Evangelical website recognizes LDS as being Christian in Foundation

[estradling75]

Thank you for your reply.

But, (and I'm sure you've come across this before}; they don't believe that the Jesus you worship and follow is the real Jesus, the Jesus of the gospel; of their  gospel. if you like. If their gospel is unrestored, or incomplete, then it's apples and oranges anyway, isn't it? 

     When I hear people talk about Jesus as if he's a "Judge not", rainbow flag draped, champion of some, I know that that's a Jesus who lives just mostly in some people's minds, if at all-it may be a crutch for their own societally destructive desires. As you say; irksome, but people can be ignorant.

 

 

Tell me lonetree would you be happy if some told you flat out to your face that you were not a christian?

[lonetree]

Tell me lonetree would you be happy if some told you flat out to your face that you were not a christian?

At first-edit-I'd be upset-, but it would wear off.

Of course, if it was something I actually did that someone took offense to, but I doubt if that's what you're getting at.

I certainly wouldn't try to see what 'common ground' the accusers have with me over my beliefs.

Edited June 29, 2015 by lonetree

[Jane_Doe]

At first-edit-I'd be upset-, but it would wear off.

 

 

Your response is similar to many Mormons: you initially get upset, and then get over it in time. 

 

 

I certainly wouldn't try to see what 'common ground' the accusers have with me over my beliefs.

 

Trying to see common ground with people different than us is just part of getting a long in a diverse world.  

 

Speaking personally, while it's annoying that some random person calls me know a follow of Christ, I get over it quick and don't usually try to convince them.  On the flip side, if it's a friend I do try to show them how I am a follower of Christ, because we are friends and I want to share what I am.

[Just_A_Guy]

Lonetree, let me try a little turnabout: why do you think some Protestants are so heck-for-leather determined that Mormons not be described as "Christian" at all--even in the context of a phrase like "no traditional Christian" or "nontrinitarian christian"? Why are some of these guys even running around claiming that Catholics--Catholics, for crying out loud!--aren't true Christians?

Quite frankly, I think it's because they, as (overwhelmingly) conservatives, believe (as I do) that "Christianity" is tied up with western civilization. The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Revolution, Emancipation, settlement of the West, stopping Hitler, desegregation, winning the Cold War, Sunday church, Christmas turkeys, Mom and apple pie--it's all made possible by Christianity. To own that heritage is to own a very powerful place within that society--a place made even more powerful if you can somehow make it even more exclusive than it actually is. That's why they do it.

To deny me my Christianity is to deny me of a huge part of my political, cultural and moral legacy; and go thrust me from the position of "peculiar people" (a role I heartily embrace) to a role of "otherization". Historically, bad things tend to happen to groups who are stuck in that latter role. That's why it bugs me.

(Of course, it bugs me less the more patently obvious it becomes that this country's going to Hades in a handbasket and that the term "Christian" just doesn't have he same cachet as it used to . . . I think the lots of ones who most loudly insisted that I wasn't a "Christian" fifteen years ago, will be some of the loudest to insist that THEY are not "Christians" fifteen years from now.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[lonetree]

 

 

 

Your response is similar to many Mormons: you initially get upset, and then get over it in time. 

 

 

 

Trying to see common ground with people different than us is just part of getting a long in a diverse world.  

 

Speaking personally, while it's annoying that some random person calls me know a follow of Christ, I get over it quick and don't usually try to convince them.  On the flip side, if it's a friend I do try to show them how I am a follower of Christ, because we are friends and I want to share what I am.

 

Jane-I like your distinction between the random person and the friend. And I am glad that my response is not so uncommon :).

 

On common ground, if it's in a civic arena setting and the issue is say, why the town must cut funding to the public library; then sure, one must get along. But my deeply held and personal beliefs-they're not up for that kind of discussion. 

So, as to common ground, 'No' and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that

[Jane_Doe]

 

On common ground, if it's in a civic arena setting and the issue is say, why the town must cut funding to the public library; then sure, one must get along. But my deeply held and personal beliefs-they're not up for that kind of discussion. 

So, as to common ground, 'No' and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that

 

Just speaking my personal feelings on the matter---

 

People I know in passing, they don't know me that well and we don't really try to find theological common ground, cause we don't talk theology.  

 

But I have many close friends whom have faith different than mine (whether they be Mormon, generic-Christian, or something else).  For these people, whom I share everything with, I do talk about my faith and generally start by finding common ground.  This common ground allows us to relate, establish a working bond, and from there we can later touch on differences.  If the friend is an Christian, then I start by talking about my love of Christ (because that really is the foundation of it all).  However, for my Buddist friend, we started off chatting simply the existence of a higher power (cause that's the point we had).  I wasn't going to hide my faith under a bushel simply because my good friend was Buddhist.  

Edited June 29, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[lonetree]

Lonetree, let me try a little turnabout: why do you think some Protestants are so heck-for-leather determined that Mormons not be described as "Christian" at all--even in the context of a phrase like "no traditional Christian" or "nontrinitarian christian"? Why are some of these guys even running around claiming that Catholics--Catholics, for crying out loud!--aren't true Christians?

Quite frankly, I think it's because they, as (overwhelmingly) conservatives, believe (as I do) that "Christianity" is tied up with western civilization. The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Revolution, Emancipation, settlement of the West, stopping Hitler, desegregation, winning the Cold War, Sunday church, Christmas turkeys, Mom and apple pie--it's all made possible by Christianity. To own that heritage is to own a very powerful place within that society--a place made even more powerful if you can somehow make it even more exclusive than it actually is. That's why they do it.

To deny me my Christianity is to deny me of a huge part of my political, cultural and moral legacy; and go thrust me from the position of "peculiar people" (a role I heartily embrace) to a role of "otherization". Historically, bad things tend to happen to groups who are stuck in that latter role. That's why it bugs me.

(Of course, it bugs me less the more patently obvious it becomes that this country's going to Hades in a handbasket and that the term "Christian" just doesn't have he same cachet as it used to . . . I think the lots of ones who most loudly insisted that I wasn't a "Christian" fifteen years ago, will be some of the loudest to insist that THEY are not "Christians" fifteen years from now.

Yes, I think what was 'Christian' or even traditional 30 years ago may be going the way of the rotary dial telephone in both our countries.  Your distinction between the otherization and the more benign 'peculiar people' made me think. Hasn't this always been the case? and is it confined to evangelicals? Isn't there a suspicion about Mormons in American cultural life that is more broad and historically deep than various strains in Protestantism? Perhaps I am imagining a little. In Evangelicalism itself, I do believe that they regard Mormon belief theologically as outside the pale. One apologist, James White has stated that Mormonism is more polytheistic than any religion and certainly more than the Islam he has encountered & debated. The implication is of course that somehow Islam is 'better' or even more biblical in some way. White says some thoughtful things, but that is below his usual standard. So cultural exclusivity may be part of it, but much Ev ire is also directed a the Jws-which are not a cultural threat to traditional American life.

     As to Catholics, there is still a strong current of thought that the Protestant Reformers, through their writings, still have a say on their 'Christian' identity. Doesn't the BOM have a say as well? I haven't read it through lately.

[Just_A_Guy]

Your distinction between the otherization and the more benign 'peculiar people' made me think. Hasn't this always been the case?

To some degree, yeah. Mormons in the Utah period often took the attitude of "fine--you Christians were the ones who burned our houses, shot our men, raped our women, and turned our kids out in the dead of winter--if that's Christianity, you can keep it and we proudly reject the label" sort of thing. As our policy of "splendid isolation" proved unworkable and we re-integrated into American society, we sorta changed our minds.

Nomenclature aside, though; the theology is what it is--and, I would submit, pretty much always has been.

and is it confined to evangelicals? Isn't there a suspicion about Mormons in American cultural life that is more broad and historically deep than various strains in Protestantism? Perhaps I am imagining a little.

Liberals don't like us much, but I think it's because we generally tend to be conservatives. Experience shows they have no problem with hierarchal churches generally (Catholicism), churches that actively participate in politics (Unitarians and any number of black churches), or even overtly anti-American churches (Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan).

As to Catholics, there is still a strong current of thought that the Protestant Reformers, through their writings, still have a say on their 'Christian' identity. Doesn't the BOM have a say as well? I haven't read it through lately.

I think Mormonism did go through a mild anti-Catholic phase in the mid-20th century--it did affect how we read some technically-ambiguous passages in the Book of Mormon; and it's probably a factor in our continued tendency to downplay the cross as a devotional symbol. That said, I don't think Mormons ever really made a studied attempt to shunt Catholics onto the peripheries of American civic life; which I continue to suspect is at the core of the most vociferous elements of the "Mormon ≠ Christian" crowd. Edited June 29, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[AnthonyB]

Nearly every Christian group I can think of has another group that doesn't accept them as "true" Christians. 

It is almost the one true mark of being a Christian.

 

Whether you believe in:

The "full" gospel aka the bits I've got underlined

The "restored" gospel aka the bits you've deleted or ignored

The "apostolic" gospel aka the bits that our anscestor got told that you didn't

The "reformed" gospel aka the bits some guys worked out everyone else got wrong

The "liberal" gospel aka the bits that makes sense to someone with a modern belief system

 

There is someone for all of us, who has got the "gospel" so wrong that we all find it hard to understand how their view can be related to the gospel truth.

[prisonchaplain]

I know this comparison is old and tiresome, but I do not remember the response...so here it is. The LDS church headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT has more or less won the battle over which sect is the authentic representative of Joseph Smith's restoration. When some FLDS person makes headlines, I'm sure many say, "Well, there not really LDS. They're an off-shoot. They're heretics." Of course, the FLDS person would be offended at being told s/he is not a real Mormon.

It should be obvious where I am going with this. Trinitarians would be the Salt Lake City group, in this comparison.

So, what am I missing?

[Guest]

I know this comparison is old and tiresome, but I do not remember the response...so here it is. The LDS church headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT has more or less won the battle over which sect is the authentic representative of Joseph Smith's restoration. When some FLDS person makes headlines, I'm sure many say, "Well, there not really LDS. They're an off-shoot. They're heretics." Of course, the FLDS person would be offended at being told s/he is not a real Mormon. It should be obvious where I am going with this. Trinitarians would be the Salt Lake City group, in this comparison. So, what am I missing?

What you're missing is that the term "Mormon" in this scenario is not used declare one a follower of Christ or even of the Book of Mormon but more to do with the authority of the prophet.

So, the more equivalent scenario in Christendom would be for the Lutherans to get upset for being told that they are not real Catholics.

[Windseeker]

I know this comparison is old and tiresome, but I do not remember the response...so here it is. The LDS church headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT has more or less won the battle over which sect is the authentic representative of Joseph Smith's restoration. When some FLDS person makes headlines, I'm sure many say, "Well, there not really LDS. They're an off-shoot. They're heretics." Of course, the FLDS person would be offended at being told s/he is not a real Mormon. It should be obvious where I am going with this. Trinitarians would be the Salt Lake City group, in this comparison. So, what am I missing?

 

Your example would be like a Branch Dividian telling a Seventh Day Adventist they are "Seveth Day Adventist" and the Seveth Day Adventist not agreeing. 

 

I would say it's more like a Methodist telling a Quacker they are not "Christian" or a Tendai Buddhist telling a Shingon Buddhist he's not "Buddhist". 

 

As a child I grew up and read and believed everything in the Bible and of course the Book of Mormon. When I learned about Jesus in Church and at home I wanted to be like him. I accepted him as my Savior and knew that if I repented I could be forgiven because of his atonement. When I started attending school (Catholic Kinderten) and spent summers at a Baptist Bible camp held down my street I felt I was amongst my friends and fellow believers and followers of Christ. When I started getting exposed to things I was taught was morally wrong, it started coming out that I was Mormon and that was the first time I was ever told I was not a "Christian". I thought a Christian was someone who believed, worshiped and followed the teachings of Christ.

 

Needless to say I was hurt and disappointed. 

 

Singing the hymn onward Christian soldiers I always imagined our numbers were greater then just those in our chapel or even then those who are Mormon, but everyone. During Christmas I also felt a great brotherhood with all Christians regardless of where they went to Church. 

 

Too often I have witnessed the change in countenance and demeanor and felt the emotional walls come up when my being LDS dawns on one of my "Christian" acquaintances. In most of my encounters I don't know of a better way to describe it other then a darkness, be it ignorance or something more sinister it really is something to behold.

 

I wonder how the Savior must feel knowing his name is so greedily domineered by certain groups of followers.

 

Even at a young age I understood the Saviors warning to "Forbid him not". 

38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

 

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

 

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

 

41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

 

Mark 9:38,Luke 9:49

 

 

And "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

 

I have ideas as to why other "Christians" tend to ignore fruits or good works as an indication of whether an indivdual or group follows the Savior, but the anger and hatred that I've encountered in my life from fellow Christians still puzzles me.  

 

I too have grown a thicker skin, and now just feel sorry for the insecurity and ignorance displayed when people tell me because of my faith..."your'e not Christian".

 

I'm pretty sure the time is at hand when the World grows so wicked that Christians will welcome as brother Christians, all who profess his name, and we will stand side by side in defence of our mutual Christian morals and values

Edited June 30, 2015 by Windseeker

[prisonchaplain]

So, would LDS feel comfortable being described as yet another denomination of Christianity?

[Windseeker]

So, would LDS feel comfortable being described as yet another denomination of Christianity?

 

I am comfortable with it because we are. Anyone coming from a non-Christian viewpoint is shocked when they learn about LDS beliefs and then hear the whole, "But they are not Christian". It brings the honesty of "who decides who is Christian" into question. I know because I served my mission in a country of Buddhist.

[MrShorty]

So, would LDS feel comfortable being described as yet another denomination of Christianity? [emphasis mine]

Now you've done it. This is a really interesting way to phrase the question.

 

I think most of use are like Windseeker -- it would not bother us. However, as I noted elsewhere, I see a contingent of Mormons that want to push what I see called "Mormon Exceptionalism." I see this group expressing concern that we will get swallowed up in broader Christianity and lose those heterodoxical/heretical doctrines that make Mormonism unique.

 

I think some of our efforts to be included under the umbrella of "Christianity" is a recognition that, in a predominately "Christian" nation, there is a certain social "privilege" that comes with being called "Christian". Some elements of religious discussion are open only to "Christians", and non-Christians are excluded. For example, I am reminded of a Christian document on the family a few years ago headed by Focus on the Family that specifically barred the LDS Church from signing because they did not want the document to be tainted by non-Christian groups. We want to be called Christian so that we are allowed to participate in these discussions.

 

In the end, we want to be called "Christian", but I think there could be a problem with Mormonism become yet another Christian denomination.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm willing to split the difference--which leaves the waters truly murky.  It's abundantly clear that no single denomination has won the "who gets to say who's Christian" award.  On the other hand, there still seems to be something to my contention that Trinitarian theology is extremely dominant amongst the 2.2 billion + who call themselves Christian. Not sure where that leaves me...understanding the other side a bit better, perhaps with yet another dollop of humility...still dancing around the "How wide the divide" question.

[Just_A_Guy]

I know this comparison is old and tiresome, but I do not remember the response...so here it is. The LDS church headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT has more or less won the battle over which sect is the authentic representative of Joseph Smith's restoration. When some FLDS person makes headlines, I'm sure many say, "Well, there not really LDS. They're an off-shoot. They're heretics." Of course, the FLDS person would be offended at being told s/he is not a real Mormon. It should be obvious where I am going with this. Trinitarians would be the Salt Lake City group, in this comparison. So, what am I missing?

 

One distinction that I (would like to) think exists, is that the FLDS, through their actions, tend to bring shame on the term "Mormon" as it is perceived by the outside world.  By contrast, I (would like to) think that a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Shinto, or Hindu would tend to say that your average Mormon is a credit to the larger Christian community.

 

 

So, would LDS feel comfortable being described as yet another denomination of Christianity? [emphasis mine]

 

I'm one of those Mormon Exceptionalists of which MrShorty speaks.  I don't much care whether someone calls me a Christian or not, except in a society where non-Christians have to sit at the back of the bus. 

[Windseeker]

I think unity between LDS and other Christians can only help slow our moral decline. As you can see here in the U.S. division seems to work pretty well for the adversary.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Windseeker

[Jane_Doe]

So, would LDS feel comfortable being described as yet another denomination of Christianity?

 

(I'm not sure if this directly answers, but hopefully at least addresses the question)

 

Over the years, I have observe many of my Christian friends come to regard their Methodist-Christian, or Baptist-Christian, or Lutheran-Christian faiths all as "same difference".  In doing so they dilute, if not 100% disregard, the history and deep theological traditions of their own individual faiths.   

 

I find this to be a tragic loss of depth and by no means wish it on LDS-Christian.  

[Jane_Doe]

I've been thinking on this topic and how to phrase things... there is a definite drive in the Mormon church to be recognized as "Christian", but not to be clone of Baptists/Methodists/Catholics.  I know no church is a "club", but I'm going to use that as an analogy.

 

It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong), that non-denominational minded people view a Mormon seeking membership into the "Christian club", it means that they are trying to seek membership into the "non-denominational Christian church".  This is obviously distressing because by definition a member of the Mormon denomination fails the non-denominational test.

 

But the Mormons (at least myself) don't want membership in the "non-denominational Christian church".  Instead, I just want to be able to hang the "Let's rejoice in Christ as Savior" club without other members trying to invalidate me because I believe in continuing revelation.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm one of those Mormon Exceptionalists of which MrShorty speaks.  I don't much care whether someone calls me a Christian or not, except in a society where non-Christians have to sit at the back of the bus. 

 

We may all be sitting in the back of the bus before too long. 

[Windseeker]

I've been thinking on this topic and how to phrase things... there is a definite drive in the Mormon church to be recognized as "Christian", but not to be clone of Baptists/Methodists/Catholics.  I know no church is a "club", but I'm going to use that as an analogy.

 

It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong), that non-denominational minded people view a Mormon seeking membership into the "Christian club", it means that they are trying to seek membership into the "non-denominational Christian church".  This is obviously distressing because by definition a member of the Mormon denomination fails the non-denominational test.

 

But the Mormons (at least myself) don't want membership in the "non-denominational Christian church".  Instead, I just want to be able to hang the "Let's rejoice in Christ as Savior" club without other members trying to invalidate me because I believe in continuing revelation.

 

This is where I'm coming from. When I hear "Onward Christian Soldiers" I view all who accept the Jesus Christ as our Savior marching under the same banner and fighting against the same enemy. 

 

Same thing when it comes to celebrating Christmas (the true meaning). I think we can join and celebrate together. My parents often took us to see the "Singing Christmas Tree" that was put on at the local Non-denominational Christian as one of our holiday traditions.

 

Our common beliefs ought to outweigh or doctrinal differences when it comes to joining together to fight for Family Values and Religious freedom.