"anti" Propoganda


sixpacktr
 Share

Recommended Posts

I read an Anti-Mormon tract one time that suggested it was improper to dignify LDS with the title Christian. That only orthodox churche's that matched their idea of proper orthodoxy should get the title. I have also seen the idea that the LDS is a new religion not a continuation of the true preserved reformed church so was not Christian.

All i can do with the idea LDS arn't Christian is brought up as an objection is to affirm my use of a broader definition of Christian. Of course i am a Reorganized Latter Day Saint, but we get the non-Christian allegation equally with the Utah-based Latter-day Saints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I understand, and I thank you for clarifying. The LDS teaching of three levels of heaven, combined with the belief that even after death, all will have an unambiguous presentation of the gospel, results in a much smaller "outer darkness" (hell).

While my explanation might make it "easier to blaspheme," for believers, I would argue that the road away from communion towards blasphemy is wrought with repeated opportunities to turn back to God, and that the loss of salvation is accomplished only after repeated and willful resistance to God.

The point in LDS doctrine is that a choice cannot be made in ignorance, only when one understands the end consequences. It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would choose eternal darkness (outer darkness) over eternal life unless they had been beguiled. At the same time, it is even more difficult to believe that G-d holds those to account that love others but vocally deny the doctrines of G-d they find inconsistent (or incomprehensible as in some so called traditional circles).

How can someone turn away from a G-d they cannot understand or comprehend? Or how can anyone be on the right path ever coming closer to a G-d they cannot understand or comprehend?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw a wrench in the monkey works (I don't even know what that means, btw): Some argue that so long as one believes in Jesus, s/he should be called a Christian. However, Muslims believe in Jesus, and reverence his name with the honorific PEACE BE UPON HIM. Yet, no one, including Muslims themselves, suggests that Muslims belong within the religious family known as Christian.

Put another way, should Christians be called Jews?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muslim's do not consider themselve's member's of the Christian church though. They think he was just a good man, or a great teacher. They would not convert to any type of Christianity unless they wanted to convert over to belief in Christ. I am not sure anyone just for expressing any type of belief in Jesus should be called Christian.

Evangelical's see LDS as embracing a false Jesus and gospel.(2 Cor. 11:4; Galatian's 1:8,9.) A belief in a wrong Jesus to them disqualifies you as a believer in Jesus. So your belief in Jesus would be equally to them not really believing in Jesus with a unbelieving Muslim who believes in Jesus. It's not enough to hold a belief he was a great man, and teacher.

I don't think Jesus was no longer a Jew because he founded Christianity. To me he would be a Jewish Christian even though Old World Christians were not called Christian's yet. I do not see plenty of room for LDS Christians, Muslim Christian's, ect as long as each group originated with a belief in a form of early Christianity. One does not give up one's heritage when one become's a Christian.

Evangelical's have come to believe only old world churche's traceable to the early church can be considered Christian. So any church that claim's to be a restoration should not in their mind be termed Christianity. Instead they consider the LDS, and any related church like my Community of Christ/RLDS a Pseudo-Christian religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I alone in not caring whether or not someone thinks I am Christian -as I see it its between me and Christ really. I am happy to call myself a Latter Day Saint - our Jesus is the same historical figure, but our Saviour and Atonement is very different to bog standard Christianity.

Whether or not I am follower of Christ will be decided by him alone, same goes for anyone else, I personally do not think being Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist stops someone from growing closer and learning about Him in life and some of the greatest Christians I know are from other religions - I had an atheist boss who had Christ in her countenance you couldn't miss it, a Hindu lady as a child made a huge impression on me.

-Charley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, no need to make stuff up. three headed god-figure. the God of the trinity is not a three headed monster. :) whether you recognize it in the bible or not, they believe there is only one God as the bible and book of mormon teaches. they take that literally. lds do not take it as literally. they understand it as one God in purpose. and that's fine. who am i to demand everybody understand everything the same way? the quotes though...

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7 )

sorry, took me a while to find that quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask a series of questions.

1. Are Protestants Christians?

2. Catholics?

3. Jehovah's Witnesses?

4. Those who joined the People's Temple, the Branch-Davidians

5. Those who operate Anti-LDS ministries?

Where is the line between "not judging" and exercising discernment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask a series of questions.

1. Are Protestants Christians?

2. Catholics?

3. Jehovah's Witnesses?

4. Those who joined the People's Temple, the Branch-Davidians

5. Those who operate Anti-LDS ministries?

Where is the line between "not judging" and exercising discernment?

Christians are all baptized persons who firmly believe that God sent his only Son to redeem sinners by his obedience unto death on a cross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians are all baptized persons who firmly believe that God sent his only Son to redeem sinners by his obedience unto death on a cross.

IMHO, baptism is done in obedience to God--an act a Christian does, not an one done by a candidate for salvation. Also, IF baptism is a prerequisite, will any baptism do...or does it matter who officiates, and which church, it is offered under?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, baptism is done in obedience to God--an act a Christian does, not an one done by a candidate for salvation.

Then you allow for the existence of Christians who never get baptized, since your definition of Christian becomes only one who gives mental assent to various doctrines.

Also, IF baptism is a prerequisite, will any baptism do...or does it matter who officiates, and which church, it is offered under?

The Church becomes important when the baptism is not performed using the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you allow for the existence of Christians who never get baptized, since your definition of Christian becomes only one who gives mental assent to various doctrines.

This is true. However, the true Christian--the one who loves God--will obey His commands. One of those is baptism. So, early in the Christian's 'new life,' baptism would be an expected experience.

The Church becomes important when the baptism is not performed using the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19.

I'd lose my credentials if I baptized according to the formula of Acts 2:38 (in the name of Jesus). However, I'm not sure that such a baptism would be invalid--especially if those performing the sacrament were, nevertheless, trinitarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true. However, the true Christian--the one who loves God--will obey His commands. One of those is baptism. So, early in the Christian's 'new life,' baptism would be an expected experience.

Christ not only expects it, he teaches that it must accompany belief for salvation.

Mark.16:[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the "believeth not" that is important there. The thief on the cross was not baptized.

It is possible the thief on the Cross was a follower of Jesus who was forgiven for his sins but still had to answer to the human authorities for his crimes (and indeed likely, considering the "love" the Jews had for people who were part of the Way).

There is also the principle that God binds humans to his plan of salvation, but this does not in turn bind God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, are you saying that you think the thieth was a follower before the accounting on the cross?

Yes, because he seemed to be familiar with Christ's teaching that the Kingdom of God was at hand. He said "Remember me when you come into your Kingdom." Since Christ didn't preach his gospel on the cross, the thief must have heard Christ prior to his execution. He might even have been one of the 72 disciples, and was captured in a general sweep when Christ himself was arrested, and the 12 went into hiding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is more likely he picked up what Jesus was accused of, saw the "King of the Jews" sign, and heard the slurs of the crowed. Seeing Jesus so meek and Jesus' followers that were present was probably enough for the thief.

Historically, conversion to Christianity was a longer process than just saying "Jesus come into my heart as my Personal Lord and Savior." It took from one to three years and culminated during Holy Week with baptism and the laying on of hands to confer the Holy Spirit. If the catechumen died of natural causes or accidents during that long process before baptism, they were considered to have been saved by their desire to come into the Kingdom of God. Catechumens who were put to death by opponents to Christianity before their water baptism were said to have gone through the baptism of blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that was later, not during the lifetime of Christ.

The Baptism of Blood and the Baptism of Desire have the example of the Good Thief as their generating principle. Other people seize on the example of the Good Thief as a loophole in the doctrine that baptism is required for salvation, as though God, the very source and dispenser of grace, is bound by the normative means by which he brings that grace to men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share