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

[dianaiad]

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.

I think we can safely say that there is always more than religion involved.

However, we are coming up against a True Scott fallacy here: case in point:

Last summer Texas used Baptist buses to transport women and children…at the point of guns…away from their homes, breaking up families.

The courts later found (this is official, folks…) that this was a Very Bad Idea, and it was done not because the children were in danger, but because ‘somebody’ in authority simply didn’t like the FLDS religion. The “excuse” was child abuse (which, by the way, was found to be far lower in the compound than in the surrounding communities, up to and including the percentage of pregnant under-aged girls) The REASON, said the appeals courts, was religion. The locals didn’t like it.

Well, waddayaknow; I don’t like it either. The FLDS has been a very embarrassing group for the CoJCoLDS, but y’know what? Tough; there is this thing called freedom of religion that we are supposed to be paying attention to.

As it happens, the local Baptists had been VERY officially advocating the breakup of the compound, offered the use of the buses, and were otherwise extremely pro-active in the raid and the move.

So here we have an officially recognized instance, very recent, of precisely what you are talking about; one Christian group officially teaching that it was OK to go after another Christian group.

Diana, hoping against hope that nobody actually walks into this one, and also hoping that it makes people think.

 

[truthsilence]

I think we can safely say that there is always more than religion involved.

However, we are coming up against a True Scott fallacy here: case in point:

Last summer Texas used Baptist buses to transport women and children…at the point of guns…away from their homes, breaking up families.

The courts later found (this is official, folks…) that this was a Very Bad Idea, and it was done not because the children were in danger, but because ‘somebody’ in authority simply didn’t like the FLDS religion. The “excuse” was child abuse (which, by the way, was found to be far lower in the compound than in the surrounding communities, up to and including the percentage of pregnant under-aged girls) The REASON, said the appeals courts, was religion. The locals didn’t like it.

Well, waddayaknow; I don’t like it either. The FLDS has been a very embarrassing group for the CoJCoLDS, but y’know what? Tough; there is this thing called freedom of religion that we are supposed to be paying attention to.

As it happens, the local Baptists had been VERY officially advocating the breakup of the compound, offered the use of the buses, and were otherwise extremely pro-active in the raid and the move.

So here we have an officially recognized instance, very recent, of precisely what you are talking about; one Christian group officially teaching that it was OK to go after another Christian group.

Diana, hoping against hope that nobody actually walks into this one, and also hoping that it makes people think.

sitting on my hands. had to type this with my chin… ugggh… carry on…

 

[dianaiad]

sitting on my hands. had to type this with my chin… ugggh… carry on…

(grin)

That could be very bad for your circulation!

But I appreciate your restraint; this one is a little obvious, isn’t it?

 

[ralphinal]

I think we can safely say that there is always more than religion involved.

However, we are coming up against a True Scott fallacy here: case in point:

Last summer Texas used Baptist buses to transport women and children…at the point of guns…away from their homes, breaking up families.

The courts later found (this is official, folks…) that this was a Very Bad Idea, and it was done not because the children were in danger, but because ‘somebody’ in authority simply didn’t like the FLDS religion. The “excuse” was child abuse (which, by the way, was found to be far lower in the compound than in the surrounding communities, up to and including the percentage of pregnant under-aged girls) The REASON, said the appeals courts, was religion. The locals didn’t like it.

Well, waddayaknow; I don’t like it either. The FLDS has been a very embarrassing group for the CoJCoLDS, but y’know what? Tough; there is this thing called freedom of religion that we are supposed to be paying attention to.

As it happens, the local Baptists had been VERY officially advocating the breakup of the compound, offered the use of the buses, and were otherwise extremely pro-active in the raid and the move.

So here we have an officially recognized instance, very recent, of precisely what you are talking about; one Christian group officially teaching that it was OK to go after another Christian group.

Diana, hoping against hope that nobody actually walks into this one, and also hoping that it makes people think.

I do agree that there were major religious issues with that case. I also agree that there was a set of poor descisions made. However, I would also like to point out the “child never lies” mentality that some social workers have. When a call comes in from a “child” (I know that in this case, she was older and had an axe to grind), there are some who have a “damn the torpedos, full steam ahead” mentality. Now, this is good when there can be an impartial investigation of the accusations. IN this case, there was not going to be one.

Besides, it was not the teachings of ALL Baptists but a small group in a small area.

 

[mfbukowski]

If the mood is ecumenical, then adherence to the Nicene Creed is good general gauge of one’s Christianity.

If you make that the Apostles Creed, it would include Mormons

 

[mfbukowski]

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 am pages behind catching up on reading this thread. I know what dianaiad will say to this but I just want to second it in advance since I have discussed the apostasy ad nauseum on this forum and have to be one of the Mormons being misquoted here.

I have never ever ever said that non- LDS Christians are not christian. Christians are believers in Christ.

The problem is in describing historically what happend in say 100 AD, when the only christians were catholics, if one apostasized from the catholic position, was one still a christian? I would stick to my definition and say that if they believed in Christ, they would be christian. So all the “heretics” who still believed in Christ would be “christians” in my book.

You may or may not call them that, but if you call protestants christians, I think you have to call all who believe in Christ christians.

Frankly not that I care if you call me christian or not. I know what I am. My mommie taught me “sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me”. It is just a good thing the majority sects don’t burn heretics anymore.

 

[ralphinal]

I am pages behind catching up on reading this thread. I know what dianaiad will say to this but I just want to second it in advance since I have discussed the apostasy ad nauseum on this forum and have to be one of the Mormons being misquoted here.

I have never ever ever said that non- LDS Christians are not christian. Christians are believers in Christ.

The problem is in describing historically what happend in say 100 AD, when the only christians were catholics, if one apostasized from the catholic position, was one still a christian? I would stick to my definition and say that if they believed in Christ, they would be christian. So all the “heretics” who still believed in Christ would be “christians” in my book.

You may or may not call them that, but if you call protestants christians, I think you have to call all who believe in Christ christians.

Frankly not that I care if you call me christian or not. I know what I am. My mommie taught me “sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me”. It is just a good thing the majority sects don’t burn heretics anymore.

The issue with so many of the heresies, especially in the first few centuries, was that is was not one or two doctrinal issues that were denied, but generally there were issues that came up from that. For example, a group that would claim that the flesh was inherently evil would deny that Jesus was born and was truly man and may even deny sexual relations between spouses.

Non-Cathlolic groups may, in fact, lose their status as Christian if the give up or adopt certain doctrines. For example, if a sect decides that their founder is, in fact, Jesus re-incarnated. They may “believe” in Jesus, but they are no longer Christian.

 

[dianaiad]

I do agree that there were major religious issues with that case. I also agree that there was a set of poor descisions made. However, I would also like to point out the “child never lies” mentality that some social workers have. When a call comes in from a “child” (I know that in this case, she was older and had an axe to grind),

Yes, that can be safely said, since she made the whole thing up and the call was fraudulent. Indeed, this was more than a ‘the child doesn’t lie’ mindset; the authorities knew that the call was fraudulent before they went in.

there are some who have a “damn the torpedos, full steam ahead” mentality. Now, this is good when there can be an impartial investigation of the accusations. IN this case, there was not going to be one.

Besides, it was not the teachings of ALL Baptists but a small group in a small area.

(grin) I don’t remember anything about having to be a certain SIZE before it counts…

Besides which, “the Maze of Mormonism” IS an officially sanctioned Baptist publication, and they DID hold a convention in Salt Lake City–during which I had a couple of opportunities to mess with their heads.

I shouldn’t have, I know…

But I couldn’t resist. Here were all those earnest Baptists coming in to gawk and ‘save’ the heathen…you just HAVE to jump up and yell ‘BOO!’ (figuratively speaking, of course; I can honestly say that I never shouted, nor indeed, said a word…;-))

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Every Christian must be, unconditionally and completely, a monotheist. Of course, Muslims are monotheistics, too, which does not make them Christians per se, although the Qur’an, being self-contradictory in what itw words imply of Jesus and of the Holy Ghost and in what it explicitly condemns (referring to the use of the term Trinity) leaves a lot more room for manoeuvring in a Christian-friendly sense than the official theologies of most Islamic groups do. Indeed, according to Mark Siljander’s book* A Deadly Misunderstanding* (Harper Collins, 2008), on p. 204 & 216, there are “Messianic Muslims” who accept Christ’s Triune Divinity yet remain Muslims; doing so hardly seems spiritually healthy, that’s for sure!

The dilemna is this: if for a believer Jesus is God, and God the Father and the Holy Ghost are God also, then either s/he must believe in the Holy Trinity or be a rank polytheist. The L.D.S. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses (J.W.s) believe that these are all different gods, hence their members are polytheists and in no way Christians at all, however much they may share of heritage and acceptance of at least some Christian Scripture. The R.L.D.S. Mormons (of the Community of Christ denomination, who prefer that name for their group to the older name, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), reject much of Joseph Smith Junior’s teachings, including the two horrid “polys” of polytheism and of polygamy, They explicitly accept the blessed doctrine of the Holy Trinity, so they remain within the realm of Christians, unlike the more numerous and bizarre cultists of L.D.S. Mormonism.

So, don’t worry if you are honest and refuse to call a L.D.S. Mormon or a J.W. a pagan. Do so firmly, but in a kindly way; they need to realise the gravity of their error. The L.D.S. Mormons and the J.W.s are far more outside the realm of being Christians than most Muslims are!

Jerry Parker (from a Utah L.D.S. Mormon family, almost all of whom converted, over time, myself included, to Christianity)

 

[dianaiad]

So, don't worry if you are honest and refuse to call a L.D.S. Mormon or a J.W. a pagan. Do so firmly, but in a kindly way; they need to realise the gravity of their error. The L.D.S. Mormons and the J.W.s are far more outside the realm of being Christians than most Muslims are!
Jerry Parker (from a Utah L.D.S. Mormon family, almost all of whom converted, over time, myself included, to Christianity)

I have never figured this out.

Mormons (and JW’s and everybody else, for that matter) are more aware of what their personal beliefs are than anybody else can be. Even if their personal beliefs don’t quite march lockstep with the beliefs of their religious leaders, when you are attempting to teach someone, it is THEIR beliefs that matter, not those of anybody else.

So telling them what they ‘really’ believe is an asinine way to proselyte. Telling them how wrong they are (if you get even one aspect of what they believe incorrectly–and you always, always will) is counter-productive. Telling them that they are pagan when they believe that they are not is shooting yourself in the proverbial foot. Your listener will be so caught up in the injustice of your charge that he will tune out anything else you might have to say…that is, if you have anything to say other than how awful you think HIS beliefs are. Most people don’t.

What’s wrong with simply presenting what you believe to be truth, without reference to what you think your listeners do, and let them do their own comparing? That way they can remain open to new ideas and thoughts without having to be defensive of their own deeply held beliefs.

I have come to realize, though, that the anti’s of the world (no matter who the target is) aren’t out to convert the folks who are believers. For instance, an anti-Catholic isn’t at all concerned about converting Catholics. The motive is more to make certain that God (and their peers) know THEY know that Catholics are going to hell/ are pagans/worship idols/are cannibals/whatever nasty thing they can come up with. If they were truly interested in the Catholics, they wouldn’t do that.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Thanks, Bart Burk,

You wrote: Mormons believe Jesus is God. They just don’t accept the idea that he is eternally begotten of the Father and the one eternal God. The strange part of this is the Book of Mormon specifically says the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one eternal God. Mormons have to go through all kinds of gyrations to reconcile the later teachings of Joseph Smith regarding the Godhead with the teachings of the Book of Mormon. It is interesting the Community of Christ, which also uses the Book of Mormon, says it is Trinitarian.

You expressed cogently this matter of Trinitarianism and its implications for the various cults and denominations that derive, to various extents, from Joseph Smith Jr.‘s founding leadership. Not only is the Book of Mormon Trinitarian, so, essentially is Joseph Smith’s Lectures on Faith, which have drifted in and out of the Mormons’ Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), one of their “standard works”.

When Joseph Smith Jr. “went off the deep end with his teachings once he fully implemented polygamy”, as you put it well, that false prophet ceased to present his new putative “revelations” to the gathered members of the original Saints for confirmation, no doubt due to the need that Smith felt to preserve secrecy; the Community of Christ (or CoC, i.e. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or RLDS Mormons) never accepted any of Smith’s “revelations” in the D&C or other writings as authoritative which had not undergone the process of collective confirmation, so Smith’s worst and later “revelations” never made it into their own Scriptures, accounting for the differences between the two groups’ diverging editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. This explains why the blasphemous “King Follett Discourse”, containing the full breadth of Smith’s polytheistic and proto-“process theology” conception of deity never affected the RLDS.

This matter is not quite so simple as that (especially regarding the place of Joseph Smith Jr.'s so-called “Inspired Version” or “Joseph Smith Translation” of the Bible in the two major Mormon groups), but these comments essentially account for how the divergences between the pagan LDS cult and the Christian RLDS (CoC) denomination and their bodies of putative scriptural literature arose.

Jerry Parker

 

[Stephen168]

In my mind, we are all Christians. It is like the blue jean theory. Some folks wear wranglers, some wear Vidal Sasoon, or Bugle Boy, Jnco, Old Navy, Dickies,…whatever.We are all wearing blue jeans.

The Roman Catholics just happen to be Levi’s,…the original.

I agree. Just don’t show up in a kilt and call them blue jeans