LDS Definition of Christian

[Endtime Survivors]

Huh?! How is that even in keeping with your "Jesus only cares how we treat each other" position?

I never said "only". I said neighbor-loving is Christian theology.

Vaguely threatening to kill people by saying that their blood will be spilled for leaving your religion "doesn't sound too bad", but suggesting that a religion's theology matters is somehow this great offense to Jesus Christ and the Christian religion or whatever?

The question was, does your Church have anything similar? I bet it does...

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I dunno, bro; it looks like you may be suggesting that neighbor-loving isn't consistent with the "true Christ of the Bible". That's been the focus for a few pages, now; can neighbor-loving be enough to make one right with God? Now you're telling us that even if a Mormon shows love to their neighbor, they're still not believing in the "True Christ"? It looks real bad, AJ.

Well I do know, broseph... I never "suggest[ed] that neighbor-loving isn't consistent with the 'true Christ of the Bible'." Where did you come up with that??? It's as if you didn't read what I actually wrote.

And loving one's neighbor is not the same as believing in the True Christ. What good is it to love one's neighbor alone? Don't the non-believers do the same? Christ taught that loving one's neighbor alone is not what He is teaching us. It's as if you didn't actually read the Bible on this issue.

It's probably not much different to the traditional Christian position of "bomb them first and let God sort them out".

That's not a "traditional Christian position". If it is, feel free to provide proof. (But I know you absolutely can't.)

Shunning, huh? Sounds familiar. *looks around*.

Please check the following words in your dictionary and then get back to me once you understand the definitions:

• debate
• disagree
• shun

I actually hear this a lot when it comes to the teachings of Jesus. I'm starting to understand that it means I'm on the right track.

No, it shows you're on the wrong track because you're putting your own will above God's. That's the way one develops a personal brand of Christianity. And that is misnomer since your personal beliefs actually are in conflict with Christianity.

Yes, yes, I'm sure if we go through the records we can dredge up some muck from any religion or any person, including yourself.

Of course we can dredge up some muck on any person, but that's different from dredging up declarations made by religious leaders who are considered by their followers to be prophets and apostles that are infallible in their teaching on religious topics. Huge difference. Would you like me to explain further? It seems as though you are unable to understand the difference.

I dunno

I agree, you dunno...

but I get the feeling that if this was from one of your church fathers, you'd probably think it makes good sense. I think it makes good sense. If you knew there would be trouble-makers in your church, wouldn't you want to get rid of them? Relief from much trouble? That doesn't sound so bad.

But it isn't from one of my Church Fathers. Even so, in Christianity we don't hold the Church Fathers to be infallible. We hold the Apostles and God's Word to be infallible. We hold the Church Fathers to be very close but NOT infallible.

To be clear - "Church Fathers" are just that. They are neither prophets (who must be infallible or else they are false prophets) nor are they Apostles (who were inspired and spoke the Words of God when they penned the books of the Bible). If you are going to criticize Christianity you should first learn and understand what's what.

But do feel free to "dredge up some muck" about my Church's Early Fathers... Find something about shedding the blood of "apostates", for example... go ahead, I'll wait (but I won't hold my breath).

I mean, Jesus talked about cutting down unfruitful people and burning them. Are you saying there's nothing at all like this in any of the history of your own church? No stern warnings about people who fall away or betray the faith? There probably is, and you'll probably say something like, "that's different, we're right any they're wrong". I don't think that's a totally wrong argument to make, but it only has weight for people who really are right, and I'm just not seeing that in your argument.

Where did "Jesus [talk] about cutting down unfruitful people and burning them"??? Reference, please.

As for my own church, I asked above and I'll ask again, be my guest and find something from my church's early fathers. It's kind of interesting and telling that you're so adamant on your position yet you have to ask me to provide the evidence for your position (i.e. that my church's early fathers said similar things to the mormon prophets and apostles).

 

[dzheremi]

I never said "only". I said neighbor-loving is Christian theology.

By virtue of the fact that you claim that neighbor-loving can substitute for sound Christian theology, as you have, you are effectively claiming that only it matters.

The question was, does your Church have anything similar? I bet it does...

Why do you assume that? What do you know of any of the churches you have thus far assumed this about, either mine or John's? I can't speak for John's own Armenian Apostolic Church, as I am not a part of it (we are in communion with one another as Oriental Orthodox churches, but the Armenians have their own canons and traditions...which I am sure don't include what you assume they do, but nevertheless I can't directly comment on), but in my own Church, there is nothing like that.

The two examples I can think of immediately are the wake of the Council of Chalcedon, which split the Church into Non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian factions in the first place (one or the other thereby being composed of apostates from the faith, depending on who you ask), and the rise of Islam in Egypt, which is characterized by massive apostasy of Coptic people from Christianity to Islam for a variety of reasons.

Regarding the first situation, we have in the writings of our fathers HH St. Timothy II, the Pope who succeeded our teacher HH St. Dioscorus in the wake of Chalcedon's unfortunate events, as well as HH St. Severus of Antioch, St. Philoxenos of Mabbug, and others more than enough evidence of how our Church treated those who had become Chalcedonians/apostates (and it was way better than how they treated us, which was by taking away our churches and forcing as many as they could to embrace Chalcedon, which did not fall short of producing some martyrs at the time, as recorded in our synaxarium). In receiving the same, the fathers required only that they make a profession of faith denying the errors of the Tome of Leo which was at the center of all this, after a suitable period of repentance so that they and we could be sure that they were firm in their decisions (I think it was a year, but it's been a while since I was able to read HH St. Timothy's letters, which are sadly not widely available).

In the case of apostasy to Islam, there exists manuscript evidence from about the 14th century of a now disused rite (supposedly 'banned' by HH Pope Shenouda III, so maybe it was still used very recently; I only found that claim on some blog, though, so I can't say that this is actually the case) in the Coptic Orthodox Church called the Rite of the Jar, wherein the apostate to Islam would be washed three times (symbolic of the Holy Trinity) with pure water from an earthen jar while certain prayers were prayed which made clear their embrace of the true faith and that they abandon the beliefs of the Muslims. That's really it. No "We have to kill them because they left us", or "They can't return". None of that nonsense. Such things are from the devil, and have been rejected by the Church since long before either of the time periods I've just described. (See the Donatist controversy in the Roman-aligned churches of North Africa, 4th century. The Donatists, who were rigorists, were on the losing side of that controversy.)

 

[Ironhold]

Mormons reject the first one because they don't believe in the True Christ of the Bible.

How about defending your own belief system instead of bashing ours?

Regarding my statement on mormons vs. their apostates, here are quotes of their leaders who indicate that killing the apostates is the solution they prefer.

Got anything that's actually from a canonical source?

“‘What will you do with all those who have sought to kill you?' Make them soap-boilers and kitchen flunkeys, we are not going to send them into hell fire, for it takes a good Latter-day Saint apostatized to get down that deep (did I say bottomless?) pit. A person, to become an angel of the Devil, has first to be a good Saint, and then deny the Lord who bought him.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 179; online at Link is here.

Re-read this passage in light of the portion I highlighted, then get back to me.

“I have not a doubt but there will be hundreds who will leave us and go away to our enemies. I wish they would go this fall: it might relieve us from much trouble; for if men turn traitors to God and His Servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants.”

Are you not aware of the often violent persecution the church suffered in the 1800s?

- Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 73; online at Link is here.

The link took me to a page that said "this domain is for sale". Might want to check your stuff.

“Punishment by death is the penalty for refusing to obey the orders of the Priesthood. I knew of many men being killed in Nauvoo by the Danites. It was then the rule that all enemies of the Prophet Joseph should be killed, and I knew of many a man who was quietly put out of the way by the orders of Joseph and his apostles while the church was there.”

The only even semi-official Danite organization was a militia that operated during the Missouri period when the church was unable to motivate the political leaders to give them protection against the marauders that were hitting Mormon settlements. This organization was forcibly disbanded when it was learned that the leader and some of the men were just as bad as the marauders, and the leader of the group was kicked out of the church.

It's actually historical debate as to what happened from there, but there's nothing so far to solidly prove that Smith or Young actually knew about, let alone condoned, any sort of extra-judicial violence.

"I always feel that it is my duty to look to myself, for I am in as much danger of apostatizing as any in the Church. If I ever do get led astray and depart from the principles of the gospel of salvation, it will be because I led myself off from the path; it was not my brethren who led me away, it was my own doing."

How does this show hatred towards apostates?

“Any man or woman who has heard the Gospel and rejected it – not only those in the days of Noah, but any man or woman in this day who has had a good chance to receive and embrace the Gospel and enjoy its blessings and privileges, but who has been indifferent to these things, ignoring and neglecting them – such a person need not hope or anticipate that when he is dead the work can be done for him and he can gain celestial glory. Don't you Latter-day Saints get the notion that a man can live in defiance or total indifference, having had a good chance – not just a casual chance or opportunity – to accept the Gospel and that when he dies you can go and do the work for him and have him receive every blessing that the faithful ones are entitled to.”

How is this ultimately any different from anything else which says that you can't delay the day of your repentance?

Apostle Boyd K. Packer (1924 - ):

Packer died two years ago. That your list still has him alive, coupled with the bad links, tells me it's a copy & paste job. When was the last time you studied this matter?

“Save for those few who defect to perdition after having known a fulness [sic], there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no offense exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness.”

- Apostle Boyd K. Packer, “The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness,” speech available on-line at Link is here.

Basically, the church policy is that you have to fall like Satan did to get cast out of any chance at ever making it to Heaven; otherwise, mercy can be found dependent upon a person's willingness to repent and forsake their old ways. Sounds right charitable, eh?

 

[Endtime Survivors]

By virtue of the fact that you claim that neighbor-loving can substitute for sound Christian theology,

No, I'm saying neighbor-loving is sound Christian theology. When you disregard neighbor-loving in favor of focusing on muck you're not really building the kingdom of Heaven, even if you do manage to make a few Mormons feel bad about their faith.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

And that is misnomer since your personal beliefs actually are in conflict with Christianity.

I guess this feels like another one of those twilight-zone moments. I've been promoting neighbor-loving for several pages now. I'm quite sure anyone reading my posts would conclude that the thrust of my personal beliefs is that neighbor-loving is super-duper important to God. How can you then conclude that my personal beliefs (i.e. neighbor-loving) conflict with Christianity?

If neighbor-loving really is enough to cause God to overlook faults in other areas (i.e. grace and forgiveness), then you lose all control to say who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. Losing control can be frightening, especially when it comes to faith-based issues.

Paul faced something similar when it came to circumcision. Some people wanted to say that anyone who wasn't circumcised was wrong with God and that they needed to be cut in order to get right. It was a relatively easy way to maintain a sense of control over the religion; rather than digging deep down into the heart of the individual to examine their personal motives, all one had to do was look under the guy's robe to know if he was good or bad.

It was the same with eating "unclean" food, celebrating special feast days, or any number of other religious observances. Taking those things away as indicators of good or bad means we need to look at other criteria and it means that we may need to accept people whom we previously would never have accepted (like the disciples had to accept the guy who preached outside of their understanding of what it meant to be a disciple).

That's not a "traditional Christian position". If it is, feel free to provide proof. (But I know you absolutely can't.)

*points to America*

What good is it to love one's neighbor alone? Don't the non-believers do the same? Christ taught that loving one's neighbor alone is not what He is teaching us. It's as if you didn't actually read the Bible on this issue.

I suspect you're thinking of Matthew 5:46 and I think you've misapplied the lesson to this situation. He never asks what good is it to love one's neighbor alone, as that question makes no sense.

He rebukes people who pretend that favoritism can be the same as neighbor-loving. Our neighbors include people who don't already love us. If we refuse to love them because of that, then we're not really neighbor-loving.

Or, in other words, if you only see the good in those who already agree with you, then what good is it? Every religious group in the world does that. Real spiritual maturity is able to recognize goodness in others even when they disagree with us.

That's what the parable of the wheat and tares is all about and it can work on different levels. A church may consist of good and bad members. An individual will have good and bad qualities. The parable seems to suggest that God already recognizes this but still, he indicates that we should have patience. If we go through trying to pull up all the weeds prematurely, then we'll end up damaging the wheat, too.

There really are insincere people in the Mormon church, but then again that's true for any church. Trying to legitimize the weeds behind a wall of wheat won't last, even if it appears to work for a while. No amount of correct theology on behalf of the church organization can justify insincere individuals within the church.

The opposite is also true; no amount of wrong theology can condemn a sincere person within the church organization. Even in the Mormon church there will be some wheat growing among the tares, just like it is in the EO and OO churches. The point is that church membership in itself can never provide enough accurate information to judge the individual. For that, we must deal with the individual as an individual, just like Jesus did.

 

[dzheremi]

No, I'm saying neighbor-loving is sound Christian theology. When you disregard neighbor-loving in favor of focusing on muck you're not really building the kingdom of Heaven, even if you do manage to make a few Mormons feel bad about their faith.

Nobody is disregarding anything but you, though. You're the one who says that neighbor-loving can be substituted for good theology (and, yes, you did say that in post 187 only two pages ago; here's the link). Once again, I'm only saying that, no, that is not the case. It's not one against the other, it's not one over the other, it's not one in place of the other, it's both together -- because they are the two greatest commandments, not the one, and they come directly from Jesus Christ our God, not your idiosyncratic theology or anyone else's. They are commands of God.

 

[Rescued One]

Exactly. Since when has it become a human's responsibility to declare where the Holy Spirit can and can't go? What if the Holy Spirit wants to work through a Mormon?

According to some people here, that can't happen without the Holy Spirit contradicting their understanding of correct Christian theology. But of course, since there is no other source of love than God then that must mean that any expressions of love within the Mormon church must be the result of some interaction with the Holy Spirit.

God is sovereign. He can work through anyone --- even Pharaoh.

Romans 9
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I guess this feels like another one of those twilight-zone moments. I've been promoting neighbor-loving for several pages now. I'm quite sure anyone reading my posts would conclude that the thrust of my personal beliefs is that neighbor-loving is super-duper important to God. How can you then conclude that my personal beliefs (i.e. neighbor-loving) conflict with Christianity?

Because you put "neighbor-loving" on the level of being a substitute for belief in Jesus Christ and that goes against the Gospel as recorded in God's Word. How could I not conclude this based on what you've revealed about your beliefs? It's not that "neighbor-loving" itself conflicts with Christianity - it's your belief that "neighbor-loving" is the most important tenet in Christianity and is what makes one a Christian. You're wrong, according to God's Word.

If neighbor-loving really is enough to cause God to overlook faults in other areas (i.e. grace and forgiveness), then you lose all control to say who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. Losing control can be frightening, especially when it comes to faith-based issues.

It's not "enough to cause God to overlook faults in other areas". Where did you come up with that? Clearly from your own mind and not from Scripture. I'm not sure what "control" you're talking about, either. I have no "control" over any of this stuff, only God does.

Paul faced something similar when it came to circumcision. Some people wanted to say that anyone who wasn't circumcised was wrong with God and that they needed to be cut in order to get right. It was a relatively easy way to maintain a sense of control over the religion; rather than digging deep down into the heart of the individual to examine their personal motives, all one had to do was look under the guy's robe to know if he was good or bad.

It was the same with eating "unclean" food, celebrating special feast days, or any number of other religious observances. Taking those things away as indicators of good or bad means we need to look at other criteria and it means that we may need to accept people whom we previously would never have accepted (like the disciples had to accept the guy who preached outside of their understanding of what it meant to be a disciple).

These are some odd beliefs you have. They certainly aren't Biblical. But beyond that, they certainly have nothing to do with the topic in this thread. I think you don't understand the relationship between Law and Grace as the Bible teaches (i.e. the Old Covenant and New Covenant). Your beliefs are heterodox at best.

*points to America*

Just as I knew, you have zero proof, lol... I still didn't expect this terrible of a response, though! too funny!

I suspect you're thinking of Matthew 5:46 and I think you've misapplied the lesson to this situation. He never asks what good is it to love one's neighbor alone, as that question makes no sense.

He rebukes people who pretend that favoritism can be the same as neighbor-loving. Our neighbors include people who don't already love us. If we refuse to love them because of that, then we're not really neighbor-loving.

Or, in other words, if you only see the good in those who already agree with you, then what good is it? Every religious group in the world does that. Real spiritual maturity is able to recognize goodness in others even when they disagree with us.

He clearly juxtaposes neighbor vs. enemy in the scripture:
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

He's clearly making the case for people to love not only their neighbors but also their enemies. Where you came up with all the other extra-biblical stuff you're saying is of no concern to me - it's your own fabrication. The Scripture is clear. If you want to fabricate back stories and rationalizations then be my guest, but you're not going to convince me (or anyone reading this) that your view is right in accordance with Christianity (i.e. God's Word).

That's what the parable of the wheat and tares is all about and it can work on different levels. A church may consist of good and bad members. An individual will have good and bad qualities. The parable seems to suggest that God already recognizes this but still, he indicates that we should have patience. If we go through trying to pull up all the weeds prematurely, then we'll end up damaging the wheat, too.

With the mormons we're not talking about Christian Churches because they are not Christians. I'm sure they have their own good and bad members as Christian Churches do as well, but that's irrelevant to this thread. Are you moving into a stage of trying to obfuscate the thread topic by introducing irrelevant ones?

There really are insincere people in the Mormon church, but then again that's true for any church. Trying to legitimize the weeds behind a wall of wheat won't last, even if it appears to work for a while. No amount of correct theology on behalf of the church organization can justify insincere individuals within the church.

Again, completely irrelevant to this thread...

The opposite is also true; no amount of wrong theology can condemn a sincere person within the church organization. Even in the Mormon church there will be some wheat growing among the tares, just like it is in the EO and OO churches. The point is that church membership in itself can never provide enough accurate information to judge the individual. For that, we must deal with the individual as an individual, just like Jesus did.

It's interesting that earlier on you talked about how to judge individuals and here you are talking about it again. It's just another sign that you are not involved in Christianity. In Christianity, we are not the judges of individuals. We don't look for them to be circumcised, we don't judge their dress or looks, we judge very little. The only thing we can go by is what they reveal to us. If someone has a true faith in Christ and expresses it then that person is seen as a Christian. But a person who expresses a faith that is not truly in Christ cannot be seen as a Christian and it's by that person's own profession.

You seem intent on making judgments on individuals based on their works - maybe that's what your religion is about. Your religion is one of many, many works-based religions. It's like a pagan religion - you expect people to earn their status or salvation through works, particularly "neighbor-loving". But the Bible teaches something different from your religion. Not sure what you want to believe or not but what you're expressing here is a religion that is foreign to Christians.

 

[Rescued One]

Those that follow Christ

Who follows Christ? Is Christ the Lamb of God?

1 Nephi 11
31 And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out.

32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.

33 And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

It sounds as though LDS regard Christ as the Lamb of God.

1 Nephi 14
10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the harlot of all the earth.

Doctrine and Covenants 1
30 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, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

 

[Jane_Doe]

Who follows Christ? Is Christ the Lamb of God?

1 Nephi 11
31 And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out.

32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.

33 And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

It sounds as though LDS regard Christ as the Lamb of God.

1 Nephi 14
10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the harlot of all the earth.

Doctrine and Covenants 1
30 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, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

Would you like us to say that you're a Hell-bound devil worshipper that doesn't know Christ as all? No, that's complete nonsense! You are person trying to follow Christ the best you know how, a Christian. Sorry it offends you that I acknowledge your relationship with Christ despite our disagreements on doctrinal points and which Church He runs. But you do have a relationship with Christ and I'm not going to lie and deny that.