Where do LDS fit in the Christian world?

[carlimac]

Maybe some of us are simply balking at the terms which are hot ones in the political arena right now and are related to so much contention. I personally just can't (don't want to ) use polarizing labels in relation to belief in Christ. That's all.

[prisonchaplain]

This may well be an excercise in futility on my part. I was trying to think of non-controversial labels...and it's hard. "Evangelical vs. mainstream?" Nah...evangelicals have been very critical of LDS, and ironically accuse you of not being mainstream. Fundamentalist? No...for obvious reasons. Pentecostal? I like it...but, no--the music is very traditional, and the only tongues spoken are be missionaries. Catholic? Where the hierarchy shows some similarities, but the weekly meetings are quite non-ritualistic.

So...perhaps the best "label" is simply LDS.

[Moksha]

Christ would not take sides in theological debates or discussions?

Advocating the spirit over the law had to be a debate of sorts against the Sanhedrin. Another debate topic of sorts is Jesus' inclusiveness of those who by birth or profession were deemed undesirable by the establishment. He was a religious revolutionary whose message survived beyond when the Sanhedrin had turned to dust.

Some stop and stagnate after the revolution and some keep going.

[Moksha]

Here is a twist on labels for you, Chaplain: The LDS are very evangelical. They want to spread the gospel to the whole world. Even have that in their mission statement.

The extra neat thing is that their missionaries also provide community service to help others, at the same time.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Moksha

[Maureen]

...Just what kind of Christians are LDS? Are you liberal or conservative?...

Since these kind of labels seem more political than people like, how about a very old description instead. I was snooping through the Forum (via Search) and came across the terms (or labels?) Liahona and Iron Rod. I understand that Liahona could be similar to Liberal and Iron Rod would be Conservative. We can add a Mormon flavour to the question.

M.

[SLC2002GOLD]

The label isn't set to divide but to define who we are. I consider “libera” those people who want to “spread the wealth” and take away from others while sharing little from their catch. When I write of “conservative” I consider a far right while moving far left when writing of “liberal”. There is a lot of room in between and we all land someplace in there.

The "Liberals" are happy to give a man a fish...The "Conservatives" aren't happy until that man knows how to fish...Where do you suppose our Savior would be on this issue?

[prisonchaplain]

Here is a twist on labels for you, Chaplain: The LDS are very evangelical. They want to spread the gospel to the whole world. Even have that in their mission statement.

The extra neat thing is that their missionaries also provide community service to help others, at the same time.

Yeah, but can you be evangelical if you evangelize amongst evangelicals???

[Elgama]

The "Liberals" are happy to give a man a fish...The "Conservatives" aren't happy until that man knows how to fish...Where do you suppose our Savior would be on this issue?

I personally think he would do both, provide a fish to prevent immediate starvation but also teach you how to fish in order to prevent it happening again. Which is why I am both conservative and liberal but also neither.

[Traveler]

Christ would not take sides in theological debates or discussions? Maybe he would. To be over-simple, the Pharisees of his day were more conservative. They believed in angels and evils and the afterlife. The supposedly more sophisticated Sadduccees did not believe in them. They saw Judaism as more of a moral civilizing force. Jesus definitely took sides with the Pharisees on those issues.

Within the LDS faith, you have some who will refuse any caffeine or soda, including chocolate. Others are apparently okay with decaf coffee, herbal teas, etc. Some, who have access, go to Temple multiple times a week. Others, only rarely. And yet, when it comes to simple devotion to God and to their Ward, both might be rigorously faithful. Would it be unfair to label these two in some way? Must label always connot division and judgment?

I always enjoy your views. However, I think there are some things about LDS you may find interesting. LDS members do not attend a ward or congregation where they feel comfortable with the individuals of the congregation. We are divided in geological areas and thus assigned a ward by where we live. Our membership is kept within the ward of our assignment. Our “callings”, service and tithing donations are all done through our ward assignments.

LDS can attend anywhere they like but if they wish to function as a member they must carry with them a letter of authorization – usually a temple recommend is all that is needed but if there is any question a local bishop may call your ward bishop to be sure. Even the Prophet (president) must obtain his temple recommend from his bishop in his ward.

LDS are very involved in records. The membership record has the “church” status of each member as long as they have been members. Their record has their priesthood ordinations and ordinances such as marriage and baptism. If a record is lost then the ordinance or ordination must be done again.

The interesting thing is that LDS members have all kinds of ideas about different things. There is diversity that way so in that sense we are very liberal. It is hard to believe that Glen Beck and Senator Reed belong to the same LDS church. At the same time there are conservative elements as well. What President Clinton was involved with doing with Miss Monica would get a LDS member excommunicated. The lessons in Sunday school classes are from the same manuals and follow the same formate in every ward in every country. Attending church in China is in a different language but it is the same gospel taught in every ward.

The Traveler

Edited May 27, 2010 by Traveler

[Moksha]

The "Liberals" are happy to give a man a fish...The "Conservatives" aren't happy until that man knows how to fish...Where do you suppose our Savior would be on this issue?

If he were a strict Aquarian, he would want a man to be a fish. If he were a conservatively liberal Aquarian, perhaps he would want us to be "fishers of men".

Joking aside, Jesus had an abundantly kind heart. He would serve both fishes and loaves. Even invite all of us to His banquet.

[Hemidakota]

Even the crumbs are sufficient when they fall off the feast table where the Lords sits.

[firehotemily]

I believe that most LDS are conservative.

(of course you can still have your own political views and be respectful of other people's.)

but i believe that since our country is governed by

the Constitution , and created by God,

i should follow christ even in a political sense, if you get what i mean.

I believe that Christ was a conservative basically.

[Moksha]

i should follow christ even in a political sense, if you get what i mean.

I believe that Christ was a conservative basically.

His Kingdom is not of Orange County.