Which Is Better...Non-Denominational Or Denominational??......

[ldsfaqs]

I have noted the similarities between the two from time to time on the unorthodox Theology board on Mormon threads, but you are the first to agree with me. Most Mormon posters seem horrified that the LDS might be compared positively with the Catholic Church. After all, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had some very cutting remarks directed toward that church as being part and parcel of the Great Apostasy.

I would have to disagree with that. I've been doing this a long time and never has seen a Mormon "horrified" in any way that the Catholic and LDS Church are close to being the same, in fact, I've seen just the opposite. We often recognize our similar heritage. Are you sure you ever actually asked that question?

I don't recall Joseph or Brigham saying much negative about the Catholic Church, but it is true McConkie and Orson Pratt had some words, similar to the Protestant view in relation to the Catholic Church being the harlot/Church of the Devil that the Bible refers to. Were you thinking of them instead? Of course, such a view was never LDS theology, both men being corrected on the issue when their views were known.

BTW, don't ever tell an Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Christian that you believe that the Catholic Church is the original established church.

True. I would agree we have some commonality with them also since they were around the same time, but there seems to be more retained consistency with the Catholic Church. As well, I'm not "as" familiar with them as I am the Catholic Church, thus I can't speak much on how similar they are. I have looked at them briefly, but never got into any depth because the "there-there" wasn't there in my view.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I would have to disagree with that. I've been doing this a long time and never has seen a Mormon "horrified" in any way that the Catholic and LDS Church are close to being the same, in fact, I've seen just the opposite. We often recognize our similar heritage. Are you sure you ever actually asked that question?

I recommend that you start posting on the Mormon threads on the Unorthodox Board and would be happy to join you in a discussion of the relationship between the RCC and the LDS. There have, at various time, been RCC posters there who did not last long because of the negative reception they received from the LDS posters. I, as well as others, have raised the issue of the connection between the two denominations from time to time. After much hemming and hawing, most LDS posters try not to answer and admit that the Catholic Church is part and parcel of the Great Apostasy. When directly confronted with RCC posters, they can be quite direct and confrontational, however.

I don't recall Joseph or Brigham saying much negative about the Catholic Church, but it is true McConkie and Orson Pratt had some words, similar to the Protestant view in relation to the Catholic Church being the harlot/Church of the Devil that the Bible refers to. Were you thinking of them instead? Of course, such a view was never LDS theology, both men being corrected on the issue when their views were known.

This is from the Wikipedia article on the Great Apostasy:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

LDS Church members believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. was called by God to restore the true teachings of Jesus Christ



According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the Great Apostasy started not long after Jesus' ascension[4] and continued until Joseph Smith's First Vision in 1820. To Latter-day Saints, the Great Apostasy is marked by:

• the difficulty of the Apostles to keep early Christians from distorting Jesus' teachings and to prevent the followers from dividing into different ideological groups;[5]
• the persecution and martyrdom of the church's Apostles;[6]
• the loss of leaders with Priesthood authority to administer the church and its ordinances;[7]
• the lack of continuous revelation to instruct the leaders and guide the church;[4] and
• the corruption of Christian doctrine by Greek or other allegedly pagan philosophies such as Neo-Platonism, Platonic realism, Aristotleanism and Asceticism.[8]

Beginning in the 1st century and continuing up to the 4th century AD the various emperors of the Roman Empire carried out violent persecutions against Christians.[9] Apostles, bishops, disciples and other leaders and followers of Jesus who would not compromise their faith were persecuted and martyred. The persecutions were so successful that near the end of the 3rd century under the reign of the Roman Emperor Diocletian, monuments were erected memorializing the extinction of Christianity.

The LDS Church declares that all Priesthood leaders with authority[4] to conduct and perpetuate church affairs were either martyred, taken from the earth, or began to teach impure doctrines, causing a break in the necessary Apostolic Succession. Latter-day Saints believe that what survived was but a fragment of the light and truth that Jesus had established: the Church of Jesus Christ, as established by him, was no longer to be found on the earth. Survivors of the persecutions were overly-influenced by various pagan philosophies either because they were not well indoctrinated in Jesus' teachings or they corrupted their Christian beliefs (willingly, by compulsion, or with good intentions but without direct revelation from God to help them interpret said beliefs) by accepting non-Christian doctrines into their faith. Latter-day Saints believe that many plain and simple truths of the gospel of Christ were, therefore, lost.[4]

Latter-day Saints understand various writings in the New Testament to be an indication that even soon after Jesus' ascension the Apostles struggled to keep early Christians from distorting Jesus' teachings and to prevent the followers from dividing into different ideological groups.[10] Latter-day Saints claim that various Old Testament and New Testament scriptures, including teachings of Christ himself, prophesy of this "falling away" or "apostasy." The Christian believers who survived the persecutions took it upon themselves to speak for God, interpret, amend or add to his doctrines and ordinances, and carry out his work without proper authority and divine direction from God to do so. During this time, important doctrines and rites were lost or corrupted. Latter-day Saints point to the doctrine of the Trinity adopted at the Council of Nicaea as an example of how pagan philosophy corrupted Jesus' teachings. Mormonism teaches that God, the Eternal Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are not one substance, but three separate and distinct beings forming one Godhead.[11] The Latter-day Saints reject the early ecumenical councils for what they see as misguided human attempts without divine assistance to decide matters of doctrine, substituting debate or politics for divine revelation. Latter-day Saints believe that the often heated proceedings of such councils were evidence that the church was no longer led by revelation and divine authority.

Thus, Latter-day Saints refer to the "restitution of all things" mentioned in Acts 3:20-21 and claim that a restoration of all the original and primary doctrines and rites of Christianity was necessary.[10] The LDS believe that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to a 14-year old boy named Joseph Smith and called and ordained him to be a prophet.[12] Through Christ's Priesthood authority and divine direction from Christ, the LDS believe that Joseph Smith was called and ordained to re-establish Christ's church. Hence, members of the LDS faith refer to their church as "The Church of Jesus Christ." The term "latter-day saints" refers to the fact that members of Christ's church were originally called "saints" and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's restored church in these, what LDS and other Christian denominations believe, are the last days prior to prophesied second coming of Jesus.[13] Latter-day Saints maintain that other religions—Christian or otherwise—have a portion of the truth, though mingled with inaccuracies due to misinterpretations of some doctrines, such as the nature of the Godhead, how Adam and Eve's choice in the Garden of Eden and their fall advanced the Plan of salvation, the need for modern divine revelation through living prophets and apostles, and the universal divine potential of mankind. They claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restoration of Jesus' original church, has the authentic Priesthood authority, and all doctrines and ordinances of the Gospel, fulfilling many of the prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah and Malachi in the Old Testament and also the prophesies of Peter and Jesus in the New Testament. (See Ref.) They also maintain that many other religions, Christian and otherwise, advance many good causes and do much good among the people insofar as they are led by the light of Christ, "which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9)

True. I would agree we have some commonality with them also since they were around the same time, but there seems to be more retained consistency with the Catholic Church. As well, I'm not "as" familiar with them as I am the Catholic Church, thus I can't speak much on how similar they are. I have looked at them briefly, but never got into any depth because the "there-there" wasn't there in my view.

I recommend that you do look into the Orthodox churches. I think you might be surprised at what you find.

 

[Andrew12]

MOD HAT ON
​

PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THE RESTRICTIONS IN THIS FORUM,
AS IT IS *CHRISTIANS ONLY* ​

AS PER THIS CF POLICY:​

Congregational Forum Restrictions, Christian Only Forums, and Off-Topic posts

Do not teach or debate in any Congregational Forum unless you are truly a member and share its core beliefs and teachings. Questions and fellowship are allowed, proselytizing is not.​

Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology.​

Respect and become familiar with each forum's Statement of Purpose. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose; submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion. Off Topic posts will be moved or removed.​

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR

UNDERSTANDING & COOPERATION ON THIS MATTER. ​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[chapmaned24]

Denominations suggest that a particular man has an opinion of scripture, and therefore, people form their beliefs based on one man's opinion.

Non denominations suggest that we form our own opinion based on scripture alone.

Non denomination is by far the better, as it is "WE REPORT, YOU DECIDE", whereas denomination indicates, "SOMEONE ELSE DECIDED, CONFORM TO THAT...OR ELSE!"

 

[ldsfaqs]

I recommend that you start posting on the Mormon threads on the Unorthodox Board and would be happy to join you in a discussion of the relationship between the RCC and the LDS. There have, at various time, been RCC posters there who did not last long because of the negative reception they received from the LDS posters. I, as well as others, have raised the issue of the connection between the two denominations from time to time. After much hemming and hawing, most LDS posters try not to answer and admit that the Catholic Church is part and parcel of the Great Apostasy. When directly confronted with RCC posters, they can be quite direct and confrontational, however.

Ya, I found out that I can't post here, so don't reply to me in this thread if you need to. I won't be posting here anymore.

I've read this forum for some-time, and I've never seen LDS give anyone but unfair critics a negative reception.
We've never hemmed and hawed trying to avoid saying all other religions including the Catholic Church is a part of the Apostasy. Don't know where you get that.
Going to have to disagree with your characterization of LDS toward Catholics. I've never seen any of that, except with Catholic unfair critics of mormonism. Catholics and mormons in most places usually get along, save on some particular message boards in which some have adopted the Evangelical attack methodology. Catholics in general however don't engage in those methodology's, thus we usually get along. Way better than with Evangelicals.

This is from the Wikipedia article on the Great Apostasy:

Yes, that is a good overview. Nice to see that apparently unfair critics haven't corrupted it, like they have with many other Wikipedia articles.

I recommend that you do look into the Orthodox churches. I think you might be surprised at what you find.

Oh I have. I know they are pretty close with the Catholics, as well as differences, and were indeed among the originals.


P.S. MODS..... This is my last post in this section, so no need for any action. Thanks!

 

[Mclees8]

Hello I am Mike and i am new to this board but this subject is one that interests me. I left all denominationalism. There is much corruption and false doctrines and beliefs throughout this thing we call Christianitty. I have just become a follower of Christ. How ever we do need fellow ship with other belivers but my faith is in my personal relatioinship with Christ. In that day denominations will carry no weight what soever but how did we walk and work out our own salvation.

 

[Mclees8]

Ya, I found out that I can't post here, so don't reply to me in this thread if you need to. I won't be posting here anymore.

I've read this forum for some-time, and I've never seen LDS give anyone but unfair critics a negative reception.
We've never hemmed and hawed trying to avoid saying all other religions including the Catholic Church is a part of the Apostasy. Don't know where you get that.
Going to have to disagree with your characterization of LDS toward Catholics. I've never seen any of that, except with Catholic unfair critics of mormonism. Catholics and mormons in most places usually get along, save on some particular message boards in which some have adopted the Evangelical attack methodology. Catholics in general however don't engage in those methodology's, thus we usually get along. Way better than with Evangelicals.



Yes, that is a good overview. Nice to see that apparently unfair critics haven't corrupted it, like they have with many other Wikipedia articles.



Oh I have. I know they are pretty close with the Catholics, as well as differences, and were indeed among the originals.


P.S. MODS..... This is my last post in this section, so no need for any action. Thanks!

I pray if it is alright being new here if I might say something. As one who has left all denominationalism i see the church from another perspective. I am no longer looking fot he right church, I am already in it.
" But as may as received him gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe upon his name" John 1:12
If we look back to Pentecost when the church was born the church had no name. they were not Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. they were not even called Christians yet. Catholic referred to all believers and there was no Romna Church with popes in fancy robes and hates. The church was the church comprised of all who believed upon Jesus. We only have to look to the book of Acts to see the church Christ founded.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Denominations suggest that a particular man has an opinion of scripture, and therefore, people form their beliefs based on one man's opinion.

Non denominations suggest that we form our own opinion based on scripture alone.

Non denomination is by far the better, as it is "WE REPORT, YOU DECIDE", whereas denomination indicates, "SOMEONE ELSE DECIDED, CONFORM TO THAT...OR ELSE!"

IMO....


1. The congregation that publicly insists: "We believe NOTHING" probably cannot call itself Christian or a church. Such extreme, radical relativism (WHATEVER you believe - if anything at all - is just as valid and good as any other, it's true IF YOU THINK IT IS) is neither biblical or Christian.


2. I've never heard of a congregation that does what you suggest it should: have no beliefs at all. They may have very,very weak professions of Christian faith, they may be minimalists so that everyone from Catholic to Mormon to Universalists are fully embraced, but there's usually SOME corpus of beliefs - even if they try their best to hide it from the people.


3. A "non denom" is simply making itself a denomination - of one: self. Thus rejecting all accountability and fellowship.





.

 

[washedagain]

IMO....


All congregations are EITHER denominational or non-denominational. Some are entirely independent, autonomous, with no formal relationship with any other congregation(s) and with no accountability beyond that in the congregation (and of course, God). Other congregations have formal relations with other congregations, they are associated as part of a institutional entity above and beyond the individual members thereof - usually under a common name, common corporate structure, common confession of faith.

IMO, it is not mandated that congregations formally associate with others. I see nothing essentially wrong or unbiblical about a congregation being non-denom. On the other hand, I tend to affirm community and cooperation- as well as accountability. And so I personally think that it is better for a congregation to be denominational.





.

There is also a third option... non denomination leaders who, through networking (for lack of a better word) have joined together for accountability, ministering of one another, and combining resources for further ministry efforts and opportunities while not being governed by a dominate denomination. (0r non denomination)

This is happening in my City and the numbers of churches joining are growing.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

leaders who, through networking (for lack of a better word) have joined together for accountability, ministering of one another, and combining resources for further ministry efforts and opportunities

... thus forming a denomination.





.

 

[washedagain]

... thus forming a denomination.





.

Nope... all are still independent of one another. This is the Pastors who are coming together for accountability, to be ministered to, and joining in efforts of outreach ministry and missions.

 

[SharonL]

I pray if it is alright being new here if I might say something. As one who has left all denominationalism i see the church from another perspective. I am no longer looking fot he right church, I am already in it.
" But as may as received him gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe upon his name" John 1:12
If we look back to Pentecost when the church was born the church had no name. they were not Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. they were not even called Christians yet. Catholic referred to all believers and there was no Romna Church with popes in fancy robes and hates. The church was the church comprised of all who believed upon Jesus. We only have to look to the book of Acts to see the church Christ founded.

I am with you on this - I walk the walk of a Child of God with no label - I've been in churches for 75 years - got tired of all the man made rules and laws and just wanted a walk hand in hand with Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit worshiping the Father without a label - we are the church. Our walk has become very close, we worship, pray, live each day knowing Jesus is with us each step of the way.

 

[Mclees8]

I am with you on this - I walk the walk of a Child of God with no label - I've been in churches for 75 years - got tired of all the man made rules and laws and just wanted a walk hand in hand with Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit worshiping the Father without a label - we are the church. Our walk has become very close, we worship, pray, live each day knowing Jesus is with us each step of the way.

Hi SharonL
I still beleive we need the fellowship of other believers but even these chat boards are a form of fellowship. When we stopseeing the institution as the church and using it as a crutch we can then take Jesus hand and he will show us who the church really is. Its us. "No ye not ye are the temple.

 

[chapmaned24]

IMO....


1. The congregation that publicly insists: "We believe NOTHING" probably cannot call itself Christian or a church. Such extreme, radical relativism (WHATEVER you believe - if anything at all - is just as valid and good as any other, it's true IF YOU THINK IT IS) is neither biblical or Christian.


2. I've never heard of a congregation that does what you suggest it should: have no beliefs at all. They may have very,very weak professions of Christian faith, they may be minimalists so that everyone from Catholic to Mormon to Universalists are fully embraced, but there's usually SOME corpus of beliefs - even if they try their best to hide it from the people.


3. A "non denom" is simply making itself a denomination - of one: self. Thus rejecting all accountability and fellowship.





.

To me, what we are to believe is what the Apostles wrote about the Cross of Christ, which boils down to Sin and Salvation. We all sin, and we are in need of a savior. We believe that Jesus is the Savior, that he is God. Basically, the OT is "Jesus is coming, Jesus is coming." The NT is, "Jesus came, we saw, and we testify." Then comes the writings of the Apostles on how to act as a Christian who is already saved.

This is what non-denomination is about. All the rest is a "good to know", but not necessary for salvation. For example, whatever your opinion is pertaining to mid trib, pre trib, or post trib is not a necessity for salvation. These are highly debated topics, but this is not a sin/salvation criteria.

There are a lot of writings from people who never even saw Jesus in the first century, and they make writings that have nothing to do with sin/salvation. Then down the line, it is written that if you don't believe in, say for example, post trib, then you aren't saved. Where do we find that in the Law of Moses? Sin is defined as "transgression of the Law" (1 John 3:4). Or some other denominations will say that if you eat pork, then you aren't saved. Or, some other denominations will say that if you drink fermented grapes, that you aren't saved, but that it is ok to drink grape juice. Still, others will say that if you go to church on Sunday instead of Saturday, that you will burn in hell.

We all will be judged as individuals, and not a group.

In order to have Good News (Gospel), there must be bad news. Preach the law (Bad news), then preach Jesus (Good News). This is non-denominational.

 

[tessa04]

Several ways to put this question.......

"Is Being Non-Denominational better than being Denominational?"

"Is being Denominational better than being Non-Denominational?"

"As far as our walk with God goes, is there any difference between being Non-Denominational and being Denominational?"

"Are there any drawbacks (or benefits) from being either?"

my question wouldn't be non-denominational vs denominational...

rather my questions would be:

Do the members reflect Christ and his attitude?

Is what they believe Biblical?

 

[patricius79]

Several ways to put this question.......

"Is Being Non-Denominational better than being Denominational?"

"Is being Denominational better than being Non-Denominational?"

"As far as our walk with God goes, is there any difference between being Non-Denominational and being Denominational?"

"Are there any drawbacks (or benefits) from being either?"

there's no such thing as a non-denominational group. "non denominational" is a denomination

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Is Being Non-Denominational better than being Denominational?"

Of course it is. the Bible is Non-Denominational, and so is Christianity. it's relational, and faith based. The Bible was written BY Ministers TO Ministers.

"As far as our walk with God goes, is there any difference between being Non-Denominational and being Denominational?"

Nope there's no effect - except that non-denominationalists don't have to worry about Denominational "Commandments of men", and political requirement for being affiliated with a denominational franchise.

"Are there any drawbacks (or benefits) from being either?"

The only REAL Drawbacks come in the mounting of a significant missionary effort, missionary program, or social outreach efforts - which require resources and finances far beyond the ability of a single congregation to marshal.

MY solution is to be a totally NON-Denominational member (And a member of the Deacon Board) of an Assembly of God denominational church. The denominational foolishness can simply be ignored, and you can just be a "Christian".

 

[Bouke285]

there's no such thing as a non-denominational group. "non denominational" is a denomination

Actually if you want to go that way, non-denominational is many denominations. There are rarely two non-denominational believers who hold on to all of the same doctrines. Scripture is not easy to interpret in most cases our doctrines are not directly addressed, but many find a way to make them so. Scripture was written to a culture forgotten, a culture 2000 years old and more, it is for all time, but the 2000 year barrier makes true interpretations difficult, that is why we have denominations, and that is why we need denominations. I'm not alluding to specific denominations only differences in beliefs, within the foundation of Christ.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"There are rarely two non-denominational believers who hold on to all of the same doctrines."

One effect of denominational churches is that they STIFLE actual dialogue among their members, so that an "Artificial Unity" is seen. however freed from denominational restraints, it'll be found that IN REALITY most folks DON'T ACTUALLY buy into the denominational package completely, and have MANY areas of Question.

So whether denominational or otherwise, many folks are actually "Denominations of ONE" - unless they're just uninterested "True Believers" who just "eat the package whole" out of general theological disinterest.

 

[SharonL]

In my experience of non-denominational it is usually filled with people who have grown tired of all the labels. People who think their denomination is the only one and they put more emphasis on the denomination and their rules and laws than their walk. I have found non-denomination people to be more intent on walking the walk and not on all the rules set out by different denominations - believe me - I've been through many of them. Most have so many don'ts that they fail to tell you what God can do.