LDS & Catholic Comparison

[dianaiad]

Uh huh. And just how many Catholics are Popes?

I thought we were being honest. Not cleverly denying what you know is the truth.

I see. OK, just how many Catholics were converted because we set up chairs for the Pope’s visit?

I mean, really…here was an occasion where the Pope is visiting, every Catholic who came to see him was interested in seeing HIM, and all WE did was set up chairs. We didn’t pass out pamphlets or stand around preaching to people.

Get a grip, Rebecca. You are not on the high ground here, either.

 

[Xavierlives]

This has probably been brought up numerous times but I am curious how Catholics view LDS and how LDS views Catholicism.

Get a grip, Rebecca. You are not on the high ground here, either.

And that answers the question. (Just kidding).

I’m really on a roll with the humor today.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad:

Actually, the definition of “Christianity” is not always the same.

Yes it is. It is the same whenever it is defined by someone who is NOT attempting to appropriate it to their sole use.

Cults sprang up very quickly, after the resurrection of Christ. Gnostics called themselves Christians, Adoptionists called themselves Christians, and other groups, as well.

Mormons have the religious freedom to call themselves Christians.

I have the religious freedom to call myself Christian. However, my definition of Christianity may be quite different from others, who call themselves Christians.

It may very well be. My definition of ‘chair’ may be different from everyone else’s, as well…excluding, perhaps, all means of seating that don’t have arms or spindled backs…but that doesn’t mean that my definition is correct, or accepted by those who own armless kitchen chairs with slat backs.

I have the religious freedom to believe that certain groups, who call themselves Christians, are not Christian in the way ***I ***know, experience, and understand Christianity.

Nor am I arguing that you don’t have that freedom. I also have the freedom to notice that you are wrong, and say so.

Just as you have the religious freedom to believe that certain groups, who call themselves Christians, are not Christian in the way you know, experience, and understand Christianity.

So, if I say I do not believe a certain religion is Christian; I am not insulting that group. I am merely saying they are not Christian, according to my beliefs and understanding of Christianity.

Yes, you are insulting that group…because if they claim to BE Christian, then you are telling them that they are wrong and unworthy to belong to your group; that they are lesser; pagan…and historically the declaration that someone is not Christian is also a declaration that this someone isn’t quite human; that is, he doesn’t have the same rights as a Christian does. This declaration is one of the first steps taken before physical discrimination and persecution happens. Just look at your history; it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME…if one Christian religion decides to go after another, the first thing that is done is that the target group is declared 'not Christian."

It is also true, historically, that there has never been a time when a group has been declared to be ‘not Christian’ that this persecution and discrimination did not follow. The Catholics did it to the schismatics and Protestants. The Protestants do it to the Catholics, and both of you do it to the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others. It’s universal…and I am really tired of tip toeing around it because your history makes you uncomfortable.

You complain about giving in joint charity projects with Catholics. Then stop giving. If you resent the giving, is it really a charitable act?

I wasn’t complaining. I was stating a fact. It’s not my fault that it might be an uncomfortable fact.

**My main point is that none of us have the right to demand that any religious group change their beliefs, and definition of Christianity, in order to make another group feel more comfortable or more accepted. **

Participating in joint charity projects with Catholics, or any other Christians, should not be done with the expectation that they will acquiesce to your beliefs.

That is a VERY good point. In that spirit, then, why do Catholics and others insist that we agree with you that we are not Christians when we believe that we are?

I strongly disagree with Mormon doctrines. That does not make me an “anti” or a “hater.” I disagree with the doctrines of many religions, as I would imagine you do. That does not mean that I hate the people who believe differently from me.

I did go through a painful ordeal with the Mormon Church; but I have forgiven those who hurt and deceived me.

Christ has called us to love God and to love one another. We can do this without compromising our beliefs.

In Christ,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am even more suspicious of someone who appears from nowhere with just a couple posts to their credit, and starts a provocative thread about the Mormons. It usually means that they are one of the regular anti-Mormons here who does not have the courage (or the credibility) to start the thread under their recognizable name, and so prefer to post under another assumed username instead.

So tell me, how long must a new person to the Catholic Forums sit idly by before they are allowed to contribute a provocative thread?

If you would like some “background” I’ll be happy to supply it. I have been a Christian all of my life. I was taught the Mormons were an occult. Not being a lemming, I decided to learn more about the LDS faith because, well, they include “Jesus Christ” in their title. I’ve wondered if this is a Christian denomination that has just taken a bad rap. So, I started studying. I’ve watch some LDS-produced movies as well as Mormon dramas/comedies (I’m sure RM is funnier to you than me). I’ve talked with Mormons (many, many missionaries). I’ve read the book of Mormon and I even did what was requested which was something to the effect of “pray to God to ask if the book of Mormon is true.” After all of that, I was reminded of some of the core issues that make me a “protestant to the Catholic Church” (which I find to be an inaccurate phrase, but that will be for another thread) also makes me a “protestant to the Mormon Church.” It was said by someone else about 15 messages ago, but it really summed up my over thought that it Mormons and Catholics have the basic core thought. That thought is that Christ established a Church on Earth.

The Mormon belief is this First Church failed when the Apostles did not extend the Priesthood (this failure occurred because their was a failure to establish a quorum of all things). The church fell into apostasy and was not returned to earth until the 1800s when God, the Father, Jesus, John the Baptist, Moses, Moroni, and other assorted prophets visited Joseph Smith. So, to use the colloquial, the First Church, the Catholic Church is “under new management” as the Mormon church. Now, I’ll also be happy to to expand on where I think the Mormon faith fails to even hit the mark as a Christian Faith, but your comment was more of an indictment of me not being who I said that I was than actually wanting to engage someone in meaningful conversations about faith, wasn’t it?

So with that said, although I think this is interesting that you think I am not who I say I am, I guess I can only say, I am.

Xavierlives:

Zerinus uses the tactic of “discrediting” those who post things he does’t like. I’ve seen him do this to a number of people. So, his “accusations” are really more about him, than about you.

You are free to participate on any Thread, at any time. Hang in there.

Anna

 

[RebeccaJ]

I see. OK, just how many Catholics were converted because we set up chairs for the Pope’s visit?

I mean, really…here was an occasion where the Pope is visiting, every Catholic who came to see him was interested in seeing HIM, and all WE did was set up chairs. We didn’t pass out pamphlets or stand around preaching to people.

Get a grip, Rebecca. You are not on the high ground here, either.

Get a grip yourself, you seem to be all spun up.

Please deny that the service mormons provide is not out of a sense of proselyting. You don’t know how many contacts were made. So stop pretending you do and making statements as though it is out of the realm of reality. You know very well it is.

Who cares about high ground? This is a discussion not a fight.

 

[Stephen168]

Is there a Mormon equivalent to the Missionaries of Charity?
RebeccaJ;5896791:

No.

I guess you are right.

 

[dianaiad]

Get a grip yourself, you seem to be all spun up.

Please deny that the service mormons provide is not out of a sense of proselyting. You don’t know how many contacts were made. So stop pretending you do and making statements as though it is out of the realm of reality. You know very well it is.

Who cares about high ground? This is a discussion not a fight.

I don’t know anything of the kind, Rebecca. For one thing, many of the times we work with Catholic Charities it is because the nation to where the aid is going will not allow Mormons in, but they WILL allow Catholics. The aid we give must be folded into Catholic charities, and is not ever identified as coming from us.

Yet we do it anyway, even though the folks we help never know that the help is coming from us. Now would you care to tell me how THAT is primarily for the purpose of prosylitizing?

But even if it were so, it beats the way a couple of your Popes supported the idea of slavery in order to convert the slaves after they were placed into captivity. lessee…giving to people in order to prosyletize vs. enslaving them in order to convert them. Gee, how horrific of us to choose the first, assuming that this IS the primary reason we give to others, which it isn’t.

Like I said, Rebecca, Catholics really cannot criticise Mormons in this area.

You may not agree with our doctrines…and that is a very reasonable and correct way of opposing us. I don’t agree with Catholic doctrines all the way, either.

But you CANNOT, with any reason or cause, criticise us for giving to others, for any percieved racist policy or past, or our actions pertaining to others—because in those cases it really IS a case of when one finger points in accusation, the rest point right back at you; every argument and criticism that a Catholic uses to criticise Mormonism in terms of racism or prosylitization can be used against you…multiplied.

Now it is true that ‘tu quoque’ is a fallacy; just because a racist accusing another racist of racism may still be correct; a racist is a racist no matter who says so. However, if a member of one historically racist group claims that the racist past of another group proves that group ‘untrue,’ they are proving that they themselves are equally ‘untrue.’

If one group claims that their leaders are infallible only when they meet specific critieria (and that there is any critieria under which their leaders CAN be infallible) then they MUST allow another group the same claim; their leaders may also be fallible unless certain criteria are met.

…in other words, if you can excuse Catholic racist past by saying that the Popes were fallible when making those opinions and proclamations (even though THOSE opinions and proclamations carried the force of law and actual world wide enslavement and the slave trade) then we also may say that our leaders are not speaking as prophets when they do not meet the criteria we claim must be met…that is, having their words canonized into scripture.

The ironic thing about all this is that you are holding Mormonism, which you claim to be false, to a far higher standard than you hold Catholicism, which you claim to be true, guided by God and by leaders who may be infallible when they meet certain criteria; you are holding us to a higher standard than you believe that God holds you to.

You might want to think about that one for awhile.

 

[Xavierlives]

Yes, you are insulting that group…because if they claim to BE Christian, then you are telling them that they are wrong and unworthy to belong to your group; that they are lesser; pagan…and historically the declaration that someone is not Christian is also a declaration that this someone isn’t quite human; that is, he doesn’t have the same rights as a Christian does. This declaration is one of the first steps taken before physical discrimination and persecution happens. Just look at your history; it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME…if one Christian religion decides to go after another, the first thing that is done is that the target group is declared 'not Christian."

It is also true, historically, that there has never been a time when a group has been declared to be ‘not Christian’ that this persecution and discrimination did not follow. The Catholics did it to the schismatics and Protestants. The Protestants do it to the Catholics, and both of you do it to the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others. It’s universal…and I am really tired of tip toeing around it because your history makes you uncomfortable.

That is a VERY good point. In that spirit, then, why do Catholics and others insist that we agree with you that we are not Christians when we believe that we are?

Why is the recognition of a Christian Church important to a Mormon Church? I don’t think it should be for your purposes. You have the name Jesus Christ in your name, thats more than the Baptist have. You believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. So all is good, for you. The problem is, most “protestant” Christians believe in at least 66 books, and the Catholic Church believes in (help me out here… 7 more?). These were canonized nearly 2,000 years ago. So, you added “we believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.” That is your own demarcation. Your Articles of Faith made the statement. Be proud you’re a Mormon. I am proud that my faith includes the Jews but I am not asking for Jewish recognition because the Old Testiment is in the Bible. Why? Because Christians are not Jews.

 

[why_me]

Why is the recognition of a Christian Church important to a Mormon Church?

I don’t know if recognition is that important. However, it is when christians claim that mormons are not christian many mormons take offense. The mormon church is a christian church. They believe in Christ as their personal savior and attempt to follow his teachings. That would make them christian.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t know anything of the kind, Rebecca. For one thing, many of the times we work with Catholic Charities it is because the nation to where the aid is going will not allow Mormons in, but they WILL allow Catholics. The aid we give must be folded into Catholic charities, and is not ever identified as coming from us.

Yet we do it anyway, even though the folks we help never know that the help is coming from us. Now would you care to tell me how THAT is primarily for the purpose of prosylitizing?

But even if it were so, it beats the way a couple of your Popes supported the idea of slavery in order to convert the slaves after they were placed into captivity. lessee…giving to people in order to prosyletize vs. enslaving them in order to convert them. Gee, how horrific of us to choose the first, assuming that this IS the primary reason we give to others, which it isn’t.

Like I said, Rebecca, Catholics really cannot criticise Mormons in this area.

Yes Diana, I know this is your favorite fallacious approach.Maybe one day you’ll actually address what is being discussed.

You may not agree with our doctrines…and that is a very reasonable and correct way of opposing us. I don’t agree with Catholic doctrines all the way, either.

But you CANNOT, with any reason or cause, criticise us for giving to others, for any percieved racist policy or past, or our actions pertaining to others—because in those cases it really IS a case of when one finger points in accusation, the rest point right back at you; every argument and criticism that a Catholic uses to criticise Mormonism in terms of racism or prosylitization can be used against you…multiplied.

Of course I can criticize, and I do. You seem to believe this implies I do not understand Catholic history or actions. Or can be critical of it. I can and do. But this is not a forum for discussing Catholic history.

…in other words, if you can excuse Catholic racist past by saying that the Popes were fallible when making those opinions and proclamations (even though THOSE opinions and proclamations carried the force of law and actual world wide enslavement and the slave trade) then we also may say that our leaders are not speaking as prophets when they do not meet the criteria we claim must be met…that is, having their words canonized into scripture.

The difference is Diana, is no Catholic ever claimed everything coming from a Pope is the WORD OF GOD, as in Prophetic. Your PROPHETS claim this. You keep ignoring this important distinction. Are your prophets prophets, or not? Since they keep screwing up so much, I (and many others) say no.

The Catholic teachings you keep going to are not infallible. They are not doctrine. Your prophets claimed for more than 150 years doctrines that defined people as a lower caste, based on race alone. I understand, I really do, why you don’t want to face this square on, and prefer to nip around the edges. Ignoring the fact that Mormons believed the prophets of their time were just that, prophets. Just as you believe today.

No Catholic has ever believed every Pope is a prophet, who is speaking for God. As you well know, we believe public prophecy ended with the Final and Perfect Revelation that is Jesus Christ.

The ironic thing about all this is that you are holding Mormonism, which you claim to be false, to a far higher standard than you hold Catholicism, which you claim to be true, guided by God and by leaders who may be infallible when they meet certain criteria; you are holding us to a higher standard than you believe that God holds you to.

You might want to think about that one for awhile.

The higher standard is because you claim prophetic authority. Words spoken by men who you consider prophets. We do not consider that a Pope is automagically a prophet.

You seem to be going through a lot of effort to somehow prove we do. We don’t. Papal infallibility if not a gift of prophecy. It is a charism, a gift of the Holy Spirit, of infalliblity when speaking on faith and morals only. Anything in a papal bull is not doctrine, as no one, not any pope or bishop, can proclaim new doctrines.

We look always to what Jesus taught, and when examining our conscience, either personally or as a Church, we don’t seek to make up new doctrines. We seek to align ourselves to Christ. So now, we see, our alignment in regards to slavery was off. We seek reconciliation, which is confession and forgiveness.

The LDS church teaches, still, that your prophet of the day is giving to you doctrines. If you want the LDS teachings that show this what your church teaches, I can dig them up, again. Your church has not said that what it taught was ever out of alignment with the will of God. In fact, I see apologetics from mormons that are ways say it was God’s will then, but now it is not.

This is the difference. Mormons continue to see sinful actions as God’s will. Catholics do not.

 

[Xavierlives]

I don’t know if recognition is that important. However, it is when christians claim that mormons are not christian many mormons take offense. The mormon church is a christian church. They believe in Christ as their personal savior and attempt to follow his teachings. That would make them christian.

So using that logic, I can a stake in the Jewish faith, because I follow the God of the Old Testament.

A better identifier would be the delination that that faith makes between their faith and others. Christians make that as Jesus being the Messiah of the Old Testament. They follow Jesus Christ and his teachings. They are called Christians. Mormons go one step further, identifying that they believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God. They are Mormons. They even acknowledge that Mormon is acceptable although they would prefer LDS.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, they might have a foundation in Jesus, but they take it beyond the teaching of the New Testament, to a book written 179 years ago, the Book of Mormon. They have no more claims to Christianity than I do to Judaism. If they want to be called Christians, than denounce the Book of Mormon and affirm Jesus as their Savior and Messiah. If they want to be called Jewish, then denounce Jesus and affirm the God of the Old Testament.

 

[dianaiad]

Why is the recognition of a Christian Church important to a Mormon Church? I don’t think it should be for your purposes. You have the name Jesus Christ in your name, thats more than the Baptist have. You believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. So all is good, for you. The problem is, most “protestant” Christians believe in at least 66 books, and the Catholic Church believes in (help me out here… 7 more?). These were canonized nearly 2,000 years ago. So, you added “we believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.” That is your own demarcation. Your Articles of Faith made the statement. Be proud you’re a Mormon. I am proud that my faith includes the Jews but I am not asking for Jewish recognition because the Old Testiment is in the Bible. Why? Because Christians are not Jews.

It is important to us because we ARE Christians. We do have His Name, and He is the center of our religion, our faith and our lives. That is the definition of “Christian.” We are not Catholic. We are not Protestant. We are not Baptist nor Lutheran nor Presbyterian nor Friend nor Jehovah’s Witness nor Church of Christ nor Anglican. We are Mormons…and more specifically, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are Christians.

Would you calmly accept, and agree with, my telling you that you are not Christian? Would you then cease to consider yourself one? Would you agree that being a Baptist means that you are not Christian?

Why not?

The answer, of course, is…because that would be incorrect. You are Christian. It’s a simple fact. To say that you are not, or to agree that you are not, would be a lie.

…and there you have the reason why it is important to us. It isn’t that we have this overwhelming need to be SEEN as Christian by other people, though that would be nice. It is simply that we ARE Christian, and to agree with you that we are not would be a lie.

We don’t want to be seen as the same as you, or ‘correct,’ or ‘as good as’ you. We are NOT the same as you. We don’t believe all the same things, just as you don’t believe all the same things your Catholic and Presbyterian neighbors do. That’s why they are Catholics and Presbyterians and you–are not.

We believe we are right and you aren’t. We don’t beleive we are ‘better’ than you, but we DO believe that we have the priesthood authority and you don’t. If we were to behave towards those who insist that we agree that we are not Christian, we would say “we are the Christians and you aren’t.”

But we don’t do that. We understand that “Christian” does not mean ‘saved,’ or even ‘correct about everything.’ It means that someone believes in Jesus Christ and lives according to His teachings as they are believed to be.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes Diana, I know this is your favorite fallacious approach.Maybe one day you’ll actually address what is being discussed.

Rebecca, perhaps someday you will realize that simply because you label something fallacious, it doesn’t become fallacious–nor does it answer the question.

Of course I can criticize, and I do. You seem to believe this implies I do not understand Catholic history or actions. Or can be critical of it. I can and do. But this is not a forum for discussing Catholic history.

When you claim that our policy towards people of black African descent proves that our religion is untrue, then you have proven Catholicism equally untrue–for precisely the same reason. Thus, discussion of Catholic history becomes pertinent.

The difference is Diana, is no Catholic ever claimed everything coming from a Pope is the WORD OF GOD, as in Prophetic. Your PROPHETS claim this. You keep ignoring this important distinction. Are your prophets prophets, or not? Since they keep screwing up so much, I (and many others) say no.

The doctrine (dogma?) of papal infallibility says precisely that, Rebecca. The difference between "God will NOT ALLOW a Pope to go astray when he speaks ex cathedra an on matters of faith and morals’ and ‘the word of God’ is no difference at all.

And we do NOT claim that everything that comes out of a prophet’s mouth is the WORD OF GOD. That is a claim that the anti’s make for us, for their own purposes. WE claim that in order for a prophet’s words to be accepted as the WORD OF GOD they must be canonized; made scripture. Everything else may be important, but NOT ‘the WORD OF GOD.’ If it is not the word of God, then it could be NOT the word of God. Just as the Papal Bulls and “Instructions” of the Popes can cavalierly be ignored by you when you want to.

The Catholic teachings you keep going to are not infallible. They are not doctrine. Your prophets claimed for more than 150 years doctrines that defined people as a lower caste, based on race alone. I understand, I really do, why you don’t want to face this square on, and prefer to nip around the edges. Ignoring the fact that Mormons believed the prophets of their time were just that, prophets. Just as you believe today.

Yes, we believe they are prophets…but not everything out of their mouths are scripture. What is so hard to figure out about that? I have news for you, Rebecca; the dogma of Papal Infallibility, except for the WORD, makes your Popes the equivalent of prophets when they decide to be. You must accept what they say as such, and what they say is taken as the word of God.

Or do you think that every word that Peter and Paul said, every instant of their lives, was to be revered as prophecy?

No Catholic has ever believed every Pope is a prophet, who is speaking for God. As you well know, we believe public prophecy ended with the Final and Perfect Revelation that is Jesus Christ.

Then you need to throw the idea of Papal infallibility away, sweetie, because that is EXACTLY what that is.

The higher standard is because you claim prophetic authority. Words spoken by men who you consider prophets. We do not consider that a Pope is automagically a prophet.

He is when he claims infallibility…it’s the duck principle. You know, 'walk like a duck, quack like a duck…" When a Pope claims that he is speaking ex cathedra and is infallible, that’s pretty du…prophet like.

You seem to be going through a lot of effort to somehow prove we do. We don’t. Papal infallibility if not a gift of prophecy. It is a charism, a gift of the Holy Spirit, of infalliblity when speaking on faith and morals only.

You are wiggling. The ONLY way that a Pope can be infallible, that is, that GOD WILL NOT ALLOW HIM TO GO ASTRAY, is if God is specifically interfering with what is BEING said. And that, m’friend, is called "revelation,’ and that makes the Pope a prophet by definition.

Anything in a papal bull is not doctrine, as no one, not any pope or bishop, can proclaim new doctrines.

The Immaculate Conception? That was sorta doctrine before young Bernadette had her encounter at Lourdes, but nobody HAD to believe it. However, once Pope Pius IX got through with it, it was no longer “hey, it’s a nice idea but you don’t have to believe it…” and became dogma–which I understand is a ‘do or leave’ sort of proposition.

So…a Pope can’t proclaim new doctrine, just…new DOGMA?

We look always to what Jesus taught, and when examining our conscience, either personally or as a Church, we don’t seek to make up new doctrines. We seek to align ourselves to Christ. So now, we see, our alignment in regards to slavery was off. We seek reconciliation, which is confession and forgiveness.

The LDS church teaches, still, that your prophet of the day is giving to you doctrines. If you want the LDS teachings that show this what your church teaches, I can dig them up, again. Your church has not said that what it taught was ever out of alignment with the will of God. In fact, I see apologetics from mormons that are ways say it was God’s will then, but now it is not.

This is the difference. Mormons continue to see sinful actions as God’s will. Catholics do not.

The difference is that the anti’s want to portray our view of our leaders as being infallible and impeccable in order to criticize us, even as they get all bent out of shape because non-Catholics are confused about the doctrine of Papal infallibility, claiming that it is something that it is not.

It’s all of a piece, though; It MUST be different, because, well…you say so.

But…it’s not.

 

[dianaiad]

So using that logic, I can a stake in the Jewish faith, because I follow the God of the Old Testament.

But you don’t claim that stake, do you? By the way, the early Christians did precisely that; they were Jews who believed that the Messiah had come. That position didn’t change for quite a long time, come to think of it; not until there were more gentile converts than Jewish ones, anyway.

A better identifier would be the delination that that faith makes between their faith and others. Christians make that as Jesus being the Messiah of the Old Testament. They follow Jesus Christ and his teachings. They are called Christians. Mormons go one step further, identifying that they believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God. They are Mormons. They even acknowledge that Mormon is acceptable although they would prefer LDS.

Yes, and Catholics like to be called Catholic, and Baptists like to be called Baptists.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, they might have a foundation in Jesus, but they take it beyond the teaching of the New Testament, to a book written 179 years ago, the Book of Mormon. They have no more claims to Christianity than I do to Judaism. If they want to be called Christians, than denounce the Book of Mormon and affirm Jesus as their Savior and Messiah. If they want to be called Jewish, then denounce Jesus and affirm the God of the Old Testament.

Do you have ANY idea how arrogant and insulting the position you are taking is? Not to mention illogical. The Book of Mormon claims to be 'another testament of Christ." Not of some other deity…of Jesus Christ…and we claim that the Book of Mormon was actually written before the bible was compiled, come to think of it–or at least right around the same time.

At any rate, the bible itself isn’t one book; it is a collection of them; and just as the book of Matthew isn’t ‘taking the teaching beyond’ the book of Mark, or the apostolic letters are not taking anything away from, or adding to, Acts, the Book of Mormon neither takes away from, nor adds to, any book in the bible. It is what it claims to be; another Testament of Christ.

You are sitting there, attempting to use sweet reason to convince me that because…of course…all my beliefs are false, then I must then agree with you that I am not Christian. You claim that the Book of Mormon was written 179 years ago—to a woman who firmly believes that it was TRANSLATED 179 years ago and written a lot longer ago than that. You seem to assume that I must, because YOU believe something differently, of course agree with you that Christ isn’t really my Savior, and that of course I’m not a Christian.

Dang, man, that’s a silly argument to make. I mean, really. What if I did say to you that your beliefs about Christ are incorrect, and mine are correct, and since that is obvious to me, then you must of course agree; I’m a Christian and you aren’t. Why on earth is it important to you to think, believe–and proclaim–that you are, anyway?

Diana

 

[Xavierlives]

It is important to us because we ARE Christians. We do have His Name, and He is the center of our religion, our faith and our lives. That is the definition of “Christian.” We are not Catholic. We are not Protestant. We are not Baptist nor Lutheran nor Presbyterian nor Friend nor Jehovah’s Witness nor Church of Christ nor Anglican. We are Mormons…and more specifically, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are Christians.

I do understand your desire to be called Christians and your desire to be considered a denomination of Christianity. With that association you get a rich history, but the Book of Mormon changes that history. With that association you get a deep tradition, but the Book of Mormon changes that tradition. With that association you get the teaching of Jesus, but the Book of Mormon changes that teaching.

A denomination uses the same text but has different interpretations, You not only have different interpretations, but you have different text. You have the Book of Mormon. You are Mormon. Embrace it.

Would you calmly accept, and agree with, my telling you that you are not Christian? Would you then cease to consider yourself one? Would you agree that being a Baptist means that you are not Christian?

Why not?

The answer, of course, is…because that would be incorrect. You are Christian. It’s a simple fact. To say that you are not, or to agree that you are not, would be a lie.

I would calmly accept you saying I was not Jewish. I worship the God of the Jews, but that does not make me Jewish. Just as you would probably say you worship the God of the Jews does not make you Jewish. You have the additional text the Book of Mormon, embrace your religion, embrace being Mormon.

…and there you have the reason why it is important to us. It isn’t that we have this overwhelming need to be SEEN as Christian by other people, though that would be nice. It is simply that we ARE Christian, and to agree with you that we are not would be a lie.

We don’t want to be seen as the same as you, or ‘correct,’ or ‘as good as’ you. We are NOT the same as you. We don’t believe all the same things, just as you don’t believe all the same things your Catholic and Presbyterian neighbors do. That’s why they are Catholics and Presbyterians and you–are not.

We believe we are right and you aren’t. We don’t beleive we are ‘better’ than you, but we DO believe that we have the priesthood authority and you don’t. If we were to behave towards those who insist that we agree that we are not Christian, we would say “we are the Christians and you aren’t.”

But we don’t do that. We understand that “Christian” does not mean ‘saved,’ or even ‘correct about everything.’ It means that someone believes in Jesus Christ and lives according to His teachings as they are believed to be.

I understand you think you right. Most everyone who has a religious belief also thinks they are right. Right and wrong theology is irrelevant. We are talking about names. Every major world religion has a name. There are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Buddist, and Mormons. Don’t think I am saying these are the only ones. I am just stating that Mormons are their own classification. There is nothing wrong with that. Be a proud Mormon. Embrace it.

 

[PaulDupre]

I don’t know anything of the kind, Rebecca. For one thing, many of the times we work with Catholic Charities it is because the nation to where the aid is going will not allow Mormons in, but they WILL allow Catholics. The aid we give must be folded into Catholic charities, and is not ever identified as coming from us.

Really? I have seen several features on the BYU channel about LDS contributions to disaster victims. They show the boxes of relief supplies being given out to the poor victims. Every box has the “Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints” logo on it in big red letters.

Can you say “photo op”? Sure, I knew you could.

 

[dianaiad]

I do understand your desire to be called Christians and your desire to be considered a denomination of Christianity. With that association you get a rich history, but the Book of Mormon changes that history. With that association you get a deep tradition, but the Book of Mormon changes that tradition. With that association you get the teaching of Jesus, but the Book of Mormon changes that teaching.

A denomination uses the same text but has different interpretations, You not only have different interpretations, but you have different text. You have the Book of Mormon. You are Mormon. Embrace it.

I would calmly accept you saying I was not Jewish.

Of course you would…because you don’t think you ARE Jewish. However, that’s not what I asked you, is it? How about answering the question I actually, y’know, ASKED?

I worship the God of the Jews, but that does not make me Jewish. Just as you would probably say you worship the God of the Jews does not make you Jewish. You have the additional text the Book of Mormon, embrace your religion, embrace being Mormon.

And you should embrace being a Baptist…something that is not Catholic. Does that mean you are not also Christian?

I understand you think you right. Most everyone who has a religious belief also thinks they are right. Right and wrong theology is irrelevant. We are talking about names. Every major world religion has a name. There are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Buddist, and Mormons. Don’t think I am saying these are the only ones. I am just stating that Mormons are their own classification. There is nothing wrong with that. Be a proud Mormon. Embrace it.

I see. Segregation; ‘nothing wrong’ with it—except for one teeny problem. It’s not true. Mormons are Christians because we put Jesus Christ at the center of our faith. That is what defines Christianity as something apart from anything else, including Judaism, from whence it sprang.

Nothing we believe in changes that one, defining fact, and you are correct, It IS about a name; a classification of belief. Jews are different from Christians because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior. Muslims, Hindus and Budhists are not Christians because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior. Christians believe in the teachings of Christ Jesus, the Man Who was born in Bethlehem of a virgin, taught for three years, was crucified and rose again. Many Christians might even quibble with one or more of the above things, but they ALL have one thing in common: they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and call themselves Christian.

Tell me; the Catholics believe in a few more books of scripture than Protestants do–are they, then, not Christian as a result? They also have Sacred Tradition, which they hold to be equal with scripture. Does that make them 'not Christian?" True, some evangelical Protestants would say they are not, but are you one of those?

We do not ‘desire to be called Christians’ and to be ‘considered a Christian denomination.’ as if we were aspiring to some grand and glorious BETTER thing than we have, and to be somehow accepted into a club. We desire to be called Christians for one reason and one reason only; because we are.

Because we fit the definition. You seem to believe that “Christian” means 'he who believes the correct things about Christ." Well…I don’t agree with you. That’s not the definition. If it WERE, then–I would be the Christian and you wouldn’t. We don’t have any problems telling other Christians that they are wrong about their beliefs, y’know. That’s why we send missionaries out. We aren’t trying join your churches. We are simply Christians and accept you as such, even though you are incorrect about many of the things you believe. If we can accept y’all as fellow Christians who can and do have personal relationships with Him in spite of the fact that you follow the wrong doctrines and have gone off the rails, then we don’t see what your problem is. It’s not as if you have to suddenly believe we are RIGHT, just because you admit that we are, in fact, Christian.

 

[dianaiad]

Really? I have seen several features on the BYU channel about LDS contributions to disaster victims. They show the boxes of relief supplies being given out to the poor victims. Every box has the “Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints” logo on it in big red letters.

Can you say “photo op”? Sure, I knew you could.

Wow; pictures of what the church does on a CHURCH channel. How very odd. Of course, there are no such reports of Catholic giving on Catholic channels, are there?

Sheesh.

…of course, this is entirely a red herring. My statement was about the goods that we give through Catholic charities that go to places that would not accept LDS help, that we give so that they would not know that the aid came from us. Now just how likely is it that THOSE boxes would have "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ on them?

oh, and you don’t label your stuff with that sign that looks a little like a vase with a cross in it, do you?

Oh, of course not, nor do you have the t-shirts, or the banners, signs, thrift stores and trucks.

 

[Xavierlives]

I’m sorry that we were writing at the same time, because I could have addressed the two posts together. I’ll try not to cover the same things and hope that you read the other post as well.

But you don’t claim that stake, do you? By the way, the early Christians did precisely that; they were Jews who believed that the Messiah had come. That position didn’t change for quite a long time, come to think of it; not until there were more gentile converts than Jewish ones, anyway.

Not exactly. Everyone else called the Christians, Jews (or a Jewish sect).

Yes, and Catholics like to be called Catholic, and Baptists like to be called Baptists.

I’m not sure anyone “likes” to be called anything. People give names out of a sense of ease or generalization.

Do you have ANY idea how arrogant and insulting the position you are taking is? Not to mention illogical. The Book of Mormon claims to be 'another testament of Christ." Not of some other deity…of Jesus Christ…and we claim that the Book of Mormon was actually written before the bible was compiled, come to think of it–or at least right around the same time.

Hmm… “the Book of Mormon claims to be ‘another testament of Christ’.” Bingo. We agree wholeheartedly on this point. But this leads right back to the main point. Another means, not the one but an addition to the original. It isn’t the “Complete Testament of Christ” it isn’t the “Entire Testament of Christ” it is “Another Testament of Christ.” Your other testament, the one found in the Book of Mormon, makes your Mormon. You want to be identified as Christian, but you are better identified as Mormon.

At any rate, the bible itself isn’t one book; it is a collection of them; and just as the book of Matthew isn’t ‘taking the teaching beyond’ the book of Mark, or the apostolic letters are not taking anything away from, or adding to, Acts, the Book of Mormon neither takes away from, nor adds to, any book in the bible. It is what it claims to be; another Testament of Christ.

I’m happy to discuss the adding to the books of the Bible (and yes, I acknowledged in previous posts that the Bible has multiple books, so I’m not sure where you are going with this other than to try to say that the “Another Testament of Christ” is no different than Matthew, only it is. It was written (or translated) 179 years ago. It was not written (or translated) 1900 years ago with the rest of the Bible.

There is nothing wrong with you having your own text. We all acknowledge that it is there. It is called the Book of Mormon (and yes, I understand it is a collection of books), the point is it is used only by Mormons.

You are sitting there, attempting to use sweet reason to convince me that because…of course…all my beliefs are false, then I must then agree with you that I am not Christian. You claim that the Book of Mormon was written 179 years ago—to a woman who firmly believes that it was TRANSLATED 179 years ago and written a lot longer ago than that. You seem to assume that I must, because YOU believe something differently, of course agree with you that Christ isn’t really my Savior, and that of course I’m not a Christian.

Quite the contrary. I am not trying to convince you your beliefs are false. I am trying to show you that you are Mormon, not Christian. Just as a Muslim is not a Jew. Just as a Hindu is not a Mormon (well, maybe that one doesn’t quite work).

Dang, man, that’s a silly argument to make. I mean, really. What if I did say to you that your beliefs about Christ are incorrect, and mine are correct, and since that is obvious to me, then you must of course agree; I’m a Christian and you aren’t. Why on earth is it important to you to think, believe–and proclaim–that you are, anyway?

Diana

You have to understand, I am not bringing in theology here. In fact I am trying to avoid it. Overall, this strategy saves you some heartache, because you have adopted the teachings of Jesus Christ and have the “other Testament of Christ.” It is easier for you and all interested parties to see that “another Testament” means more. More means different. Different means different faith, different religion, different name. Your name is Mormon.

 

[PaulDupre]

Wow; pictures of what the church does on a CHURCH channel. How very odd. Of course, there are no such reports of Catholic giving on Catholic channels, are there?

I watch EWTN all the time and I have never seen anything about Catholic charitable projects. The reason, of course, is because Catholic charitable giving is so ubiquitous that it is taken for granted and need not be publicized or displayed.

Apparently the LDS need constant convincing that their church is more than just a mind-control cult.

“We are the good guys. We really are. SEE HOW GOOD WE ARE?”

Sheesh indeed.