[closed] Major Changes to posting in this forum

[Edial]

LDS still call Christians outside of their church Christians, even if they do not believe that their churches and/or doctrine is correct.

LDS has to recognize Orthodox Christians as Christians since they base their theology partially on the Bible.
And this is one of the effective ways they get new converts by saying they are "also" Christian, yet better.

I think that what Dawn and I (both non-LDS) took issue with is CF not even recognizing that these groups consider themselves to be Christian.

Mormons and JWs may call themselves anything they want.
However, their theology is not Christian.
And if someone calls LDS member not a Christian it is no longer a violation. It is somewhat similar to calling a Buddhist who calls himself a Christian, a non-Christian.

 

[Edial]

See... Here's the problem with most Critics of our church. Instead of quoting our actual doctrines which are listed in our Standard Works, you guys rely instead on third-hand, out of context, non doctrinal sources. The only quote that even comes close is from the Ensign, but even then you left out the disclaimer...

Or even the qualifier from the same speech by Joseph Smith...

Now I'm not saying I disagree with anything which was stated, after all by your doctrine is the Christ you worship not God, and did He not become fully man, died, and then having been exalted was resurrected with an eternally incarnate, never to be separated from, body of flesh and bones?

I mean, do you really what me to judge your faith and beliefs on the opinions of the Early Church Fathers, the Early Protestant Fathers, modern Christian Church leaders, or even the opinions of the Apostles had stated?

Which begs the question.....
Did you come up with these quotes before or after you made your decision?

We came up with these quotes after we decided.

Early church Fathers were not prophets, so they have their opinions.

Joseph Smith is a Prophet ... you cannot disagree with him.

 

[Sophrosyne]

They believe baptism in THEIR church only, saves you.

Which is wrong, I would avoid that church like a plague as no doubt they teach other wrong things too.

 

[Edial]

That is patently untrue. :o




The staff made this decision based on biased interpretations of LDS doctrines.


:o

I meant the other site, not CF.

But yes, CF considers anyone who denies the divinity of Christ as defined in the OP as non-Christian.

And we did not just come of with such a statement.

Every major denomination considers Mormons and JW a cult that came our from Christianity.

That's what cults do. They deceive people away from the Christ of the Bible.

I am sorry I cannot word it in a nicer way, but that is the reality of things.

 

[skylark1]

LDS has to recognize Orthodox Christians as Christians since they base their theology partially on the Bible.

Earlier you wrote:

So it really is improper for LDS to complain they are not called Christians by the very Christians they say are not Christians.​

I don't think that it can be both.

LDS do not have to recognize another group as Christians, anymore than CF has to do so. They teach that there was an apostasy after the book of the Bible were written. While there are excellent reasons for them to recognize us as Christians, they do not have to do so.

And this is one of the effective ways they get new converts by saying they are "also" Christian, yet better.

I agree that this is what a lot of LDS missionaries have probably said. I was told something similar when approached by them. However, that line is not an end all.

 

[Edial]

They believe baptism in THEIR church only, saves you.

This is a very important point to understand.

 

[Sophrosyne]

No.... Sorry.. The Mormons do not reject others as not being Christian... That's your guy's thing.

So in other words you agree that nobody needs to even bother with Mormonism because we are Christian just fine without considering it at all.... correct?

 

[Ironhold]

We came up with these quotes after we decided.

This comes off as you guys admitting that you made a snap decision and then had to retroactively find justification for it.

 

[Edial]

Earlier you wrote:

So it really is improper for LDS to complain they are not called Christians by the very Christians they say are not Christians.​

I don't think that it can be both.

LDS do not have to recognize another group as Christians, anymore than CF has to do so. They teach that there was an apostasy after the book of the Bible were written. While there are excellent reasons for them to recognize us as Christians, they do not have to do so.

You are correct, it cannot be both. I posted a lot in this thread so some of the responses are in different contexts.

They cannot officially deny historical Christianity as non-Christian.

However, they clearly separate themselves from Christian churches showing them be a true church. And all this is based on teachings of a certain individual and not the Bible.

You are correct they do not have to accept us as Christians, and in all reality they do not. But they only discuss it among themselves.

And Orthodox Christianity is plainly saying any such group is as "Christian" as a Buddhist who believes in Christ-consciousness or atheist who believes in historical Jesus. Which is non-Christian.





I agree that this is what a lot of LDS missionaries have probably said. I was told something similar when approached by them. However, that line is not an end all.[/quote]

 

[Sophrosyne]

This comes off as you guys admitting that you made a snap decision and then had to retroactively find justification for it.

I don't see it that way as it wasn't yesterday they moved the LDS and JWs to Unorthodox theology then it wasn't any short time either when they changed the name to Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion and the rules further. It seems to me this has been slowly progressing.

 

[skylark1]

You are correct, it cannot be both. I posted a lot in this thread so some of the responses are in different contexts.

They cannot officially deny historical Christianity as non-Christian.

However, they clearly separate themselves from Christian churches showing them be a true church. And all this is based on teachings of a certain individual and not the Bible.

You are correct they do not have to accept us as Christians, and in all reality they do not. But they only discuss it among themselves.

If they only discuss it among themselves, then how do you know that they do?

I have no problem with discussing doctrines and pointing out why doctrines are not biblical, but there seems to be a lot of speculation about what they really think among themselves. Why not stick to discussing doctrine?

They do accept that we are Christians. They do not equate the term Christian with the term "saved" as some Christians do. They accept that we are followers of Christ. And as far as salvation goes, they believe that there are three kingdoms in heaven, and from their perspective most Christians will go to the middle one, which they consider a type of salvation. It is not what most Christians would consider salvation.

There are enough differences in beliefs that I don't think that we should assume what they really think behind closed doors.

And Orthodox Christianity is plainly saying any such group is as "Christian" as a Buddhist who believes in Christ-consciousness or atheist who believes in historical Jesus. Which is non-Christian.

Respectfully, it is Christian Forums that is here saying this, not orthodox Christianity.

 

[Theway]

We came up with these quotes after we decided.

Early church Fathers were not prophets, so they have their opinions.

Joseph Smith is a Prophet ... you cannot disagree with him.

Sure I can disagree with him... Whatever gave you the idea I couldn't?

Also, I don't understand your reason for posting quotes that did not determine your reasoning for excluding Mormons from your Christian Club?

 

[A New Dawn]

But why are you saying I do not get what the heart issue is?
Didn't I say that we judge the sets of beliefs to be non-Christian?
If an individual willingly takes up an LDS icon, s/he is confessing they accept the Mormon set of beliefs.

We are not judging anyone's heart. We are going by what people confess with their own words or actions.

It is impossible for you not to see that.

You ARE judging someone's heart when you call them, instead of their theology, non-Christian. Just because someone's church teaches an unorthodox theology, it doesn't necessarily follow that they, themselves, are non-Christian. And CF's rules already allowed us to say that LDS theology is non-Christian. It did not allow us to call names. You are changing the rules to allow named-calling (flaming). I don't see how you cannot see this.

 

[Theway]

Joseph Smith clearly called anyone outside of his doctrine wrong.
Christian creeds are called an abomination and that the HEARTS of Nicene Christians are far from God.

So it really is improper for LDS to complain they are not called Christians by the very Christians they say are not Christians.
============================================
Originally Posted by First Vision

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.


19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”


20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.
​

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng


LDS summary: What is the First Vision? | Mormon.org

Joseph was told to join none of the churches that existed at that time as the priesthood authority and Church as Jesus Christ had organized it when He was on the earth had been lost over the centuries. Joseph Smith’s First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of Jesus Christ’s Church to the earth.
​

Ahhhhh.... No he didn't, perhaps you need to read your own references you quoted.
First, Joseph Smith did not have a doctrine...
Second, Joseph Smith merely wanted to know which existing Church's doctrine at the time was correct.
Third, it was God who told them they were incorrect. Joseph Smith even said that it hadn't even entered his heart that they were all incorrect.
Fourth, it does not say the hearts of the Niceans Christians were far from God...

Now you can say you don't believe God told him anything, and that it was Joseph Smith who made it all up... But then you would be judging us by what "YOU" believe to true, and not by what we actually believe. IIRC you said you did not do this?

 

[Ran77]

Also, I don't understand your reason for posting quotes that did not determine your reasoning for excluding Mormons from your Christian Club?

In some minds, if you throw enough of what you think is mud you expect something to stick.

 

[Ran77]

I meant the other site, not CF.

My comment was about the other site.

But yes, CF considers anyone who denies the divinity of Christ as defined in the OP as non-Christian.

And we did not just come of with such a statement.

Every major denomination considers Mormons and JW a cult that came our from Christianity.

That's what cults do. They deceive people away from the Christ of the Bible.

I am sorry I cannot word it in a nicer way, but that is the reality of things.

While it is possible that your written communication skills are limited to a point where you could not word this statement any nicer than you did, I don't believe that is the case. This selection of words, like the decision to label LDS as non-Christians, is a choice. Statements that a person cannot help it, or is not responsible for what has happened, insult the intelligence of both the speaker and the person being spoken too.

You recognize in your statement that what you have said isn't nice. The fact that you choose to take this route in the discussion of this topic reveals a great deal about the situation and the motives behind it. As I've said all along, there are no surprises here.

If I were writing a story and I wanted to present a character that represented Christianity on a whole, I absolutely would not place him on soapbox, or behind a pulpit, and have him point fingers at people as they walked by, shouting, "Deceiver! Cultist!" I invite the people reading this thread to take a moment, close your eyes, and picture what I just described. How does that image make you feel?


:o

 

[Theway]

I don't see it that way as it wasn't yesterday they moved the LDS and JWs to Unorthodox theology then it wasn't any short time either when they changed the name to Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion and the rules further. It seems to me this has been slowly progressing.

No... It simply shows that this forum could not make up its mind.
I was here when they took away the Mormon part of this forum because they did not want to label people as nonChristain... Just as having unorthodox doctrine.
That's when I left; not because I was mad, but because it got boring after that.(and besides, who wants to be lumped together with those heretic JWs)
Now it seems they have no problem deciding who is Christian and who is not.

Move along now.... Move along......Nothing new to see here.

 

[Tishri1]

Hi everyone,
I have been reading and looking for a place to jump in here.

My comments are mine as Ed has done a good job communicating what the site wide plans are.

I wanted to share something about me. My life.

Let me say, I see this issue from several facets or views.

My son has had more than a dozen Mormon friends growing up and was more than a classmate to them and their families. I am well aware of their strong faith, strong family life and strong convictions thru him.

Even though our families' lives never crossed paths like other families of faith in our neighborhood, I could tell they lived good lives and I trusted my son to their care when he was hanging out in their homes with his friends.

When his friends were at our house I would consider these boys my boys I have never been anything but happy he had such good wholesome friends.

When his friends had issues with their parents like all boys do growing up, I supported the families rules, gave a listen ear to their sons and I was very supportive of both.

I never had to tell these boys or their families that I felt there was something wrong with their leaders or religion's teachings. These differences between us never came up.

When I think of you all, I think of my son's friends and families. When I see your names here now, I see their faces.

 

[TillICollapse]

This may seem naive ... but why is it so important to CF to define whom may be considered "Christian" via such methods ? You already have icons and such for the specific denominations, sects, branches, perspectives, etc. Why try to box people in and out in such a way even further ?

I understand the desire for those of like minds to be able to post in certain parts of the forum, uninterrupted by others who are of dissimilar perspectives. And I can understand why grouping topics together is useful, and creating forums and sub-forums for topics. But why not loosen the reigns on some of the more generalized areas ? Why all these conditions of accepting creeds and acknowledging perspectives before one can even post in them, if one considers themselves "Christian" by the mere fact they believe in Christ ? Why add a bunch of stuff to it to exclude posting or encourage bashing (like what happens in the LDS threads in the UDD sections) ?

Attempting to define what a "Christian" is has been debated since the Apostles tried to figure out who was greatest amongst themselves up until the present day. So why add to that mess lol ?

 

[Edial]

This may seem naive ... but why is it so important to CF to define whom may be considered "Christian" via such methods ? You already have icons and such for the specific denominations, sects, branches, perspectives, etc. Why try to box people in and out in such a way even further ?

I understand the desire for those of like minds to be able to post in certain parts of the forum, uninterrupted by others who are of dissimilar perspectives. And I can understand why grouping topics together is useful, and creating forums and sub-forums for topics. But why not loosen the reigns on some of the more generalized areas ? Why all these conditions of accepting creeds and acknowledging perspectives before one can even post in them, if one considers themselves "Christian" by the mere fact they believe in Christ ? Why add a bunch of stuff to it to exclude posting or encourage bashing (like what happens in the LDS threads in the UDD sections) ?

Attempting to define what a "Christian" is has been debated since the Apostles tried to figure out who was greatest amongst themselves up until the present day. So why add to that mess lol ?

Because Christianity is not a club.

It is a set of beliefs revealing the good news of salvation of Jesus Christ.
Not the Apostles nor the Church Fathers had any doubts how to define a Christian.

Since Christianity is not a club, but a message of salvation of the forgiveness of sins, it needs to be clearly presented.

If we identify anyone who wishes to be called a Christian as Christian regardless of the heresies that are being taught, Christianity becomes a club.

Thanks,
Ed