Judaism evolved from polytheism? Mormonism right?

[dianaiad]

The many off-shoots of the LDS claim to be Mormons but the LDS appear to deny this. Is it not up to these bodies to decide whether they are Mormons or not in the light of what has been said here?

I don’t. They are Mormons.

Although I understand that it is sometimes embarrassing to us that those offshoots are around, given that many of them still practice polygamy, we can’t have this both ways. Or at least, I can’t.

If I claim to be Christian because Christ is at the center of my faith, then if “Mormon” means that one believes in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as a prophet, then all those who believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as a prophet are indeed Mormon. They may not be LDS, but they are Mormon.

 

[TMC]

Wow, this is quite an argument over word choice. Is it really that important what words are used to describe people? Does calling a Mormon a “Christian” change who he is or what he believes? Does it change who a Catholic is or what a Catholic believes?

As I understand it, the Catholic Church believes the differences between its teachings and LDS teachings are significant enough that the Catholic Church does not include Mormons among the churches that Catholics consider Christian. That is important to some Catholics because whether or not a faith is called “Christian” by the Church apparently means something about how Catholics relate to that faith group ecumenically. I don’t think that means that Mormons should not be allowed to call themselves Christian if that is what they feel they are.

Seems like a lot of effort expended arguing about the use of a word.

 

[dianaiad]

From the readings I have conducted conerning those “off-shoots”…most of them do not use the name “Mormon”…but “Latter Day Saint”. While the LDS church with headquarters in Salt Lake City may not recongnize the “other Latter Day Saints” as having the authority to baptize…they still are “Latter Day Saints” and Christians according to what I have read…be they from the Utah church…Strangite church, RLDS church, Community of Christ or Church of Christ, Temple Lot…each of them share LDS history and then a strain of their own “Latter Day Saint” history.

Actually, only those who have the 'Latter-day" (or “Latter-Day” or “Latterday”) Saint wording in their names can legally use the term. It’s a trademark issue.

Most of them want to distance themselves from the main group as much as we want them to.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

You want the etymology of the word CHRISTIAN?

Sure…

No actually, I want to know how the word was used anciently, and how the ancient Christians defined who was and wasn’t a “Christian”. You said that we have “re-defined” the word, so I would like to see evidence that the ancient Christians understood it differently than we did. The dictionary does not provide such evidence.

(please excuse the length of this copy/paste…the OED is a subscription service, so I can’t just give you the link!) I had to cut the etymology of all the words because the entire thing ran the word count to over 13000 words. I think the moderators here would rightly object to this.

Suffice it to say that the word goes back a very long way indeed…and in none of those usages, by every single group who has ever used it, is there any specific requirement that a Christian believe a specific set of doctrines, such as the Trinity.

A. adj.

1. a. ***Of persons and communities: Believing, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ. ***
b. most Christian: a title of the kings of France.

c. In the names of various religious sects or associations, as Christian Israelites, Christian Royalists (see quot.), Christian Socialists (whence Christian Socialism, the principles of Christian Socialists; Christian-socialize v. (nonce-wd.), to imbue with Christian Socialism). 
d. Politics. Christian Democrat (see quot. 1957); so Christian Democratic adj.

.
2. a. Of things: Pertaining to Christ or his religion: of or belonging to Christianity.
b. Court Christian: an ecclesiastical court. Obs. exc. Hist.
.
c. Christian ale: see quot. and ALE 3. Obs.
3. Of persons and their qualities or actions: Showing character and conduct consistent with discipleship to Christ; marked by genuine piety; following the precepts and example of Christ; Christ-like.
4. Of or belonging to a Christian or Christians.
5. a. Human as distinguished from brutal; now only colloq. or humorous. b. mod. colloq. or slang. Of things: Becoming a Christian; ‘civilized’, ‘decent’, ‘respectable’. Cf. B. 3.
6. Christian name: the name given at christening; the personal name, as distinguished from the family name or surname. (Also allusively = ‘proper name’.) Hence to Christian-name v. trans. (nonce-wd.), to call by one’s Christian name; Christian-named ppl. a., having a Christian name.
7. Christian era: the era reckoned from the accepted date of the birth of Christ, and adopted in all Christian countries.
B. n.

*** 1. a. One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.***
b. even Christian: fellow-Christian; also collectively, fellow-Christians. Obs. See EVEN-.

2. One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety. 
3. a. colloq. and dial. A human being, as distinguished from a brute. [A common sense in the Romanic langs.]    b. colloq. or slang. A ‘decent’, ‘respectable’, or ‘presentable’ person. 
4. Used as a denominational or sectarian name.

1. a. A variety of pear; ? = BON-CHRÉTIEN; also a variety of plum. Obs.
   b. Comb. (a) Parasynthetic, as Christian-minded a., and derivatives as Christian-mindedness n. (b) Christian-wise adv., in a Christian way.

I emphasized the definitions that seem to sum things up here; please note that the first one doesn’t have ‘someone who believes the truth,’ or 'a Trinitarian" or “a Catholic or someone that the Catholics approve of.” It’s about what the BELIEVER thinks. Someone who “believes, professes or belongs” to the religion of Christ. Which is a religion that has Christ at the center of it.

The second hilighted definition has to do with the totallity of Christians.

Christianity is:

1. The whole body of Christians, the Christian part of the world, CHRISTENDOM. Obs.

“Christian” is not a label of worthiness. It is not an imprimatur of salvation. It’s not a declaration of approval or a stamp of divine grace.

It is a classification of a belief system, and the only reason any Christian has for attempting to boot another Christian out of the ‘club’ is to put him at the distance required to not feel guilty when you do unkind and violent things to him. That’s it.

“the religion of Christ”, “an adherent of Christianity”, etc. What do these phrases mean? What is “the religion of Christ”, what is “Christianity”? That’s the issue. If a Wiccan says that they have Jesus as their God, and Mary as their Goddess (yes, some do this), are they classified as “Christians”? You said it yourself, it is “a classification of a belief system”. What we are saying is that part of that classification is a common understanding of who Jesus Christ is. This is what Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. have in common, while Jehovah’s Witnesses, LDS, Christadelphians, Oneness Pentecostals, etc. do not (what it typically comes down to is who He was in His pre-mortal existence, in His relationship to the Father). I know you don’t agree, but that is how we see it in our worldview.

 

[dianaiad]

Wow, this is quite an argument over word choice. Is it really that important what words are used to describe people? Does calling a Mormon a “Christian” change who he is or what he believes? Does it change who a Catholic is or what a Catholic believes?

No. The problem for me is what the motive is, and the results are, of excluding a group from the larger Christian brotherhood. It is never, EVER, a good one, and historically all religious wars between Christian groups have been preceded by that ‘making them other…’ step…denying them their Christianity.

Since “Christian” to many people DOES mean ‘saved,’ or ‘valid baptisms’ or "like us and worthy,’ or truth believers,’ then being told that one is not Christian is a very big deal…

It is telling the other person that he is worthless; not a brother.

If you don’t think that the above is true, try going to any one of the myriad of fundamentalist Christian sites who insist that CATHOLICS are not Christian. It won’t take you long AT all to see what I’m talking about!

As I understand it, the Catholic Church believes the differences between its teachings and LDS teachings are significant enough that the Catholic Church does not include Mormons among the churches that Catholics consider Christian. That is important to some Catholics because whether or not a faith is called “Christian” by the Church apparently means something about how Catholics relate to that faith group ecumenically. I don’t think that means that Mormons should not be allowed to call themselves Christian if that is what they feel they are.

Seems like a lot of effort expended arguing about the use of a word.

Trust me on this one; that word is very important to those who don’t think Mormons are Christian…and here on this very thread I have been dealing with at least one poster who simply can’t get past the fact that I am not willing to agree with him that I’m not a Christian. My not doing so really stops the conversation quite often, because for many folks, the “Mormons aren’t Christians” statement is considered proof that we are wrong and scary people.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Wow, this is quite an argument over word choice. Is it really that important what words are used to describe people? Does calling a Mormon a “Christian” change who he is or what he believes? Does it change who a Catholic is or what a Catholic believes?

As I understand it, the Catholic Church believes the differences between its teachings and LDS teachings are significant enough that the Catholic Church does not include Mormons among the churches that Catholics consider Christian. That is important to some Catholics because whether or not a faith is called “Christian” by the Church apparently means something about how Catholics relate to that faith group ecumenically. I don’t think that means that Mormons should not be allowed to call themselves Christian if that is what they feel they are.

Seems like a lot of effort expended arguing about the use of a word.

I agree with what you said. Mormons can call themselves whatever they want. However, the Catholic Church, in its worldview, views the matter in a specific way, especially relative to LDS baptisms, which is important in ecumenism (which is difficult for the very reasons why the Church accepts Protestant baptisms and not LDS baptisms), as well as the reception of Mormon converts into Catholicism.

 

[Publisher]

Actually, only those who have the 'Latter-day" (or “Latter-Day” or “Latterday”) Saint wording in their names can legally use the term. It’s a trademark issue.

Most of them want to distance themselves from the main group as much as we want them to.

The RLDS (Restoration branches) still use “Latter Day Saint”, as do the Strangites and Community of Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ in Pennslylvania use the term “Latter Day Saint” in some of their literature…as do the Remant Chruch.

My point was that even though the Utah church uses the name Latter-day Saint…as well as other Restoration groups…they do not deny it’s use by those groups which shareded a 14 year history together…and who may or may not id themselves as “Latter Day Saint” or “Latter-day Saint”…they all are from the “Latter Day Saint” movement.

I consider myself a “Christian” as I believe in God’s disclosure in Jesus of Nazareth…I have never been baptized in water…but baptized with the One Baptism of the Holy Spirit, who is the One that joins us to the Body of Christ…even though most Catholics would deny I am a “Christian” because I have no had a ritual involving water performed for me by priest, minister or what have you.

Now I do admit that a minister friend of mine pushed me into the swimming pool and said the “ritual words” as I fell in and said “NOW you’re a baptized Quaker.” I still don’t consider myself “baptized in water”…even though he may make a case for it.

 

[TMC]

No. The problem for me is what the motive is, and the results are, of excluding a group from the larger Christian brotherhood. It is never, EVER, a good one, and historically all religious wars between Christian groups have been preceded by that ‘making them other…’ step…denying them their Christianity.

Since “Christian” to many people DOES mean ‘saved,’ or ‘valid baptisms’ or "like us and worthy,’ or truth believers,’ then being told that one is not Christian is a very big deal…

It is telling the other person that he is worthless; not a brother.

If you don’t think that the above is true, try going to any one of the myriad of fundamentalist Christian sites who insist that CATHOLICS are not Christian. It won’t take you long AT all to see what I’m talking about!

Trust me on this one; that word is very important to those who don’t think Mormons are Christian…and here on this very thread I have been dealing with at least one poster who simply can’t get past the fact that I am not willing to agree with him that I’m not a Christian. My not doing so really stops the conversation quite often, because for many folks, the “Mormons aren’t Christians” statement is considered proof that we are wrong and scary people.

I think you mistake my point, perhaps because I was too flippant in presenting it. I grew up with neighbors that used to tell me all the time that Catholics are not Christians. I was confident enough to laugh that off, but I know the kind of damage that can be inflicted by trying to use religion as an instrument of divisiveness, when it should be a tool of inclusiveness.

This exact topic has come up for me in real life, as most people I know also know that I am Catholic and take religion seriously. I have been asked a few times if Mormons are Christians. I respond by saying that Mormonism is not one of the faiths that the Catholic Church considers to be close enough to itself to accept any of their sacraments, but that Mormons believe in Christ and consider themselves Christian. That seems to me to be true and fair to both sides, hopefully without being hurtful or divisive.

For my own part, I find Mormonism to be deeply flawed theologically, but to profess a high standard of morality. On balance, I find that situation better than the opposite.

 

[Hesychios]

The Hebrews were not always “mono-theistic”…monotheism did not develop and establish itself within Judaism until after the Exile.

YHVH was “one among many” in the first portions of the Hebrew Bible. It was under the ministry of the later prophets that began stressing that “other gods” truly did not exist…in the earlier history of the Hebrew people, YHVH was the “only god with whom they were to deal with”.

We see in Genesis that among Jacob’s household, Rachael I believe, collected the “household gods” and hid them under her skirts and was kept from being searched because she feigned being on her period, which made her unapproachable.

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me” doesn’t necessarily mean you shall not believe no other gods exist.

YHVH was “one of many”…but the only one they were to worship…YHVH wa a very tribal god…not the ONE GOD who alone exists as we read later in the prophets.

As usual, a very good post.

 

[dianaiad]

The RLDS (Restoration branches) still use “Latter Day Saint”, as do the Strangites and Community of Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ in Pennslylvania use the term “Latter Day Saint” in some of their literature…as do the Remant Chruch.

The RLDS is now the “Community of Christ,” and from what my RLDS friend tells me, they don’t call themselves that any more. Doesn’t bother me either way.

My point was that even though the Utah church uses the name Latter-day Saint…as well as other Restoration groups…they do not deny it’s use by those groups which shareded a 14 year history together…and who may or may not id themselves as “Latter Day Saint” or “Latter-day Saint”…they all are from the “Latter Day Saint” movement.

I consider myself a “Christian” as I believe in God’s disclosure in Jesus of Nazareth…I have never been baptized in water…but baptized with the One Baptism of the Holy Spirit, who is the One that joins us to the Body of Christ…even though most Catholics would deny I am a “Christian” because I have no had a ritual involving water performed for me by priest, minister or what have you.

Now I do admit that a minister friend of mine pushed me into the swimming pool and said the “ritual words” as I fell in and said “NOW you’re a baptized Quaker.” I still don’t consider myself “baptized in water”…even though he may make a case for it.

Hmm…

 

[dianaiad]

I think you mistake my point, perhaps because I was too flippant in presenting it. I grew up with neighbors that used to tell me all the time that Catholics are not Christians. I was confident enough to laugh that off, but I know the kind of damage that can be inflicted by trying to use religion as an instrument of divisiveness, when it should be a tool of inclusiveness.

This exact topic has come up for me in real life, as most people I know also know that I am Catholic and take religion seriously. I have been asked a few times if Mormons are Christians. I respond by saying that Mormonism is not one of the faiths that the Catholic Church considers to be close enough to itself to accept any of their sacraments, but that Mormons believe in Christ and consider themselves Christian. That seems to me to be true and fair to both sides, hopefully without being hurtful or divisive.

That covers it pretty well, actually.

(grin) Most Christians PROFESS a high standard of morality, it is the accomplishment that seems to be problematic!

 

[Publisher]

Even though the name of the once Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints no longer use the full name but “Community of Christ” instead…the RLDS Church is still their “official held in trust” name as it was not changed. That’s one of the “rubs” which the Restoration branches use…the CoC has kept the name and won’t let anyone else use it as it’s still the “official” designation as all the land and buildings are held in trust…as well as incorporated in legal documents.

There was a law suit not too long ago that ruled in favor of the CoC as “sole proprietor” fo the RLDS name…a Restoration branch tried to use the name and was told to “cease and desist”.

I know it really doesn’t matter to you…you’re gracious in allowing others to designate how they call themselves…I was stating probably a useless fact that my RLDS friends have “beat into my head” when I have asked them “Why don’t you let the Restoration branches use the name?”

 

[Hesychios]

Yahweh (God the Son) is indeed the Son of El (God the Father).

Whoa! Paul!

You are really giving me the shivers. I don’t think that this is standard Catholic theology.

Doesn’t YHVH mean “I am Who Am” ? I had thought it referred to the Father, not the Son.

 

[Publisher]

Whoa! Paul!

You are really giving me the shivers. I don’t think that this is standard Catholic theology.

Doesn’t YHVH mean “I am Who Am” ? I had thought it referred to the Father, not the Son.

Perhaps he is referencing the “I AM” sayings attributed to Jesus in “John’s” Gospel.

 

[dianaiad]

Even though the name of the once Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints no longer use the full name but “Community of Christ” instead…the RLDS Church is still their “official held in trust” name as it was not changed. That’s one of the “rubs” which the Restoration branches use…the CoC has kept the name and won’t let anyone else use it as it’s still the “official” designation as all the land and buildings are held in trust…as well as incorporated in legal documents.

There was a law suit not too long ago that ruled in favor of the CoC as “sole proprietor” fo the RLDS name…a Restoration branch tried to use the name and was told to “cease and desist”.

I know it really doesn’t matter to you…you’re gracious in allowing others to designate how they call themselves…I was stating probably a useless fact that my RLDS friends have “beat into my head” when I have asked them “Why don’t you let the Restoration branches use the name?”

You certainly know more about it than I do!

It really doesn’t matter to me, as long as those who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don’t claim to be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. as that is a very specific group.

 

[SteveVH]

It seems to me that when words cannot be defined that it is impossible to communicate. To define “Christian” as basically anything you wish it to be is intellectually dishonest.

I have found this to be the biggest stumbling block in conversing with Mormons especially. Terms such as Sacrament, Trinity, God, Resurrection, heaven, etc. have been redefined by the LDS, not the Catholic Church. No one with even the most elementary knowledge of history can deny that the Catholic Church is the original. Therefore, it is the Catholic Church who gets to define the meaning of what it means to be Christian. There was no other definition of “Christian” until the Reformation, and even then, they stuck with the Catholic meaning of most of these terms (although most non-liturgical Christians wouldn’t know a sacrament from a Halibut).

If I chose to belong to some club, say the “Elk’s Club”, I must agree with the rules that govern it and the principals upon which it is based. If I start another club and call it the “Elk’s Club” but give it an entirely different set of rules and base it upon principals foreign to the original, I’ll probably be sued, and rightfully so. It’s called fraud. In my opinion a more appropriate name for the LDS Church would be the “Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-Day Saints”. In the end, it is Joseph Smith who they must follow at all cost, not Christ.

 

[dianaiad]

It seems to me that when words cannot be defined that it is impossible to communicate. To define “Christian” as basically anything you wish it to be is intellectually dishonest.

I agree.

I have found this to be the biggest stumbling block in conversing with Mormons especially. Terms such as Sacrament, Trinity, God, Resurrection, heaven, etc. have been redefined by the LDS, not the Catholic Church. No one with even the most elementary knowledge of history can deny that the Catholic Church is the original.

Yes we can…

Therefore, it is the Catholic Church who gets to define the meaning of what it means to be Christian. There was no other definition of “Christian” until the Reformation, and even then, they stuck with the Catholic meaning of most of these terms (although most non-liturgical Christians wouldn’t know a sacrament from a Halibut).

Actually, I believe that it was the very original, even ‘biblical’ Christians who were 'first called" that. This was during the time of the apostles…and before the Apostasy.

By claiming that “Catholics are the original” and that “the Catholic Church gets to define the meaning of what it means to be Christian,” really are begging the question. After all, sir, if Mormons agreed with that premise, we none of us would BE Mormons. We’d be Catholics. The entire point, sir, is that we do not believe that you ARE the ‘original church.’ It’s rather the point. Since we don’t believe that you are the original church, beginning any conversation with us by insisting that we accept that you are is not going to produce any sort of meaningful dialogue.

Unless you would like to begin a conversation with me by admitting that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth with the death of the last of the original apostles?

???

My point is that Christiandom, and Christianity, comprises the whole of all of those folks who claim to be Christian and who put Jesus Christ at the center of their belief systems. It doesn’t make them correct. It doesn’t make them saved. It doesn’t make them Christ’s…but it makes them Chrsitian.

If I chose to belong to some club, say the “Elk’s Club”, I must agree with the rules that govern it and the principals upon which it is based. If I start another club and call it the “Elk’s Club” but give it an entirely different set of rules and base it upon principals foreign to the original, I’ll probably be sued, and rightfully so. It’s called fraud. In my opinion a more appropriate name for the LDS Church would be the “Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-Day Saints”. In the end, it is Joseph Smith who they must follow at all cost, not Christ.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, as erronious as it is. We think a lot of Joseph Smith; we believe that he was a prophet of God. However, it is Jesus Christ in the name of the church, and it is His Name by which we believe men will be saved.

We think of Joseph Smith the way you think of Peter.

Except of course that we don’t pray to Joseph Smith as you do to Peter.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Actually, I believe that it was the very original, even ‘biblical’ Christians who were 'first called" that. This was during the time of the apostles…and before the Apostasy.

Ok lets start there. God brought the church into the world throught Chirst and the Apostles. In a very open and public way. Then Some time shortly after the death of ST John (the last Apostle) the church went into apostacy and in essence disappeared from the earth. Then some 1700 or so years later in a very private way, closed with all but no witnesses God returned the church to the earth. This restored “church” now gets to define then meaning of the words that have been used by everyone else for the last 1700 years?

 

[Hesychios]

Perhaps he is referencing the “I AM” sayings attributed to Jesus in “John’s” Gospel.

Perhaps.

But for a Catholic this is going too far out on a limb. I am almost positive Catholic understanding (as well as the Orthodox understanding) will take Elohim and YHVH as equivalent terms for the same One God, or perhaps as God the Father in a Trinitarian discussion.

If I am mistaken, I apologize to everyone, but that’s my take on it.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

My point is that Christiandom, and Christianity, comprises the whole of all of those folks who claim to be Christian and who put Jesus Christ at the center of their belief systems. It doesn’t make them correct. It doesn’t make them saved. It doesn’t make them Christ’s…but it makes them Chrsitian.

Which brings us back to SteveVH’s point-“To define “Christian” as basically anything you wish it to be is intellectually dishonest.” Your definition makes it so that who Jesus Christ is doesn’t matter, as long as you claim to be a Christian and put “Jesus Christ” at the center of your beliefs, whether someone believes that He was just a man, an archangel, an alien, etc. Who He is doesn’t seem to matter in saying what a Christian is, as long as the person “claims to be Christian”. This is very relativistic.

We think of Joseph Smith the way you think of Peter.

Except of course that we don’t pray to Joseph Smith as you do to Peter.

Which of course is not relevant. We believe that we can ask our brethren in Christ on earth to pray for us and, we can ask our brethren in Christ in Heaven to pray for us.