Elder Wirthlin's definition of Christian

[Dove]

Rider,

I think we're dealing with layers of issues here......

People who seriously consider themselves "christian" don't take kindly to being told they're not......generally, in their sincere heart's, they believe they are. I say "generally" because no doubt there are many people of all faiths who are not Christ-like....

So, on that level, your point is rather devisive-We all tip toe around this issue out of concern of alienating one another with different beliefs, by calling them something other than what they consider themselves to be......Your point in this seems rather offensive to me.....why give cause for there to be contention? Why draw such a line in the sand and make people choose sides? Why presume to call others names? Such as non-christian?

On another level.....yes, I do believe that a person who has been given an opportunity/offering of the truthfulness and fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and then turns from it, is not following Him. We can then deduce he/she is not a "christian."

But, don't forget the verse in the Bible, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Who are any of us to presume who denies Christ? It's not mine to judge! That is up to God. It is mine to follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost in my heart, along with the scriptures, to follow the course God has set forth to bring me home. How could I honestly call myself christian if I turned from this? It reminds me of the parable of the beam and the mote. It is mine to lead by example. It is mine to invite others to follow Him. It is not mine to label or tear down anyone else for their beliefs.

I've heard a lot of what you believe through this thread. Are you saying baptism is not necessary to follow Christ?

[Rider]

But we're back to square one. Who gets to decide what is and isn't a "fundamental" of Christ's teachings? You say baptism is not required. I say it is. But either way--is the necessity (or lack thereof) for baptism really a fundamental teaching of Christ, at least for the purposes of defining who is a "Christian"? Who's to say?

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

[Gatorman]

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?

Well, since Christ taught that he was the Son of God and that he would rise from the dead, infact proving it to his followers, then you have the first part of the equation wrong. So, a good person can follow Christ's general teachings and not be Christian. Why? Because they don't believe in Christ and his teachings.

I believe the answer to your question is that no one else that I have seen post agrees with your analysis. You can be a Christian and not believe in all the same criteria for being saved.

[john doe]

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?

Okay, I'll bite. Who is saying that the Bible was written by 'an infallible, all knowing, all powerful god'? Certainly not you I hope?

[Just_A_Guy]

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

According to the dictionary definition given by your very first post to this thread--no. It involves only acknowledging a Savior, and patterning one's life accordingly.

Now, that's semantic--not theological. :)

[Maxel]

Rider, please show that you've read post #95 by responding to it.

[Maxel]

Rider, please show that you've read post #95 by responding to it.

Do you think he will?

[Maxel]

Rider, please show that you've read post #95 by responding to it.

Do you think he will?

Probably not, no. But it would be nice.

[Rider]

Rider, Mormons believe that non-Mormons can be Christians. You can decide that that belief is silly or illogical if you want, but that's what we believe.

That. Is. Your. Answer.

Have a nice day.

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.'

Well, since Christ taught that he was the Son of God and that he would rise from the dead, infact proving it to his followers, then you have the first part of the equation wrong. So, a good person can follow Christ's general teachings and not be Christian. Why? Because they don't believe in Christ and his teachings.

So what are his teachings?

According to the dictionary definition given by your very first post to this thread--no. It involves only acknowledging a Savior, and patterning one's life accordingly.

Now, that's semantic--not theological.

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?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Rider

[lattelady]

Rider, it's beside the point of this thread (I know), but to respond to your question about what 2 Corinthians 12:1-5 is talking about, it talks about a man being caught up into "paradise" v.4, and there he heard inexpressible things that he isn't permitted to tell. Most believe he was speaking of himself being that man, and others believe he was talking about someone else. If he were speaking about himself, it doesn't say he was there to be "taught" by Jesus, and if he had been, he certainly wasn't "expounding" on the teachings he received while there (as you mentioned in an earlier post) in his later books. The verse says that the things he heard while there he wasn't permitted to tell!

[OneEternalSonata]

How can two groups that contradict each other on the fundamentals of Christ's teachings both be Christians.'

You agreed in your first post to Elder Wirthlin's given dictionary definition of a Christian. Therefore, in at least two points we agree. We both fundamentally center our lives on Christ. We have faith in him, we love Him, we pray to Him, we want to return to him, and we know we need his atonement. There are some differences, yes, but in our common ground we can be Christians. If Christ is not the most fundamental part of our faiths, what is?

“We should not assume; however, that just because something is unexplainable by us, it is unexplainable.” ~Neal A. Maxwell

Edited October 16, 2009 by OneEternalSonata

[Maxel]

He did answer! What a pleasant and gratifying surprise.

Rider:

You'll have to solve your question on your own. Asking us why our position doesn't make sense to you is an exercise in futility. You know our feelings on the matter.

To everyone else:

This anouncement courtesy of the Prevention of Troll Feeding Society:

Don't feed the trolls! They will leave on their own if not fed. In the case that the suspected troll is not a troll but a troubled soul, not feeding them will allow them to reorient themselves and gather their faculties and try again in a more peaceful way.

Thank you, and remember:

[Rider]

You agreed in your first post to Elder Wirthlin's given dictionary definition of a Christian. Therefore, in at least two points we agree. We both fundamentally center our lives on Christ. We have faith in him, we love Him, we pray to Him, we want to return to him, and we know we need his atonement. There are some differences, yes, but in our common ground we can be Christians. If Christ is not the most fundamental part of our faiths, what is?

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?

You'll have to solve your question on your own. Asking us why our position doesn't make sense to you is an exercise in futility. You know our feelings on the matter.

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.

[beefche]

Rider, do you believe baptism for the remission of sins is required to be a Christian?

Is believing Christ is the Son of God required to be Christian?

Is believing He rose from the dead required?

What do you believe to be the Savior's teachings?

How can two groups that contradict each other on the fundamentals of Christ's teachings both be Christians?

[Gatorman]

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.

And your question was answered, but not to your satisfaction. But, let me dissect for you.

Do I believe that someone must be baptized by immersion by someone who holds the Preisthood before they can be called a Christian? No.

Do I believe that that person needs to do it to achieve the highest degree of glory? Yes, among other things.

IE: Christian does not mean you will receive the highest degree of glory, in our faith. There are specific works that are required to acheive that highest glory. You are speaking of works. And, generally, the works are not required to be a Christian.

[Maxel]

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.

I'll let you prove that you're not a troll.

Our position makes sense to me because the title of "Christian" is not reserved only for those who are doctinrally correct. Christ calls His sheep out of the world through His own miraculous means- thus, He can call us no matter our religious or socioeconomic circumstances. Therefore, one can serve Christ without knowing it, because they recognize the timbre and tone of the shepherd's voice (that is, they recognize the eternal principles of real goodness when they come into contact with them).

Therefore, the title of "Christian" (real, true Christians) is not restricted to those who are priveleged to receive His Gospel in this life. Therefore, one can be a Christian and not belong to the LDS Church. Also, there are different "degrees" of Chrstian-dom, meaning that each person differs in their personal devotion to Christ. In my belief, it makes sense to say one person is "more" Christian than another based on his/her level of faith (however, I don't judge such things now, as it's impossible for me to know another's level of faith).

That's how my position makes sense to me. It also makes more sense with an all-knowing and loving God being in charge of the world than the belief that the only Christians are the ones who have all the doctrinal nuances correct.

If you're not a troll, you'll admit that this doesn't make sense to you but you accept it as my reasoning; you'll admit that it makes sense; or you'll be confused and ask for clarification before deciding whether or not what I say makes sense.

[Just_A_Guy]

No, Wirthlin made it very clear he believes 'acknowledging a Savior' includes believing Jesus was God's Son and atoned for our sins.

That gambit would have worked better if you hadn't linked to the actual article, Rider. Elder Wirthlin says no such thing.

What he says is

A dictionary defines a Christian as “one who professes belief in Jesus as the Christ or follows the religion based on [the life and teachings of Jesus],” and “one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.” Thus two characteristics identify Christians: (1) they profess belief in a Savior, and (2) they act in harmony with the Savior’s teachings.

and then he spends the rest of the sermon explaining how Mormons--and he speaks only of Mormons here--conform to those general linguistic requirements.

But that doesn't answer the question. Do you believe someone has to believe Christ is the Son of God to be Christian?

Fishing for soundbytes much?

In my book, anyone who says they're a Christian, is a Christian. Doesn't mean I buy into their theology, and doesn't mean they're saved. But I'll do them the courtesy of not telling them what they "really" believe.

[OneEternalSonata]

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.

I'm stating that I call myself Christian because I believe Jesus is my Savior. I think anyone who believes such is, also. As for his teachings there are too many for me to list... but let me sum it up. I believe Jesus Christ suffered, died on the cross, and rose again. He fulfilled the high law of love. His paramount teachings, to love God and others as ourselves, are all bound in that. Every teaching of Christ rests on this.

[Rider]

Rider, do you believe baptism for the remission of sins is required to be a Christian?

Is believing Christ is the Son of God required to be Christian?

Is believing He rose from the dead required?

What do you believe to be the Savior's teachings?

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?

Our position makes sense to me because the title of "Christian" is not reserved only for those who are doctinrally correct. Christ calls His sheep out of the world through His own miraculous means- thus, He can call us no matter our religious or socioeconomic circumstances. Therefore, one can serve Christ without knowing it, because they recognize the timbre and tone of the shepherd's voice (that is, they recognize the eternal principles of real goodness when they come into contact with them).

Therefore, the title of "Christian" (real, true Christians) is not restricted to those who are priveleged to receive His Gospel in this life. Therefore, one can be a Christian and not belong to the LDS Church. Also, there are different "degrees" of Chrstian-dom, meaning that each person differs in their personal devotion to Christ. In my belief, it makes sense to say one person is "more" Christian than another based on his/her level of faith (however, I don't judge such things now, as it's impossible for me to know another's level of faith).

That's how my position makes sense to me. It also makes more sense with an all-knowing and loving God being in charge of the world than the belief that the only Christians are the ones who have all the doctrinal nuances correct.

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?

In my book, anyone who says they're a Christian, is a Christian. Doesn't mean I buy into their theology, and doesn't mean they're saved. But I'll do them the courtesy of not telling them what they "really" believe.

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?

[Maxel]

Where do you get that definition? What do you base your position on?

I get that definition from what I feel to be the truth, testified by the scriptures: that a Christian is one who follows Christ. We can argue about labels all day long, but that's useless bickering about semantics.

A man serves the master whom he actively serves. Therefore, if a man- in his heart of hearts- seeks to serve Christ and eternal principles of godliness, that man serves Christ. He is therefore called by the name of his master and is thus a Christian.

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?

Ummmm... Random question. Unless this is somehow what you believe the LDS Church is doing- despite many evidences to the contrary.

I would say to that person, "How do you know my gospel is incomplete? Have you asked God? I have, and He tells me that my gospel is His approved Gospel." It's hard to argue with what God tells a person.

I'm still not convinced that you're not a troll. People looking for answers usually acknowledge parts they agree with (or at least understand), not simply ask questions that lead to an unkown destination. To be honest, you seem like someone who has a bone to pick with the Mormon Church because you feel that we're saying the gospel you believe in is incomplete and, therefore, you are not a real Christian.

The first is a valid tenent of Mormonism. The second is not.

[Rider]

I get that definition from what I feel to be the truth, testified by the scriptures: that a Christian is one who follows Christ. We can argue about labels all day long, but that's useless bickering about semantics.

A man serves the master whom he actively serves. Therefore, if a man- in his heart of hearts- seeks to serve Christ and eternal principles of godliness, that man serves Christ. He is therefore called by the name of his master and is thus a Christian.

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?

Ummmm... Random question. Unless this is somehow what you believe the LDS Church is doing- despite many evidences to the contrary.

I would say to that person, "How do you know my gospel is incomplete? Have you asked God? I have, and He tells me that my gospel is His approved Gospel." It's hard to argue with what God tells a person.

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.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Rider

[beefche]

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?

I do what I always do if someone confronts me to my face about my faith. I smile. And say nothing. If they ask me in sincerity (and trust me, one can tell when you have someone in your face--tone and body language is true), then I will answer how I believe. I won't argue, but simply tell them of my beliefs and answer their questions.

But when someone screams in my face that I'm a heretic, a non-Christian, evil, cultist--I smile and walk away. No sense in trying to argue with someone who has their mind made up. And I've learned that smiling pleasantly ticks them off more than anything.

Interesting that I had my own brother confront me a few weeks ago about me not being Christian. My response to him was to realize that he was coming from an attitude of love (even though his delivery was horrible) and simply witness of Jesus. I know that Jesus is my Savior and I follow Him to the best of my knowledge and ability. BTW, I allow all others that same privilege.

[beefche]

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.

SHOCKING! None of us here have EVER run across something like that!

[john doe]

I'm thinking this thread is about done since we are now doing a retread of the opening statements and no progress is being made. Are we ready to close it and move on to something productive?

[Dove]

Wow, Rider,

So what this really comes down to is that you don't believe LDS people to be christian, right?!?!

Wow, it's nice to finally hear what you've been implicating all along. Thanks for sharing! All this beating around the bush, the cat and mouse game, the cornering, etc., etc., and this all comes down to your belief that we are not christian. LOL

So what else is new? As so many have said, we are well aware of all the people who disbelieve our christianity......

Any other points?!