"It's time Christians started including Latter-day Saints"


MrShorty
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  This, of course, begs the question:  what defines “doctrinal orthodoxy”, for purposes of defining who is “Christian”?

2.  But one might reply that the word “Christian” is already imprecise in meaning, having been appropriated and bastardized in ahistorical and extra-scriptural ways by a variety of sects who claim the term belongs to them and them alone.  

3.  Why, exactly, do we need to know “where someone is really at”?  (I’m not trying to be snarky here; I’m thinking that if we can really explore the issue from this angle we can reveal a lot of the subtexts that generally occur in the “who’s the REAL Christian?” sorts of discussions.)

4.  But of course, Catholicism has an institutional hierarchy with final say over what it means to be “Catholic” (indeed, for nearly 3/4 of the Common Era, that hierarchy or its antecedents had final say over what it means to be “Christian”).  If the Pope is willing to claim man such as your friend as a Catholic, who are we to try to declare him out-of-bounds—notwithstanding the gravity of his heresies?  

And by the same token:  if the Lord Jesus Christ is willing to claim me as a Christian, whose business is it to try to tell me that I’m really not a “Christian” at all?

As I understand it, the whole point of Protestantism was that no mortal man has the divine authority to tell me I’m insufficiently Christian or to pronounce damnation upon my head.  If that’s the game some of them want to play, why didn’t they just stay Catholics? 

1. "Doctrinal Orthodoxy" would certainly have to include a common understanding of who God is. If there is disagreement on this then someone is wrong.

2. On the macro level, Catholics say that Protestants are 'separated brethren,' and most Protestants believe that most Catholics will make heaven.

3. I prefer Lewis' model. You might be a Christian, with right enough doctrine. However, you might also be a bad Christian. I'm not sure if he would go this far, but I would argue you almost have to be (or have been) a Christian before you can blaspheme the Holy Ghost (the one sin that is unpardonable).

4. Again, most Catholics and Protestants expect to see each other in heaven.

As for who is anyone to tell another s/he is or isn't a Christian, that is only possible if the word has a definite meaning. For example, if belief in the Trinity is a prerequisite then non-Trinitarians would not be Christians. Of course, they might argue that the Trinitarians are wrong, their doctrine is off, and that the non-Trinitarian view is the one Christ held and taught. Again, I suspect that Lewis' argument has lost, and that the word "Christian" is in the process of becoming so broad in meaning that nearly anything with pleasant thoughts about Jesus can claim it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2019 at 10:39 PM, Vort said:

As a Latter-day Saint, I obviously believe we are Christians—in point of fact, the only true Christians. But in my beneficence, I am generously willing to extend that label to most of those who want to claim it, even though they may not quite live up to what I believe are the elements of a Christian.

Are Mormons* Christians? And if so are they the only "true" Christians?

What do we even mean by "Christian".

1. A Christian is someone who professes to follow Jesus Christ. If I were to set up the "Church of Jesus Christ of Dinosaur Wombats" which teaches that Jesus Christ is a flying teapot in orbit around Mars, would that make Dinosaur Wombats Christians? According to this definition yes, but not in a way that actually means anything. Similarly the oft-repeated: "Of course LDS are Christians! We're the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is not a helpful thing to say.

2. A Christian is someone who professes a belief in the teachings of the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Mormons, Catholics, Methodists and Jehovah's witnesses all fit that definition, though they will disagree in what those teachings are, and therefore (potentially) exclude each other from the definition of "Christian". Catholics and Protestants make much of "the Trinity" being the centremost of those teachings, but in that case its odd that the Bible never does articulate this very clearly. It is theology - a theory devised by mortal men to interpret scripture: and yet the Athanasian creed makes it essential for salvation. I'd be lying if I said I understood that.

3. A Christian is someone who has been "redeemed"/"saved"/"sanctified" or (to put it more poetically) "washed in the blood of the Lamb".  All you need to do is (i) confess your sins and accept you will never be good enough by your own strength and (ii) ask God into your heart to cleanse you and make you His own. There is no need for any priestly rites/ordinances (though you may wish to go through these things as outward signs of your decision). This is very much my own traditional interpretation; and yet I don't see why it should necessarily exclude LDS. Perhaps Joseph Smith was a fraud, and perhaps the Book of Mormon is (at least in so far as it differs from the Bible) false scripture. But Joseph Smith is long dead, and the LDS have the true scriptures as well as the "false" (assuming they are false) ones - and thus all the "basic tools" to accept Christ into their hearts. Who's to say that the Holy Spirit isn't working to save them in this manner too?

4. A Christian is a person who has received certain ordinances from an organization which has authority to act in the name of Christ. This stands in opposition to the previous definition: old fashioned Catholics would (to varying degrees) believe this - the RC Church being the "organization" in question. High Church Anglicans believe that the Church of England inherited that authority too, though hard line Romans would disagree. LDS (if I understand rightly) think that the organization from which the RC Church evolved had that authority once, but lost it. (I never understood that - but that's another matter.) 

From the LDS perspective though: "Are Non-Mormons Christians"? The answer I was always given during my sojourn in the LDS Church was always "yes" but this may have been the spirit of the times. (I'm talking early 1990s.) In 1966 in Mormon Doctrine Bruce McConkie wrote...

Quote

...true and acceptable Christianity is found among the saints who have the fullness of the gospel, and a perverted christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom.

...so I can safely say his answer would have been "no". Having said that I think McConkie was was out of step even with his own times: I've read that he was made to remove a lot of anti-ecumenical sentiment from his book, which - even expurgated - was never officially adopted by the Church. 

* Sorry if this word offends anyone but I'm just so used to using it to mean "LDS member" it's hard to stop.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaimie, I like your analysis. I would add one further definition, the one I was meaning to use:

5. A Christian is any person who humbly and sincerely strives to follow Christ. This is not ecumenism per se, but it certainly allows for non-<insert denomination here> Christians. From my LDS point of view, any sincere, humble follower of Christ will eventually be led to Christ's kingdom, and will become a part of that kingdom through the baptismal ordinance that Jesus himself modeled. Thus my statement that Latter-day Saints are in a sense the only true Christians, where "true" means "straight" or "accurate", as in the true course or a gun that fires true.

In this case, it's not "true as opposed to false", but "true as opposed to erring". I believe this was McConkie's usage, too; he spoke several times of "erring Christianity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

1. A Christian is someone who professes to follow Jesus Christ. If I were to set up the "Church of Jesus Christ of Dinosaur Wombats" which teaches that Jesus Christ is a flying teapot in orbit around Mars, would that make Dinosaur Wombats Christians? According to this definition yes, but not in a way that actually means anything. Similarly the oft-repeated: "Of course LDS are Christians! We're the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is not a helpful thing to say.

2. A Christian is someone who professes a belief in the teachings of the Jesus Christ of the Bible. 

3. A Christian is someone who has been "redeemed"/"saved"/"sanctified" or (to put it more poetically) "washed in the blood of the Lamb". 

4. A Christian is a person who has received certain ordinances from an organization which has authority to act in the name of Christ.

I tend to bristle at the common canard,"but you worship a different Christ than we do."  I always respond with,"We worship the Christ taught about in the Bible.  The one called the Son of God.  The one born of a virgin.  The one who taught his gospel to the Jews of Jerusalem.  The one who atoned for our sins.  Who was executed and rose from the grave three days later.  That's the one we believe in.  I'm sorry to hear you don't believe in that Christ.

While I certainly understand your argument in #1 above.  But it is the slippery slope fallacy.  While ANY allowance can be taken ad absurdum, some differences of interpretation and understanding must always be allowed.

The real question is "What are the important points?"  The ones I just listed, I'd argue, are indeed the important points.  Others bring in the Trinity.  But as you say, that doesn't seem reasonable.  You stated some reasons why.  My point is, too many evangelicals don't understand it (even if they believe in it).  And almost all accept (as "Christians") many among their ranks who say they don't believe in it.  That lack of consistency on the matter decreases their credibility.

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

* Sorry if this word offends anyone but I'm just so used to using it to mean "LDS member" it's hard to stop.

Just a nit-pick here:

I've always raised an eyebrow at the addition of the word "member".  It is a bit like saying "ATM Machine" or "PIN Number".  A "Saint" is a follower of Christ.  So, to say "a latter-day follower of Christ member" doesn't really sound right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mores said:

I tend to bristle at the common canard,"but you worship a different Christ than we do."  I always respond with,"We worship the Christ taught about in the Bible.  The one called the Son of God.  The one born of a virgin.  The one who taught his gospel to the Jews of Jerusalem.  The one who atoned for our sins.  Who was executed and rose from the grave three days later.  That's the one we believe in.  I'm sorry to hear you don't believe in that Christ.

I don't disagree with you - my point is merely that the inclusion of the words "Jesus Christ" in a church's name is not in itself a knockdown argument that its members are Christian in any meaningful sense. That was why I included an elaborated definition in 2.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vort said:

In this case, it's not "true as opposed to false", but "true as opposed to erring". I believe this was McConkie's usage, too; he spoke several times of "erring Christianity".

Interesting! I've always interpreted "not a true x" as "having a superficial similarity to x but actually being something quite different". For example polar bears, grizzlys and pandas are all "true bears". The koala on the other hand - though looking somewhat bearlike and being popularly called a "koala bear" - is actually a marsupial. It is "not a true bear".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Interesting! I've always interpreted "not a true x" as "having a superficial similarity to x but actually being something quite different". For example polar bears, grizzlys and pandas are all "true bears". The koala on the other hand - though looking somewhat bearlike and being popularly called a "koala bear" - is actually a marsupial. It is "not a true bear".

The miracle of the English language is the nuance our words and usages have. The burden of English is correctly assigning those various nuances. The curse of English is the (sometimes intentional) misassignment of meaning the we see so often in politics, along with the feigning of actually having a different nuance in mind when we're called out. Sadly, this latter event takes place not just in public politics, but in everyday life. A curse, indeed. (Though for the record, I feel certain that Jamie, who has always been candid and transparent here as far as I can remember, is doing no such thing.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

The miracle of the English language is the nuance our words and usages have. The burden of English is correctly assigning those various nuances. The curse of English is the (sometimes intentional) misassignment of meaning the we see so often in politics, along with the feigning of actually having a different nuance in mind when we're called out. Sadly, this latter event takes place not just in public politics, but in everyday life. A curse, indeed. (Though for the record, I feel certain that Jamie, who has always been candid and transparent here as far as I can remember, is doing no such thing.)

A curse indeed! And thanks for the vote of confidence!

We use my sense of the word "true" in mathematics as well - "true random numbers" for instance or "true primes" ( as opposed to "pseudoprimes" which share some prime properties but are actually composite.)

However I'm pretty sure that is what certain evangelicals mean when they say that the likes of LDS, Catholics and Non-Young-Earth Creationists (like me) are "not true Christians". If LDS use the term differently that demands some further investigation, so I'm much indebted to you Vort!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

However I'm pretty sure that is what certain evangelicals mean when they say that the likes of LDS, Catholics and Non-Young-Earth Creationists (like me) are "not true Christians". If LDS use the term differently that demands some further investigation, so I'm much indebted to you Vort!

I wish you two (Jamie123 and Vort) had been around when I visited my first sacrament meeting in Houston in the late 1980s.  Several young speakers gave talks that all ended with the same sentence: "...and I know that the Mormon church is the only true church."  I interpreted this to mean, fairly or unfairly, that the LDS Church regarded all other churches as "only false" churches, or churches that were 100% in error.  Of course, around that time many conservative Protestant leaders were dismissing the LDS Church as "counterfeit Christianity," so my side wasn't exactly a geyser of interfaith diplomacy.

But I can't help but wonder one thing.  If "true" is used here in the sense of "not erring," then why not use the more precise term instead?  "I believe the Mormon Church is the only unerring church" or "I believe the Mormon chuch is the surest (or best) way to follow Christ" might be less jarring (and even pleasantly affirming) to first-time visitors in meetinghouses.  Had my young speakers ended their talks with those sentences instead, I'd say my life would have turned out rather differently.

And by the way, my own church has softened up a bit over the years.  The Baptists here were nervous around Latter-day Saints because so many Baptists were converting.  "Every week in Texas an entire Baptist church turns Mormon!" was the phrase I heard.  And that spawned reckless urban legends that the Baptists were more upset over the loss of tithes and offerings than in souls.  But things have changed a bit.  There are even Protestant schools of thought now that talk about four Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) or the four great slices in the Christian pie chart (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and LDS).  I'm sure my LDS friends would not agree with these schemes, but their mere existence hints at changes in some Protestant attitudes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Texan said:

Several young speakers gave talks that all ended with the same sentence: "...and I know that the Mormon church is the only true church."  I interpreted this to mean, fairly or unfairly, that the LDS Church regarded all other churches as "only false" churches, or churches that were 100% in error.

[...]

But I can't help but wonder one thing.  If "true" is used here in the sense of "not erring," then why not use the more precise term instead?

The meeting you describe above was almost certainly a fast and testimony meeting, typically held on the first Sunday of the month. The specific phrase you mention derives from scripture, specifically from Doctrine and Covenants 1:30, which reads in part:

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased...

In Joseph Smith's so-called First Vision, a theophany of the Father and the Son to the young Prophet, he learned that the kingdom of God was not then found on the earth, but would be restored through him. If the true Church of the Lord, with Christ's own authority, had been on the earth at that time, God would simply have directed him to it. Indeed, that was Joseph's purpose in going to the Lord in prayer in the first place.

I don't speak for the Church or for anyone else besides me, but when I say the Church is true, I mean it is complete, the veritable kingdom of God on earth, exactly what it claims to be. My point is not to dwell on the supposed falsity of any other church; on the contrary, I have learned to value the goodness of other people and of other faiths, even those that are not Christian, as long as they seek truth and honor what truths they possess. I do not consider myself an intrinsically better person by virtue of my Church membership, but clearly I value the Church itself as the very kingdom of God, a pearl beyond price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mores said:

I tend to bristle at the common canard,"but you worship a different Christ than we do."  I always respond with,"We worship the Christ taught about in the Bible.  The one called the Son of God.  The one born of a virgin.  The one who taught his gospel to the Jews of Jerusalem.  The one who atoned for our sins.  Who was executed and rose from the grave three days later.  That's the one we believe in.  I'm sorry to hear you don't believe in that Christ.

 

There are apostate LDS groups that still use the name Mormon. They could point out all the commonalities, but at the end of the day you follow different hierarchies and ordinances. The "different Jesus" analysis feels harsh. It is an attack of sorts. However, given that most Christian churches worship Jesus who is the second person of the Trinity, who is one with the Father in essence . . . well, if the difference were not important we would not have the at-least annual discussions here about Trinity, Christ's nature, and who is and is not a Christian, right? 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

 

However I'm pretty sure that is what certain evangelicals mean when they say that the likes of LDS, Catholics and Non-Young-Earth Creationists (like me) are "not true Christians". If LDS use the term differently that demands some further investigation, so I'm much indebted to you Vort!

Those certain Evangelicals are probably not...they are Fundamentalists. Most Evangelicals accept that most (or at least many) Catholics will make heaven. Further, many may not like theistic evolution, and other non-YEC perspectives, I doubt many Evangelicals would kick those with such views out of the Kingdom. Fundamentalists might argue that if you can't believe the Bible means what it says you don't believe God--but that's not really an Evangelical tendency.

So, we really are talking about line-drawing. At one point must we say that a given religion is "other" or "different?" The doctrine of who God is seems a likely marker for most religious folk.

The following is the Statement of Faith of the National Association of Evangelicals. It contains doctrine about God's nature (describing the Trinity without using the word). It also speaks to the supremacy of the Bible, though without denying modern-day prophetic revelation (Charismatics are members). There is nothing about creation. 

Also, please note that it is NOT copyrighted.

 

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

The NAE intentionally has not copyrighted its Statement of Faith so that it may be used widely. If including the NAE Statement of Faith on your website, include: “As adopted by the National Association of Evangelicals.”

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

The meeting you describe above was almost certainly a fast and testimony meeting, typically held on the first Sunday of the month. The specific phrase you mention derives from scripture, specifically from Doctrine and Covenants 1:30, which reads in part:

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased...

In Joseph Smith's so-called First Vision, a theophany of the Father and the Son to the young Prophet, he learned that the kingdom of God was not then found on the earth, but would be restored through him. If the true Church of the Lord, with Christ's own authority, had been on the earth at that time, God would simply have directed him to it. Indeed, that was Joseph's purpose in going to the Lord in prayer in the first place.

I don't speak for the Church or for anyone else besides me, but when I say the Church is true, I mean it is complete, the veritable kingdom of God on earth, exactly what it claims to be. My point is not to dwell on the supposed falsity of any other church; on the contrary, I have learned to value the goodness of other people and of other faiths, even those that are not Christian, as long as they seek truth and honor what truths they possess. I do not consider myself an intrinsically better person by virtue of my Church membership, but clearly I value the Church itself as the very kingdom of God, a pearl beyond price.

Yes, it was indeed a fast and testimony meeting.  My girlfriend (a Latter-day Saint, although of course she self-indentified as a Mormon back then) had taken me there to introduce me to the Church, but a moment after we arrived she realized it was a fast and testimony meeting and she expressed great disappointment that my first visit would be on that day.  I never really understood why.

Let me change gears a bit in this conversation.  A while back I listened to a fascinating podcast by a man named Bill Child, who was the son-in-law of R.C. Willey.  (Yes, that R.C. Willey.)  If I recall the podcast correctly, R.C. Willey started his business during the Depression as a door-to-door refrigerator salesman.  After a hundred doors had been slammed in his face, he developed a brilliant sales gimmick, and sales of his refrigerators skyrocketed.  He offered to install a refrigerator free of charge in a family's home and let the family use it for six weeks with no strings attached.  If they liked it, he'd figure out a way for them to buy it on time.  If they didn't, he'd come back after six weeks and take it back.

The story played out almost the same in every home.  At first the husband might have been lukewarm to the idea of buying a refrigerator, but after six weeks the wife realized her life had changed immeasurably for the better, and she told the husband that if he refused to buy the refrigerator then he'd be sleeping on the sofa for the rest of his life, with all the loss of benefits that any husband would dread.  (Okay, so I'm embellishing this story a bit with the Lysistrata subplot, but you get the idea, and many wives did tell their husbands that the only way that refrigerator would leave the house was over somebody's dead body.)

This strange litte tale is a perfect parable for how some converts enter the Church.  They may be aware of the Church's truth claims, but they're more focused on experiencing the Church, living and using it day to day, and just feeling how it improves their lives.  In the end, many end up "buying the refrigerator" because the Church has been a huge net plus for them despite doctrines that they might not understand, categorize as true, or even care much about.

On the other hand, some investigators (like me) start with zero knowledge of the Church, and their first contact takes the form of a long list of truth claims expressed almost as mathematical theorems.  When we hear language like "the only true and living church," we are tempted to view these "theorems" as binary true-false propositions, and a single "false" will cause the whole thing to collapse, sort of like dividing by zero somewhere in a proof.  Over time, I have come to realize that this is not a particularly useful way to approach the Church, and that's why I said my life could have turned out differently if I had followed the refrigerator path in.  That first visit to the sacrament meeting caused my first domino to fall, and it didn't fall in a helpful direction.

Recently I heard a snippet of another podcast that talked about "validity" and "utility" Latter-day Saints.  These terms were apparently coined by someone either outside the Church or on the edges (I only got part of the story before I stopped listening) but the point was that a "validity" Saint remains a member mainly because the Church is true, and a "utility" Saint remains mainly because the Church is good.   The speaker also claimed that men tend toward the validity side and women tend toward the utility side.

So all this rambling boils down to a question I've been afraid to ask until tonight, curiously.  If I were to present myself to a bishop as more of a utility believer than a validity believer, would the bishop tell me my testimony was sufficient to proceed to baptism?  It's a question I've been wondering about for some time, and it's one of the reasons I started posting here.  

Edited by Texan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @Texan, great questions, which I'm going to answer with my own ramblings :).  A little bit of background on me, I'm an LDS Christian lady married to an Evangelical/Baptist dude.  Vast majority of my friends and loved ones aren't LDS Christians, but I love to talk faith with everyone, including visiting all sorts of churches to better understand the beliefs and people therein-- it's my nerdy passion.  

6 hours ago, Texan said:

I wish you two (Jamie123 and Vort) had been around when I visited my first sacrament meeting in Houston in the late 1980s.  Several young speakers gave talks that all ended with the same sentence: "...and I know that the Mormon church is the only true church."  I interpreted this to mean, fairly or unfairly, that the LDS Church regarded all other churches as "only false" churches, or churches that were 100% in error. 

I find that this reaction is pretty common from Evangelicals/Baptists, whom really stress the binary "are you saved or damned" world-view.  LDS Christian theology is set up much more on a spectrum (degreeS of glory, etc), intrinsically acknowledging of others right to believe as they do (11th Article of Faith), and see all Goodness coming from God (wherever it is found).  

Yes-LDS Christians each see their beliefs as being the most correct --- as does every other person with whatever beliefs they hold-- that's why each person holds those particular beliefs!  But LDS Christians don't have that binary "we're 100 right, you're 100% wrong" mindset.  I completely acknowledge that my husband is a Christian- that's a complete "no duh".  I celebrate the many wonderful things his faith has blessed his & my life for, thank God for the youth leader who taught my (now husband) how to be a man of God, enjoy my time as Baptist church, and so many other good things there.  But I don't find the Baptist Church organization to be God's True Church because 1) I do have important theological disagreements on some issues and 2) I don't believe that that church organization is personally lead by God with His Priesthood authority.  I realize that the 2nd is commonly a hard concept for a Protestant to grasp, whereas a Catholic has an easier time with it.

6 hours ago, Texan said:

But I can't help but wonder one thing.  If "true" is used here in the sense of "not erring," then why not use the more precise term instead?  "I believe the Mormon Church is the only unerring church" or "I believe the Mormon chuch is the surest (or best) way to follow Christ" might be less jarring (and even pleasantly affirming) to first-time visitors in meetinghouses. 

How about "having God's Priesthood Authority, to teach the most correct Truth and continually receive revelation from Him?"   

6 hours ago, Texan said:

 There are even Protestant schools of thought now that talk about four Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) or the four great slices in the Christian pie chart (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and LDS).  I'm sure my LDS friends would not agree with these schemes, but their mere existence hints at changes in some Protestant attitudes. 

 I've seen both of those.  The "4th Abrahamic religion" seems very odd.... 1) because it makes me think "did you just forget about Baha'i?" and 2) LDS Christians do very much consider themselves to be Christian.  The 4 slices of the Christian pie chart is totally fine and I regularly use similar explanations myself.

3 hours ago, Texan said:

Willey started his business during the Depression as a door-to-door refrigerator salesman... <Jane abridging for length>  This strange litte tale is a perfect parable for how some converts enter the Church.  They may be aware of the Church's truth claims, but they're more focused on experiencing the Church, living and using it day to day, and just feeling how it improves their lives.  In the end, many end up "buying the refrigerator" because the Church has been a huge net plus for them despite doctrines that they might not understand, categorize as true, or even care much about.  

Yep, :) Tasting the fruit and seeing that it is Good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Cue another long response)

3 hours ago, Texan said:

So all this rambling boils down to a question I've been afraid to ask until tonight, curiously.  If I were to present myself to a bishop as more of a utility believer than a validity believer, would the bishop tell me my testimony was sufficient to proceed to baptism?  It's a question I've been wondering about for some time, and it's one of the reasons I started posting here.  

What is required is a testimony of Christ and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is His Church led by Him.  That testimony, and the sincere desire to commit and love Him more.  It's not required that you break everything now like a mathematical theorem-- that's usually not the best way to approach faith.   Faith is about a relationship with your Father, not deconstructing Him down like He was a bunch of equations and you're suddenly smart enough to understand everything.  

The question before baptism are listed below.  They fall under the themes of accepting Christ & His Church (#1-2), repenting of sins (3-4), and willing to follow Him (5-6).  

  1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of the world?

  2. Do you believe that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

  3. What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past transgressions?

  4. Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? Have you ever committed a homosexual transgression? {Jane note: if you have, you can still be baptized.  Just going to make sure about repentance first}

  5. You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand about the following standards? Are you willing to obey them?

    1. The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between one man and one woman.

    2. The law of tithing.

    3. The Word of Wisdom.

    4. The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to others.

  6. When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life. Are you ready to make this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@prisonchaplain I think the NAE statement can kind of illustrate something I see in this debate. Based on a surface reading of those statements, I am sola scriptura away from being an Evangelical Christian, because, other than that first statement asserting the (Protestant) Bible alone as authoritative, I can agree with the surface reading of the other statements. For example, compare the second statement to D&C 20:28 "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen."

Now, you and I both know that the gap is wider than the surface reading might suggest. You and I know that there are details, nuances, and technicalities behind those Trinitarian statements that are at odds. The NAE statement is rooted in a Nicene understanding of the Trinity, where Joseph Smith's statement (assuming he actually understood the Trinity in the detail we ascribe to him in 1830) has come to be more of a social Trinitarian view. I know that, somewhere behind those statements about salvation is a "faith alone" component that I don't agree with.

As you said, it is about drawing lines around what it means to be Christian. I don't know how to decide was are ancillary details and what are the fundamental beliefs, but it still sometimes feels to me that we are drawing those lines based on ancillary details to the fundamental beliefs rather than the fundamental beliefs themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the music, the worship,  and the holiness standards of the Oneness Pentecostals. I love those same conservative moral/ethical standards of LDS, along with the high intelligence, and the overall high regard for the persons of the Godhead and their words (as found in scripture and modern revelation). I love the intelligence, open-heartedness, and willingness to engage of atheists like @Godless. Our Buddhist monk that comes in is off-the-charts humorous, respectful, and sincere in his practice. AND, I see goodness in many of the "bad" people I work with. Further, I probably have more in common (quantity-wise) with the more conservative and active members of this site than I do with some of the post-modern clergy in my own movement.

STILL...we've got to agree and who God is. Is it all just Jesus, filling in different roles (modalism, aka Oneness Pentecostals, sometimes known as Apostolic)? Is God a 'social trinity' composed of three separate personages united in purpose? Or, as most Catholics and Protestants have said for nearly 2,000 years, is God eternally one essential being, in the person of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit--a Trinity? The Jesus of the first is the one God. The Jesus of the second is a physically separated God from his Father, yet so in agreement that they are called one. The Jesus of the third is eternally and essentially God, and yet is a person distinct from Father and Spirit. I was going to mention the Jehovah's Witnesses subordinationist view of Jesus, but they openly admit that their views are different from that of 'Christendom,' and they want no part of us.

So, there it is. Kudos and respect...but not agreement. It's good though. We'll just keep at it, and enjoy the conversations and good company along the way. :hi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

But I don't find the Baptist Church organization to be God's True Church because 1) I do have important theological disagreements on some issues and 2) I don't believe that that church organization is personally lead by God with His Priesthood authority.  I realize that the 2nd is commonly a hard concept for a Protestant to grasp, whereas a Catholic has an easier time with it.

Thank you @Jane_Doe for taking the time to share your thoughts.  They were interesting and I read your posts several times.  Yes, Baptists are funny about hierarchies and authority channels.  The local pastor reports directly to God, and Baptist churches don't send "delegates" or "representatives" to annual South Baptist Convention meetings.  They send "messengers," which I guess makes them easier to shoot.

I've always liked the concept of divine authority flowing through a church like electricity or a magnetic field.  I went to an ultra-liberal church for a few years in the 1990s, the "we believe in at most one God" type of place, and watching them do church was sort of like watching carpenters use cordless electric drills with no battery packs.  They went through the basic motions, or at least tried to, but there was no sense of an otherworldly energy filling the worship space, and their prayers had all the zing and zest of someone reading aloud the latest IRS tax regulations.  Perhaps other liberal churches are different.  I don't mean to slander or ridicule them all.

12 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Yep, :) Tasting the fruit and seeing that it is Good. 

Bull's eye.  "By their fruits shall ye know them" is one of my favorite sayings of Jesus.  It's certainly a 9 or 9.5 on the spiritual Richter scale, and it has led me away from some bad places.

Thank you again for your thoughtful comments, and you get bonus points for listing the baptism questions, which I found especially interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I love the music, the worship,  and the holiness standards of the Oneness Pentecostals. I love those same conservative moral/ethical standards of LDS, along with the high intelligence, and the overall high regard for the persons of the Godhead and their words (as found in scripture and modern revelation). I love the intelligence, open-heartedness, and willingness to engage of atheists like @Godless. Our Buddhist monk that comes in is off-the-charts humorous, respectful, and sincere in his practice. AND, I see goodness in many of the "bad" people I work with. Further, I probably have more in common (quantity-wise) with the more conservative and active members of this site than I do with some of the post-modern clergy in my own movement.

STILL...we've got to agree and who God is. Is it all just Jesus, filling in different roles (modalism, aka Oneness Pentecostals, sometimes known as Apostolic)? Is God a 'social trinity' composed of three separate personages united in purpose? Or, as most Catholics and Protestants have said for nearly 2,000 years, is God eternally one essential being, in the person of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit--a Trinity? The Jesus of the first is the one God. The Jesus of the second is a physically separated God from his Father, yet so in agreement that they are called one. The Jesus of the third is eternally and essentially God, and yet is a person distinct from Father and Spirit. I was going to mention the Jehovah's Witnesses subordinationist view of Jesus, but they openly admit that their views are different from that of 'Christendom,' and they want no part of us.

So, there it is. Kudos and respect...but not agreement. It's good though. We'll just keep at it, and enjoy the conversations and good company along the way. :hi:

:)

For me, all of those views are different views, and yes I do believe that only one is correct.  But that doesn't make any of them less of a disciple of Christ (a Christian) in my mind.  

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

:)

For me, all of those views are different views, and yes I do believe that only one is correct.  But that doesn't make any of them less of a disciple of Christ (a Christian) in my mind.  

On one level, I agree. As C. S. Lewis correctly pointed out, one may have correct doctrine, and thus be a Christian. And yet, s/he might be a bad one. On the other hand, there are many Christ-seekers who act and behave much as Jesus would have us to, and yet do not currently hold to a correct understanding of God.

The danger is that we too quickly conclude that doctrine does not matter, or that God judges the heart rather than the mind. God wants us to know Him as He really is. So good discipleship is heart and mind. Some find it easier to concentrate on the doing, some on the being, and some on the knowing. We do well to continue shining in the areas of strength God has given us, while taking care to tend to those areas we find more of a struggle. God is in the struggle, just as much as He is in our victories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

On one level, I agree. As C. S. Lewis correctly pointed out, one may have correct doctrine, and thus be a Christian. And yet, s/he might be a bad one. On the other hand, there are many Christ-seekers who act and behave much as Jesus would have us to, and yet do not currently hold to a correct understanding of God.

The danger is that we too quickly conclude that doctrine does not matter, or that God judges the heart rather than the mind. God wants us to know Him as He really is. So good discipleship is heart and mind. Some find it easier to concentrate on the doing, some on the being, and some on the knowing. We do well to continue shining in the areas of strength God has given us, while taking care to tend to those areas we find more of a struggle. God is in the struggle, just as much as He is in our victories.

Doctrine is important (no arguments there- it's super important), it's just not the defining factor of who a Christian is (that's having a relationship with Christ).  A Christian who has a poor grasp of theology is a... a Christian with a poor grasp of theology-- still a Christian.  A Christian who deeply struggles with a certain area of discipleship... is still a Christian.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Doctrine is important (no arguments there- it's super important), it's just not the defining factor of who a Christian is (that's having a relationship with Christ).  A Christian who has a poor grasp of theology is a... a Christian with a poor grasp of theology-- still a Christian.  A Christian who deeply struggles with a certain area of discipleship... is still a Christian.  

The irony is that what you say sounds so Evangelical. Yet, I could envision a Muslim who is really taken by the Prophet Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him!) and saying s/he had a relationship with him. I could envision a Buddhist, who might see Jesus as an enlightened one, saying s/he had a relationship with Jesus. For that manner, when I first started as a chaplain I had 4 Indians (from India) come into chapel. They stayed for the whole service. Afterwards I realized they understood no English. I asked someone who knew their language if they were Christian believers. He said that they were Hindus, but believed it appropriate to pay their respects to the God of America. Perhaps they could have said they had a relationship with our god while they were here.

The other reality is that the whole "relationship with Jesus" concept is relatively recent. Followers have always loved Jesus, but talking about relating to Him is fairly recent, as far as I know. Historically, it has been right belief--leading to right living that has been the evidence of Christian faith. For much of that history, as others have said, that right belief came through allegiance to the one Christian church hierarchy. These days, even most Catholics would not require that. The priest I have worked with for many years asked me one question when he started. Do I believe in the Trinity? He might have wondered if I was Oneness or not. When I answered in the affirmative he relaxed, and I could tell he felt we could share beyond departmental duties.

Of course I can have good fellowship with those who are not Trinitarian. Perhaps I can even have spiritual fellowship. However, we cannot fill each others teaching podiums (at least not without caveats), nor can we fully share each other's sacraments. Both of our churches would be up for baptizing converts from each other. In contrast, I would not rebaptize a Baptist, Methodist, etc.

Any definition of the word Christian that actually defines is going to exclude some. Those left out by such definitions can always argue that they are the true Christians, the most qualified (even if, by faith). Jehovah's Witnesses sort of follow this tact--though the organization has given up on the word, preferring their followers be known as JEHOVAH'S Witnesses. IMHO, basing the definition on relationship renders the word about as meaningful as "gentleman." It used to have specific criteria. Now, anyone who is nice might qualify. Perhaps this is where the word Christian will end up, but in winning the linguistic battle, the prize gained my prove hard to ... well, hard to define.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The irony is that what you say sounds so Evangelical. Yet, I could envision a Muslim who is really taken by the Prophet Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him!) and saying s/he had a relationship with him. I could envision a Buddhist, who might see Jesus as an enlightened one, saying s/he had a relationship with Jesus. For that manner, when I first started as a chaplain I had 4 Indians (from India) come into chapel. They stayed for the whole service. Afterwards I realized they understood no English. I asked someone who knew their language if they were Christian believers. He said that they were Hindus, but believed it appropriate to pay their respects to the God of America. Perhaps they could have said they had a relationship with our god while they were here.

Does a Hindu claim to be a Christian and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior?  No.  Neither does the Muslim.  I would say "problem solved" but there wasn't any problem to being with to solve.

Admittedly, I have been annoyed by "anti-cultists" who use the "well if we doin't make being a Christian nothing about following Christ and all about passing theology test and hailing Creeds half of our congregation hasn't even heard about, then by golly all Muslims could claim to be Christians and it's be the end of the world!  So boundaries, flaming, lying and all sort un-Christ-like behavior all to maintain these boundaries!"

(To state the beyond obvious, you're not remotely numbered among the above people, @prisonchaplain.  It's just what that argument makes me flash too PTSD style, having seen it SO twisted so badly.  )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jane_Doe it helps to know what you are reacting to. Thank you for giving me that back story. Further, I suspect you are going to win. The word Christian will become a word that means person with kind thoughts towards Jesus. Just be ready for when a hostile culture lumps you in with the crazies, like it already does the rest of us. :o

Edited by prisonchaplain
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