If every Christian group denied the title "Christian" to another

[truthsilence]

(grin) the “no true Christian” idea?

Well, that’s a little like avoiding discussing my second husband. Since I don’t HAVE a second husband, there is nothing to avoid.

Y’see, we absolutely consider Catholics to be Christians. What else would they be?

Now, a few of the more loudmouthed of our early leaders had some nasty things to say about creeds and such, and likened the RCC to the 'whore of all the earth," but those guys calmed down soon enough. It’s been a century and a half or so since they embarrassed themselves in that manner.

But as far as I know, even they never denied Catholics the title ‘Christian.’

Uhhh. Those loudmouthed early Mormon leaders saying nasty things about the creeds and such…would they be the same ones who visited Joseph in the grove?

 

[ralphinal]

By saying that the Christians apostatized from the early church of Jesus Christ, we are saying that they became a different sort of Christian.

As you remark, if you left the Catholic church, you would be an apostate Catholic. However, unless you left any belief in Christ whatsoever and no longer considered yourself Christian, you would remain Christian.

After all, Catholics still consider themselves to be the one, the only, the original, Christian church, right? If you didn’t, you would have to admit that you were, in some way, apostate from the original.

…and everyone who believes something different than Catholicism teaches is apostate from that one, true, original Christian church.

So you are hoist on your own petard, here…y’see, Catholics, by your own admission, still consider Protestants who still believe in certain things (though they are apostate in others) to be “Christian.”

Hmmnn. beliefs that are ‘apostate’ from Catholicism, which you consider to be the one, the only and the original true church, are still Christian.

So…I guess there is indeed “another way around it.”

Not really. If you are an apostate Catholic, or an Apostate Baptist, but just change which form of CHristianity, you are still Christian.

How can someone LEAVE CHristianity and still be Christian?

That is like saying that you crossed the state line from Texas into New Mexico but you were still in Kansas.

 

[dianaiad]

Not really. If you are an apostate Catholic, or an Apostate Baptist, but just change which form of CHristianity, you are still Christian.

How can someone LEAVE CHristianity and still be Christian?

That is like saying that you crossed the state line from Texas into New Mexico but you were still in Kansas.

We say that exactly the same way you claim someone can leave CAtholicism and still be Christian…and for the same reason.

The only difference is that we think that the apostasy happened one step further back than you do.

 

[ralphinal]

We say that exactly the same way you claim someone can leave CAtholicism and still be Christian…and for the same reason.

The only difference is that we think that the apostasy happened one step further back than you do.

No, you are missing what I am saying.

If Christianity is an umbrella, and all the Christian faiths are under it, you can leave one and still be under the umbrella.

By saying that Christianity went apostate, you are saying that the Church left the unbrella and is now in the rain.

 

[dianaiad]

No, you are missing what I am saying.

If Christianity is an umbrella, and all the Christian faiths are under it, you can leave one and still be under the umbrella.

By saying that Christianity went apostate, you are saying that the Church left the unbrella and is now in the rain.

Actually, you are the one who is missing what I am saying. However, I think we will have to simply leave it at that.

 

[ralphinal]

Actually, you are the one who is missing what I am saying. However, I think we will have to simply leave it at that.

I must be. It seems to me that you are saying that non-LDS Christians are still Christian. This goes against everything that I have ever seen from a Mormon or former Mormon. They have told me that non-LDS Christians are NOT CHristians but members of an apostate church that is no longer properly following Christ.

 

[dianaiad]

I must be. It seems to me that you are saying that non-LDS Christians are still Christian. This goes against everything that I have ever seen from a Mormon or former Mormon. They have told me that non-LDS Christians are NOT CHristians but members of an apostate church that is no longer properly following Christ.

I’ve been a Mormon for close to 60 years.

I have never heard a fellow member say that only Mormons were Christians.

I will say this, however. From the incredibly wide variety of things that I have heard Christians tack onto the definition of “you have to believe this or that in order to be a True Christian,” I have come to understand that the true definition of “Christian,” to everybody I talk to, is “A Christian believes the Truth about Christ, and since I have the Truth, then a Christian believes what I do…anybody who disagrees is not a True Christian.”

Well, if that’s the definition, then I COULD say to you…I’m the Christian and you are not, just as a whole bunch of people are saying that to me—and to Catholics, and to anybody else whose doctrines or practices don’t march right down the line with theirs.

However, that’s not the definition.

So I guess I’m just going to have to go along with the definition in the dictionary, which allows both of us that title. Please don’t insist that I use your definition.

 

[ralphinal]

I’ve been a Mormon for close to 60 years.

I have never heard a fellow member say that only Mormons were Christians.

I will say this, however. From the incredibly wide variety of things that I have heard Christians tack onto the definition of “you have to believe this or that in order to be a True Christian,” I have come to understand that the true definition of “Christian,” to everybody I talk to, is “A Christian believes the Truth about Christ, and since I have the Truth, then a Christian believes what I do…anybody who disagrees is not a True Christian.”

Well, if that’s the definition, then I COULD say to you…I’m the Christian and you are not, just as a whole bunch of people are saying that to me—and to Catholics, and to anybody else whose doctrines or practices don’t march right down the line with theirs.

However, that’s not the definition.

So I guess I’m just going to have to go along with the definition in the dictionary, which allows both of us that title. Please don’t insist that I use your definition.

That is fine. I am just trying to grasp what you are saying compaired to what others have said. I am ok if you are

 

[truthsilence]

Originally Posted by dianaiad
Now, a few of the more loudmouthed of our early leaders had some nasty things to say about creeds and such, and likened the RCC to the 'whore of all the earth," but those guys calmed down soon enough. It’s been a century and a half or so since they embarrassed themselves in that manner.

Uhhh. Those loudmouthed early Mormon leaders saying nasty things about the creeds and such…would they be the same ones who visited Joseph in the grove?

So, no response, Diana? Is it possible that you are yet another Mormon on this board who doesn’t believe in the foundational ‘truths’ of Mormonism? You’re fine with the creeds?

 

[dianaiad]

So, no response, Diana? Is it possible that you are yet another Mormon on this board who doesn’t believe in the foundational ‘truths’ of Mormonism? You’re fine with the creeds?

Nope.

They are false.

…silly question; if I thought they were accurate portrayals of “Truth” I’d be a Catholic. (speaking of the ‘creeds’) Though to be honest, I can’t see a problem with the Apostles Creed, except for the "I believe in the …Holy catholic church…and ‘the communion of the saints’ as being what Catholics think when they say it. Other than that?

Lessee…Nicene creed: Come to think of it, there isn’t a whole lot wrong with that one, either, though I think Mormons believe it a little more literally than Catholics do, except, of course, for the bit about “one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” We do indeed acknowledge ‘one baptism for the remission of sins.’ We just believe that it must be done by someone who actually has the authority to do it.

Looks as if the Catholics are swinging away from that one a bit.

The problem isn’t in the words. It’s in spin people give them.

 

[truthsilence]

Nope.

They are false.

…silly question; if I thought they were accurate portrayals of “Truth” I’d be a Catholic. (speaking of the ‘creeds’) Though to be honest, I can’t see a problem with the Apostles Creed, except for the "I believe in the …Holy catholic church…and ‘the communion of the saints’ as being what Catholics think when they say it. Other than that?

Lessee…Nicene creed: Come to think of it, there isn’t a whole lot wrong with that one, either, though I think Mormons believe it a little more literally than Catholics do, except, of course, for the bit about “one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” We do indeed acknowledge ‘one baptism for the remission of sins.’ We just believe that it must be done by someone who actually has the authority to do it.

Looks as if the Catholics are swinging away from that one a bit.

The problem isn’t in the words. It’s in spin people give them.

Yes, I agree with the spin part. People certainly have tales to tell.

So, who were those loudmouths again? I’m not picking on you, I’m just curious if you realized what you wrote earlier.

As to authority, well you know who Jesus gave the keys to, don’t you? And he didn’t take them back, or leave His followers as orphans. Unless you don’t take Him at His word?

 

[Publisher]

Yes, I agree with the spin part. People certainly have tales to tell.

So, who were those loudmouths again? I’m not picking on you, I’m just curious if you realized what you wrote earlier.

As to authority, well you know who Jesus gave the keys to, don’t you? And he didn’t take them back, or leave His followers as orphans. Unless you don’t take Him at His word?

Interesting bit of psychology you used…if the poster does not agree with your understanding…they don’t take Jesus at His word…you know that is not the intent of the poster…so why use such inflamatory questioning? It does not speak out the that Center of Truth and Love we should deal with each other with…just a Quaker perspective.

 

[ralphinal]

Interesting bit of psychology you used…if the poster does not agree with your understanding…they don’t take Jesus at His word…you know that is not the intent of the poster…so why use such inflamatory questioning? It does not speak out the that Center of Truth and Love we should deal with each other with…just a Quaker perspective.

Why is there always a quaker talking about loving each other and Truth? I mean come on, is any of that even in the BIble?

Oh, wait…

Nevermind

 

[truthsilence]

Interesting bit of psychology you used…if the poster does not agree with your understanding…they don’t take Jesus at His word…you know that is not the intent of the poster…so why use such inflamatory questioning? It does not speak out the that Center of Truth and Love we should deal with each other with…just a Quaker perspective.

Thank you, Publisher, I’ll take that to heart. Can you please consider that I was responding to Diana’s comment about authority. About how Mormons believe they “actually have authority” to baptize. I was pointing out where, and to whom Jesus gave His authority, and the promises He made to go along with it. I do take Him at His word on the matter. But I will try to be more considerate in the future.

Peace,
Tami

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, I agree with the spin part. People certainly have tales to tell.

So, who were those loudmouths again? I’m not picking on you, I’m just curious if you realized what you wrote earlier.

As to authority, well you know who Jesus gave the keys to, don’t you? And he didn’t take them back, or leave His followers as orphans. Unless you don’t take Him at His word?

Well, that is the problem. You claim that they were not taken back. We agree with you.

They weren’t.

Like any other set of keys, there are two ways to no longer have them; they could be ‘taken back…’ and you can also simply lose them.

that last is what we claimed happened; The men to whom Christ gave the keys kept them…and passed them on–but when people began to apostatize and go off in all sorts of different wild directions in their beliefs, those keys were no longer passed on; the last of the apostles died, and that was it for the priesthood authority.

You yourselves deny that any revelation was happening after that, though there is certainly no logical reason for it to have stopped.

…and yes, your heavy handed hints are not falling on ignorant ears; I am refering to the very mortal loudmouths who took what God said–and expanded it a wee bit beyond what was meant.

and yes, some of those loudmouths were prophets, seers and revelators, and not perfect. WE don’t claim that they were, or that every word that dropped from their lips was revelation and scripture. For some reason it’s only the anti’s who claim that for us. (shrug)

 

[truthsilence]

Gotta run. Carry on…

fwiw, I’m not an anti.

Oh, and, Catholics do not deny that any revelation is happening. Check the files here at Catholic Answers, or better yet, look it up in the catechism.

Peace,
Tami

 

[kellie]

Hi dianaiad,

Are you saying that Catholics are still Christians, even though we “apostatised”?

So in 200 years, could someone say that the current Mormons apostatised in 2009, but still remained Christians, but this person in 200 years time has the correct Truth and they are the “real church”?

 

[mfbukowski]

In order to be Christian, a group must teach that Jesus is God. That rules the JWs out. Also, they must accept the classic Trinity. That rules the Mormons out. That said, Mormons are closer than JWs to the traditional thought. There are other, smaller groups that are not Christian as well.

That said, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics are all Christians. However, I will ask when was the last time you heard of a Christian physically attacking another group because they are not the same type of Christian? The same question could be asked of Muslims that you asked of us.

Duh, protestants and catholics in Northern Ireland. That’s pretty recent.

 

[dianaiad]

Hi dianaiad,

Are you saying that Catholics are still Christians, even though we “apostatised”?

So in 200 years, could someone say that the current Mormons apostatised in 2009, but still remained Christians, but this person in 200 years time has the correct Truth and they are the “real church”?

Hey, some folks are doing that already!

 

[ralphinal]

Duh, protestants and catholics in Northern Ireland. That’s pretty recent.

Yes, that is true, and you still get flair ups like you had between the GO and Armenians at the Church of the Holy Selpulcher. However, when was the last time it was taught by a Christian group that it was acceptable to attack another Christian group?

Usually, as was the case in Ireland, there is much more than religion involved.