is that when we think of Christians, we generally think of someone who is an Evangelical Christian, and when it comes right down to it, when they meet someone who is LDS or even Catholic, they generally act anything but Christ-like when they go on about how we worship or believe differently than they, so we must not be Christians. It's almost like they have usurped the power to declare who is or is not a Christian. They claim we worship a different Jesus than they so we must the ones wrong because they couldn't possibly be wrong in their beliefs. In that sense, no I am not an Evangelical Christian, so I don't identify myself as such. But I do identify myself as a Christian, one who believes in the same Jesus as written about in the Bible.

Indeed, John, I agree with where you are going. There is a term that I see used more and more on various boards now to help distinguish the two. It is "Creedal Christians". Those Evangelicals (and any others) who believe in the Creeds of the third and fourth centries ( which is the source of the teaching of the Trinity), and those "Non-Creedal Christians" who do not.

[Elgama]

Indeed, John, I agree with where you are going. There is a term that I see used more and more on various boards now to help distinguish the two. It is "Creedal Christians". Those Evangelicals (and any others) who believe in the Creeds of the third and fourth centries ( which is the source of the teaching of the Trinity), and those "Non-Creedal Christians" who do not.

Actually for Christian I am more likely to think Anglican, Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, Presbyterian, Calvinism, Armenism, Baptist, Methodist, Non Trinitarian chapels, Wee Frees etc they were who I was more likely to meet ironically lol and never thought of it this way I was more likely to think of Pentecostal and Evangelists as a bit weird and cultish

-Charley

[prisonchaplain]

Indeed, John, I agree with where you are going. There is a term that I see used more and more on various boards now to help distinguish the two. It is "Creedal Christians". Those Evangelicals (and any others) who believe in the Creeds of the third and fourth centries ( which is the source of the teaching of the Trinity), and those "Non-Creedal Christians" who do not.

Does the 98% majority really need an adjective? Roman Catholics (50%), and Trinitarian Protestans (the other 48%) are all "creedal" by this definition. Only the very few modalists (United Pentecostal Church), LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, and perhaps a few others would be "non-creedal." And yet, historically, most evangelicals, pentecostals, and other "low-church" groups are considered "non-creedal," because we do not heavily rely on regular recitation or study of the various creeds and confessions.

IMHO, your church really does stand alone. Does not the doctrine of the restoration require that stance? Yes, it has broadly Christian beliefs. Yet it denies most central doctrines of Christian history (thus, a restoration!). The easiest and clearest approach might be to reclaim and reinvigorate the title Mormon. However, again, the Church leadership decided to stress commonalities, and insist on the title Christian. So...

[Old Tex]

I don't know if this sheds any light, but it's become very common for evangelicals to say, "I'm not Baptist, I'm just a Christian." Or, "I don't belong to a denomination, I belong to Christ." And, indeed, many Christians who go to Baptist, Assemblies of God, or any other of a number of evangelical churches, do so because of location, because they were invited by a friend, and because they like it--not because they think the church's distinctive teachings are the most accurate. IMHO, the use of "Just Christian," implies a superiority over the alleged factionalism of denominations.

So...if you agree with Joseph Smith, that al the rest of Christianity is missing precious truths, it's understandable that you would prefer your own distinctive label.

As a LDS member, PC, my objection is to being labeled as "non-Christian" mainly because I do not accept the usual teaching of the Trinity. This seems to be the yardstick that one is measured by in the eyes of many.

I was raised a Baptist and was active in the Baptist Church for over 30 years. For the last 40 years I have been LDS. I still have faith in and worship the "same" Christ. I still accept Him as my Savior. My relationship with Him has not changed, except I understand Him and His Father better and on a more personal level.

And yet, because I do not believe what some councils of men decided three hundred after Christ's death, I am told that I am not a Christian? Baloney! I just get tired of others telling me what they think I am, or am not, when they don't have a clue.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Old Tex

[bodhigirlsmiles]

Am I strange in that I have no desire to be called a Christian? I know we are told in conference we are Christian but I have always been content to call myself a Latter Day Saint and be distinct from other Christian groups, I see similarities in our beliefs to many other religions.

For me its last thing I want to refer to myself as is Christian I haven't used the term in terms of myself in about 20 years,

-Charley

take this as my $.02, but i have a very good friend (and professor) who is lds and he often says, "i am a follower of christ, but i am not a christian." i think there is deep meaning embedded within this simple phrase.

[Starfish]

IMHO, your church really does stand alone. Does not the doctrine of the restoration require that stance? Yes, it has broadly Christian beliefs. Yet it denies most central doctrines of Christian history (thus, a restoration!). The easiest and clearest approach might be to reclaim and reinvigorate the title Mormon. However, again, the Church leadership decided to stress commonalities, and insist on the title Christian. So...

Hi PC, I always appreciate your posts.

We deny the doctrines of Christian history following the death of the apostles which ushered in the worldwide apostacy.

We feel we embrace the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ while he was here on the earth--hence the restoration.

We are not worshipers of Mormon. He was one of many prophets (approx. 400 AD) and was responsible for compiling the Book of Mormon into the volume that Joseph Smith translated. We worship Christ, so we feel we must use His name in our title. We are the church of Jesus Christ, not the church of Mormon, nor the church of Joseph Smith, for that matter.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Starfish

[prisonchaplain]

As a LDS member, PC, my objection is to being labeled as "non-Christian" mainly because I do not accept the usual teaching of the Trinity. This seems to be the yardstick that one is measured by in the eyes of many.

I wish there was some non-acidic way to identify those who follow Jesus, but reject historic Christian teachings. None of the traditional labels have a good flavor: heretic, heterodox, anathema, etc. I suppose, so long as your church wants to actively use the label "Christian," there will continue to be debate over just what are the bare essential doctrines one should hold, to be considered Christian.

And yet, because I do not believe what some councils of men decided three hundred after Christ's death, I am told that I am not a Christian? Baloney! I just get tired of others telling me what they think I am, or am not, when they don't have a clue.

It's not just a system of teaching some group of guys came up with 1700 years ago. It is a set of doctrines that Christians of nearly all strains have sustained for all those centuries. Either the church has been restored and I am part of an apostate church, or the church was never totally apostate, and your churches has wandered into some heretical beliefs.

It does little good to wrangle over who is a Christian and who isn't. But, you would joyfully concur that your are neither Catholic nor Protestant nor Trinitarian, and that rules out about 98% of Christianity.

[prisonchaplain]

Hi PC, I always appreciate your posts.

We deny the doctrines of Christian history following the death of the apostles which ushered in the worldwide apostacy.

We feel we embrace the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ while he was here on the earth--hence the restoration.

We are not worshipers of Mormon. He was one of many prophets (approx. 400 AD) and was responsible for compiling the Book of Mormon into the volume that Joseph Smith translated. We worship Christ, so we feel we must use His name in our title. We are the church of Jesus Christ, not the church of Mormon, nor the church of Joseph Smith, for that matter.

"Christian" is a public domain label, so no one has rights to restrict its use. On the other hand, Protestants and Catholics, especially Trinitarians, believe that they have earned "common law" rights, since we've had it for nearly 2000 years.

Also, while I understand all the arguments against the prolific use of "Mormon," if your leaders were to seek my unworthy counsel, I'd tell them to keep it and redefine it. "Teen Challenge," is a Christian rehabilitation program that serves those 18 and over. Thus the name, reflective of its origins working with NYC youth gangs, is hardly descriptive. Yet, it's so well known, the group keeps it. Easier to explain the all-ages policy than to start anew.

[Elgama]

take this as my $.02, but i have a very good friend (and professor) who is lds and he often says, "i am a follower of christ, but i am not a christian." i think there is deep meaning embedded within this simple phrase.

what a fantastic quote - YES that is exactly how I woud describe myself. I actually stopped using the term Christian when I was about 12 it didn't feel comfortable because that was the time I did discover the trinity teaching and my whole body, mind and soul reacted violently against it to me its not doctrinal its that I know when I pray there isn't just one entity. But then its like I don't object to be being polytheistic really either don't see myself that way but the term isn't offensive to me because for me God is God and whatever I call Him won't change who He is.

Thank You that is fantastic and what I will be saying from now on. I'm not a Christian and don't think I can be, it doesn't feel my religious idenitity, ever instinct I have goes against it but I do love my Saviour and the atonement over the years grows more special and dear to me.

You have a very wise friend.

-Charley

[Elgama]

Moksha, my guess is that most missionaries, by about month 4, are doing the same.

I agree one thing in my opinion the very best missionaries learn on their mission is interact with people with tolerance and love and to accept rejection.

For the ones that don't the mission becomes a numbers game and they I feel become little better than double glazing salesmen, baptising people without testimony who become inactive as soon as the missionary leaves the country and can no longer pressure them.

Sometimes for people its not time for them to accept the gospel, I know I would not trade my journey to becoming LDS for anything. My favourite LDS writer is Chieko Okazaki she comes from a Buddhist background - and I love her very different but just as valid as anyone else viewpoint. She fought a lot of prejudice amongst church members in Utah and her reaction to it is beautiful, and one thing that was very apparent was the high esteem President Hinckley held her. Her work fights against the perfectionism that many LDS feel pressured by but at same time encourages us to better. We need more people like her in the LDS church writing because each faith holds parts of the truth, my belief is because sometimes they concerntrate on parts they can teach and understand those parts better than someone trying to teach everything. I know what I learned about creation from a druid, eternal progression from a Hindu and the idea of one God with many faces or gods has enriched my faith.

-Charley

Edited November 8, 2008 by Elgama

[Elgama]

I wish there was some non-acidic way to identify those who follow Jesus, but reject historic Christian teachings. None of the traditional labels have a good flavor: heretic, heterodox, anathema, etc. I suppose, so long as your church wants to actively use the label "Christian," there will continue to be debate over just what are the bare essential doctrines one should hold, to be considered Christian.

It's not just a system of teaching some group of guys came up with 1700 years ago. It is a set of doctrines that Christians of nearly all strains have sustained for all those centuries. Either the church has been restored and I am part of an apostate church, or the church was never totally apostate, and your churches has wandered into some heretical beliefs.

It does little good to wrangle over who is a Christian and who isn't. But, you would joyfully concur that your are neither Catholic nor Protestant nor Trinitarian, and that rules out about 98% of Christianity.

OK this entirely my view and I appreciate having left Christianity behind I am probably not entitled to it or even close - but I do feel that anyone shoud be able to say I am Christian then it be left upto Christ to judge the truth of it. Personally I think it should be about that connection a person has with their Saviour and it should be for no human to judge.

There are plenty Prodestant and Catholic who Christ will accept and just as many he will reject - it should be about the fruits and not the label And there are Non Trinitarian Christians I grew up with a very old chapel around the corner from me. I recently found out I had an ancester that may have been one (it was church next to his house). I had a Great Uncle who used to say we would be surprised about who Christ agreed was really Christian - I agree same goes for us as LDS

I think this is why I am not Christian because the word implies a complete religion rather than the personal desire of a person to follow Christ and the subsequent relationship with Christ. It does not identify you as a follower of Christ merely a member of a religion of which I do not want to be a part of

-Charley

Edited November 8, 2008 by Elgama

[Guest HEthePrimate]

Am I strange in that I have no desire to be called a Christian? I know we are told in conference we are Christian but I have always been content to call myself a Latter Day Saint and be distinct from other Christian groups, I see similarities in our beliefs to many other religions.

For me its last thing I want to refer to myself as is Christian I haven't used the term in terms of myself in about 20 years,

-Charley

Well, the early Latter-day Saints used to claim that we are the only "real" Christians, and everybody else were, essentially, fake Christians. Given that Christ is at the center of our religion, it would seem to make sense to call ourselves Christians. It's certainly more accurate than calling ourselves saints, which always seemed a bit presumptuous to me!

HEP