Mormons want to be called christian but they dont call themselves christian, instead referring proudly to their religion as their own "true church"

They dont see the double standard in this?

They want to be considered "christian" as a public-relations stunt to be more "accepted" in a social/political climate where "christians" are scared of losing power, and want to band together for solidarity and to "take back" the power they're losing. They want in on that group.

They are, of course, "christian." Just not the same kind of "christian" as, say, Catholics. But then Catholics aren't the same kind of "christian" as Lutherans. Who aren't the same kind of "christian" as Baptists. Who aren't the same kind of "christian" as Evangelical-bible-literalists. Who aren't...well, you get the idea. Every "christian" group considers themselves the only "true christians," even though they (to varying degrees) will align themselves with other "christians" when it's convenient to do so, and will fight with other "christians" when it's useful to do so. Mormons are no different (other than being a bit wackier than most).

I would reject your idea that: "Every "christian" group considers themselves the only true christians". While I do not have personal experience of every Christian denomination, I have enough, both as an attendee at several denominations and in association with believers in numerous others, to reject that statement. While Baptists, for instance, might disagree with Wesleyans on issues such as eternal security or the process of sanctification, virtually all Christian denominations are agreed on what are termed salvational issues which makes spiritual communion acceptable across denominational lines. From, this position, a Baptist is no less saved, or in a right relationship with God, than a pentacostal church member, a Nazarene, or a member of a mainline church. Christian denominations have more in common that unites them than divides them. I have never heard any member of any Christian church I am familiar with claim to have a corner on being a "true Christian", either for themselves or their church of choice.

Your sweeping statement suggests a vast experience in Christian churches and a viewpoint that I am unfamiliar with.

"While Baptists, for instance, might disagree with Wesleyans on issues such as eternal security or the process of sanctification, virtually all Christian denominations are agreed on what are termed salvational issues which makes spiritual communion acceptable across denominational lines."

I wonder if you were to enumerate these agreements would LDS inc fall in with or against them. It is my opinion that if you wish to create agreements between the sects you have to remove the outlying disagreements, which in turn creates a homogeneity of Christianity that allows for Mormonism without to much trouble. My experience with these types of conversations is that there is willingness to flex between most sects until one brings up Mormonism or other newer sects. With Mormonism, et all, there is a rigidity that almost seems malicious.

I think there are major salvational issue differences between Mormonism and traditional Christian churches that makes spiritual communion difficult, including the very nature of God and Christ. That said, my response was not intended to add to the thread debate but to challenge the sweeping generalities I saw in the earlier post.

I understand, however my question was to the agreements, which you stated created a spiritual communion.

It is a deliberate exclusion if you search for agreement with some and highlight the differences of others.

You added to the debate by pointing out that there were some generalities that I think you felt were unqualified. You further added to the debate by yourself offering qualified generalities. My opinion, but if you offer a qualification and not the specifics your generalities are invalid. An unqualified generality, by definition, is valid.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your sweeping statement suggests a vast experience
> in Christian churches and a viewpoint that I am
> unfamiliar with.

So you're unaware of the history of rival church leaders excommunicating each other over doctrinal differences?

And of the many hundreds of years of wars fought between different denominations, with each calling the other names like "led by Satan?"

And of, for example, JWs saying "no true Christian" reveres the cross, and Catholics saying "all true Christians" must revere the cross?

That John Calvin, for example, was accused of "Arianism" by both other "protestants" and Catholics, and declared a "heretic" by both as well?

That when JFK was running for president in the US in 1960, a great many US protestants were outraged that a catholic would dare do so, and declared that he wasn't a true christian?

That in 1993, Adventist groups paid to have billboards put up in the US declaring the catholic pope "the antichrist," and many stayed up until 2002?

If so, I'd suggest some reading of history and current events.

I'll freely admit it's probable I notice the "bad stuff" more than you because I'm not looking for "good stuff." And that you probably notice the "good stuff" more than me because you're not looking for "bad stuff." Maybe we can both learn something, hmm? :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 04:58PM by ificouldhietokolob.

My point is that "every christian group" is a sweeping statement. No matter history, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Nazarenes, Episcopalians, Evangelical Free, Four Square, Church of God, to name just a few, do not claim to be "the only true christians". Those alone, without naming more, makes your premise false.

My point is that "every christian group" is a sweeping statement. No matter history, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Nazarenes, Episcopalians, Evangelical Free, Four Square, Church of God, to name just a few, do not claim to be "the only true christians". Those alone, without naming more, makes your premise false.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... do not claim to
> be "the only true christians". Those alone,
> without naming more, makes your premise false.

I've heard *members* of every one of those groups you mentioned but one declare they are indeed "true christians," while insisting members of many other sects (which ones vary) are not.

It may not be "official doctrine" for any of them (although some do indeed make that or similar claims), it *is* how many in the groups feel. If they didn't feel that way, they'd go join another group.

So as for being too general, fine. Mea culpa.

Your counter-argument, though, about how lovely and wonderful they all are and how they get along, is shown clearly false by both history and current events. Heck, In my small town of less than 10K people, there are 7 churches, and members of every single one of them have called the others "not true christians." In public. This rosy idea of how wonderfully christians all get along, and how much they all love and respect each other's beliefs, is fiction.

Interesting that you bring up sects who existence is almost completely the result of a schism from what was considered to be a corrupt and failed church.

The Reformation was at it's core a social revolt against the RCC. In it's wake Europe suffered through among others the 30 years war, eight consecutive French wars, the English Civil War, and the Dutch war of independence, as well as others. A century a violence. While it wasn't all about religion, religion was certainly one of the central tenets. I'm not certain that 15,000,000 deaths classifies as agreement.

Also interesting that you use the term "true church" almost as if it means something. While they may not be walking around talking about how they are the only true Christians, you can sure bet that the sects exist because they feel like they are right and others are wrong.

Like ifi said it could well be that this is a matter of perspective.

Before my DH converted to "the church", and for years afterward, it always struck him as very wrong the way Joseph Smith was worshipped: whether in hymns (A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief,or Praise to the Man"),or testimony meetings where everyone who got up to testify, always started with "I know this church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet", etc. Or Sunday School classes. I can't recall any time when anyone ever said: "I know or am grateful for all that Jesus Christ did for me". Zip,nada.
Therefore, I nominate a couple of name changes: How about "The Church of Joseph Smith of Latter Day Scams", or maybe "Harems (not Hyrum)Way". ;-)

mutually exclusive

Mormonites cannot be Christian.

LDSleaders won't allow it - members can't follow their own conscious (if they even know what that is - many have never heard of, or thought of it) when they are following their "leaders" (who are following themselves [nothing], down into the rabbit hole).

A Christian would naturally do the right thing (by definition), FOR ANYBODY. A Mormon CAN'T DO THE RIGHT THING because they can't associate with - or relate to - anybody.

In Mormondom, there is a mental/ spiritual/ heart breakdown, with competing voices telling them what to do, insomuch that they are confused, paralyzed, even handcuffed, and don't know what to do.

They have to consult their minds, leaders, scriptures, prayers and hearts, and by then it is too late - even if by chance they get the right answer - to do the right thing, which doesn't require thought (or "permission") at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 11:50AM by readwrite.

"Christianity" is and always has been solely a ruse for one group to exert power over another. Mormons are one of the more recent groups but far from the only one.

Followers of Moses, Mohammad, Buddha, and the sh!tload of Hindi deities use the same tactic. "We're right, because [insert exalted figure here]. Get with the program or suffer the consequences."

Mormons may be craven, Machiavellian, two-faced, and arrogant, but no more so than holy rollers in any number of other faiths.

Mormons also deny what other christians believe Jesus has done for them by claiming they still need a mormon baptism

Actually, there are a number of areas where Mormon and non-Mormon Christians agree about Jesus. I am neither Mormon nor Christian, but, based on my understanding of Mormonism and of more traditional Christian doctrine, I suggest that these are some of those areas, and one could certainly argue that anyone with these beliefs could be labeled "Christian":

Jesus is divine and part of the Godhead.
He is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament.
The world was created by him.
He is the "Only Begotten Son" of God.
He died to atone for the sins of mankind.
He was prepared from the beginning of the world for his mission of atonement.
He was bodily resurrected from the dead.
By his resurrection he conquered death so that all mankind will be resurrected.
He was perfect and sinless.
He founded the true church.
Only believers in him will be saved.
He will someday return to earth and usher in a period of peace lasting a thousand years, during which he will rule as king.

The following Mormon teachings differ sharply from the doctrine of many traditional Christian denominations, and are probably the basis for the frequent Christian assertion that "Mormons are not Christian":

Jesus is a separate person from God the Father.
Jesus is a literal child of God the Father, both spiritually and physically.
Since we are all spirit children of God the Father, in that sense Jesus is our spirit brother.
Jesus was married (early Mormon prophets also taught that he was a polygamist).
Christ's atonement is not effective for certain very grievous sins (this doctrine of "blood atonement" is not mentioned much by modern Mormons)
The moment of Christ's atonement was as he prayed in Gethsemane, not his death on the cross.
One should not "worship" Jesus or pray to him, but only to God the Father, in Jesus' name.
One should not try to develop a "personal relationship" with Christ.
To be saved, one must not only believe in Christ, but must "obey his commandments" (that is, "works" are as important as "grace")

Mormons don't actively preach Christian ideology.

If you haven't figured out yet, from other posts, I think Christian ideology is exactly what we and the world needs. It wasn't written by a human...it was written by a true leader. Mormonism is lead by leaders that don't understand Jesus' ideology.

The world would be a much much better place if we truly understood the ideology of Jesus

The main theme of Christianity is the second commandment as stated by Jesus, to love our neighbours as yourself. Another way to look at that is that we absolutely HAVE to treat others the way we want to be treated. This needs to be preached at all Mormon services every week. So much relationship problems could be avoided if we just understood this one thing.

Not pay tithing, go to Temple, bla bla bla...

Next, imo, is we need to help those in NEED, not help other Mormons only. If someone can return the favour, there is no heavenly reward. They have to be in need, and you have to do it without bragging to others, otherwise there is no heavenly reward. In fact, you need to do it to glorify heaven, not glorify yourself.

Mormons are so busy doing things for those that aren't in need, and they seem hesitant to help those in genuine need. They don't understand how important this is.

The leader is the servant. Jesus washed his disciples feet. Mormon leaders burden members while they don't lift a finger yet get paid 120K. BTW, there is no heavenly reward if you get paid 120K on earth, yet prey financially on the poor and struggling.

The Chief priests, Scribes and Pharisees needed the best seats in the synagogue, upper rooms at feasts, the fancy clothes and greetings in the market. They elevated themselves. Jesus said whoever exalts himself will be abased, but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

JS took sexual advantage of his female followers, single married, teens. He needed the praise, money, fame, control. He created a fraudulant religion and lied to get his perks. Jesus was born in a barn, submitted himself to be he will of the father, and at his most triumphant moment, was riding a donkey.

Mormonism is a false Christianity, more closely resembling the Scribes and Pharisees.

Mormons barely acknowledge Easter, even while claiming to focus on the risen Christ. After all, when Easter is the same weekend as GC, they have conference instead of rescheduling it for another weekend.

Another issue is that they don't believe the Atonement happened with Christ's crucifixion like Christians do, and to make matters worse, they deny other Christian baptisms as they require all converts to have a Mormon baptism, even if the convert wasn't an infant the first time.

Mormons also look at you weirdly if you mention Advent, as the only thing they really care about in December is tithing settlement, and Smith's birthday on the 23rd.

The LDS Church is Corporate NOT Christian.

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure they are the Pharisees of the New Testament.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=CEV

I thought everybody knew that by now?

JAFO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The LDS Church is Corporate NOT Christian.

Oh, sure -- because no other "christian" churches have vast financial holdings, bring in large sums of money every year, etc.
Oh, wait...never mind.

> As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure they are the
> Pharisees of the New Testament.

I'm pretty sure the "Pharisees" at the time the NT was written were the "Pharisees" of the NT. And that whomever wrote the parts of the NT mentioning "Pharisees" had no idea there would be mormons someday (though that person may have made some astute observations about human behavior that continue today).

So, yes, mormons have lots of differences from many other christian sects. Other christian sects have lots of differences from other christian sects, too. If they all agreed on what the bible says/means, there wouldn't be tens of thousands of christian sects, would there? But there are. Because each sect thinks it's doing things "the right way," and even if they don't explicitly state it, that at the very least implies that all the others are doing things the "wrong way" (though many of them *do* state what they think the other sects do wrong).

Are mormons "christians?" They believe in bible Jesus as "Christ." If that's enough definition of "christian" for you, then they are. You can, of course, trot out all kinds of add-ons to that definition, but then you run the risk of excluding more and more of the tens of thousands of other sects from your "christian" group with each add-on, and your add-ons will be entirely subjective anyway, so why bother?

Admitting mormons are "christians" (wacky, nutty, conned-by-Smith ones even) doesn't make them "right." Or "wrong." It just means they believe in bible Jesus as "Christ." Which they do. I personally think a lot of believers in other christian sects go way too far with the "they're not christians!" stuff about mormons, simply because they don't want any association of mormons with their "tribe." Hey, I don't want them associated with my tribe, either (the tribe of humans), but they're humans, so they're part of it whether I like it or not. They're still wacky and culty and all the rest.

Mormon Jesus is a different "Christ" from Christian Jesus:

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