posted
I have a couple sort of related topics. At least, they mention the same religion. The first is a story that I was asked to move to its own thread because it interfered with where I put it originally.
As the saying goes, reality is stranger than fiction. As a member of this person's religion I am ashamed and think he might have a few emotional problems. However, I must say that his bank robbing persona is very . . . interesting.
First you have what he did as a criminal:
quote:The Los Angeles Police Department alleges Rodriguez snatched close to half a million bucks out of bank vaults throughout the northeast San Fernando Valley.
Then, you look closely at some of the things he did and said:
quote:"He said, 'I spent a little on myself, then I went down to Skid Row and handed it out,'" Guillory said. "He went on to tell us about all the rest of the robberies."
She'd been tracking him for months, based on DNA evidence obtained from the scarf he used to cover his face in an earlier robbery in Van Nuys. He'd scribbled lines from the Book of Mormon inside alluding to 1st Nephi 3:7. Guillory asked him about the passage, and he said he belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I guess he missed the scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants that basically says no wrong can make a right, or rather the ends do not justify the means.
The whole article is worth a read.
------
Now for the other topic. Maybe I should split these two into seperate threads, but I didn't want to overdue it with the Mormon theme. I think the Hatrack participants are intelligent enough to have two conversations going on at once. They do it all the time.
I can't say a poll has actually been done, but it sounds like Mormons are getting very tired of Evangelicals. There has been a list of blog entries in the "blogernacle" (LDS affiliation of blog writers) that have bemoaned the treatment of Mormons by the hand of Evangelicals in the public sphere.
This rather Conservative blogger thinks Evangelicals should think twice about how they are treating Mormons, possibly turning them Democrat. Probably unlikely.
It seems to be getting to the point that a negative comment aboutgetting to know Evangelicals is coming from a usually unemotional blogger.
Now, Mormons have always been less than happy with that particular set of orthodox Christianity, but it was always an under the breath sort of way. That subtle displeasure could be changing into a more open exchange of feelings, although I have no idea what that would mean. In fact, that is the point of bringing the subject up.
Could it hurt the Republican Party if Mormons "walk out" in protest? Would they and could they? If they do, where would or could they go? I don't think the political ramifications of this has been discussed much, if there is one.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Oh, and my cousin and his wife are Evangelical Christians, and we get along just fine. We actually agree on more issues than we disagree on. And we have a mutual agreement: they don't leave/to "Do you know Christ?" pamphlets for/to me, and I don't offer them the Book of Mormon or send the missionaries to see them.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pat Robertson endorsing Giuliani is what pushed me to get behind McCain. I guess that makes me vindictive or something.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
His campaign headquarters for the region (meaning, the state of CA) are on the floor above my husband's work (his boss owns the building.) KPC met him and shook hands the other day. I told him to ask what he's gonna do to fix healthcare but he chickened out. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think some of the anger with evangelicals comes from the politics. Evangelicals seem more then willing to accept LDS when it comes to voting, but there is still that clear animosity. I get the feeling that a lot of LDS are going, "we're good enough when you need are vote, but you still think its ok to have classes on how we are evil devil worshippers trying to drag you and your children down to hell with us."
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Although very apologetic, the sentement that no Evangelical (or anyone else) has a right to define who is a Christian or not is growing among LDS.
I think this request comes from poor consideration of the subject. LDS see themselves as "LDS", and anybody who believes in Christ as "Christian." To them, the more important distinction is "LDS", and they refuse to accept other groups that claims to be Mormons as any type of Mormon. To a Methodist, a Baptist, etc. being "Christian" is far a more important distinction than whatever Christian church you happen to go to. So that's the name that they try to protect. For most Protestant churches, it doesn't matter if you're baptized in their church, so long as you're baptized in a Christian church. For this reason, it is important for them to define what it is to be Christian. LDS getting angry about this seems quite hypocritical to me.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: If Christian doesn't mean someone who believes in Christ, what does it mean?
If "Democrat" doesn't mean someone who believes in Democracy, what does it mean?
Seriously though, the Christians who believe that Mormons are not Christian believe that Mormons, regardless of what they claim about believing in Christ, do not follow Christ's teachings in the same way that you probably would not refer to someone who sacrificed virgins in front of a crucifix as Christians, regardless of whether they claimed to believe in Christ or not.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: If Christian doesn't mean someone who believes in Christ, what does it mean?
If "Democrat" doesn't mean someone who believes in Democracy, what does it mean?
Seriously though, the Christians who believe that Mormons are not Christian believe that Mormons, regardless of what they claim about believing in Christ, do not follow Christ's teachings in the same way that you probably would not refer to someone who sacrificed virgins in front of a crucifix as Christians, regardless of whether they claimed to believe in Christ or not.
Todd Friel of 'Way of the Master Radio' summed it up nicely. (Quoting from memory.)
'I don't know what Jesus the Mormons follow, but it's not MY Jesus!"
Don't you love the Christian charity?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
For most Christian denominations, the particular, technical, formal, theological definition, "Christian" means someone who believes in the Trinity, that Jesus and God are the same. That Jesus is, "One in being with the Father".
For a common usage definition, I would certainly include LDS under the general term of "Christian".
I would not presume to speak for the Evangelicals. Ever.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Although very apologetic, the sentement that no Evangelical (or anyone else) has a right to define who is a Christian or not is growing among LDS.
Maybe LDS can help 'evangelicals' see the error of their ways. I mean, I think the disagreement is that in order to be a Christian, you can only believe in certain things, right? Perhaps it would be helpful if Mormons started with their own little religion and let people they considered outside the real faith say what is and isn't Mormon? Maybe let people decide for themselves and quit trying to ram their definition of what it is to be Mormon down everyone else's throats.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:For a particular, technical, formal, theological definition, "Christian" means someone who believes in the Trinity, that Jesus and God are the same. That Jesus is, "One in being with the Father".
Is that really the "true" definition? It seems to focus on one narrow aspect of mainstream Christian theology. I would think it would be more general.
quote:Maybe LDS can help 'evangelicals' see the error of their ways. I mean, I think the disagreement is that in order to be a Christian, you can only believe in certain things, right? Perhaps it would be helpful if Mormons started with their own little religion and let people they considered outside the real faith say what is and isn't Mormon? Maybe let people decide for themselves and quit trying to ram their definition of what it is to be Mormon down everyone else's throats.
I think the problem is that prominent people outside the Mormon church are deciding what Mormons do and don't believe in, and helpfully broadcasting their opinions to large audiences. Although I don't think Mormons in general are quite so on the defensive as Occasional is implying.
With Mitt Romney running for president, the country is hearing more about Mormons than it usually does. I think the media, not the church, might be ramming it down everyone else's throats.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the point is that everyone's opinions on what is and isn't part of a religion are valid, isn't it?
quote: Is that really the "true" definition? It seems to focus on one narrow aspect of mainstream Christian theology. I would think it would be more general.
quote: I think the problem is that prominent people outside the Mormon church are deciding what Mormons do and don't believe in, and helpfully broadcasting their opinions to large audiences. Although I don't think Mormons in general are quite so on the defensive as Occasional is implying.
With Mitt Romney running for president, the country is hearing more about Mormons than it usually does. I think the media, not the church, might be ramming it down everyone else's throats.
Likewise, prominent people outside the Christian church are deciding what Christians do and don't believe in. If general definitions are true, then the general populace should decide what being LDS means, not adhere to some narrow definition, and not let the media or one group define what being a Mormon means, no?
Posts: 3 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a member of the said Mormon Church, and as a former missionary for that church. I can't tell you how sick I got of people trying to tell me I was going to hell for believing things that I didn't even believe in the first place.
In our church we don't hold bible studies entitled "The Deceptive ways of the Baptist" I would appreciate it if other churches wouldn't hold similar classes about us. All that they do is inflame and decieve with twisted doctrines mostly from embittered former mormon teachers.
I do consider myself a Christian as a follower of Christ. I don't appreciate it when people tell me that I'm not.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afr, the reason that is such an important point dates back to at least the fourth century c.e.. When Constantine made Christianity "official" the exact things that Christians believed were also codified and made official. That Jesus is one in being with the Father, that Jesus is entirely God and entirely man was a very big deal. Seriously. This was important. People died over this. It is fundamental.
posted
Yeah, Constantine is the one who decided what it meant to be Christian, you mean? I think we LDS feel like we're going more with Christ's definition, which we feel has more authority than Constantine's. Does that make sense?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, not exactly. Constantine didn't decide. Put more simply, Constantine made the early church get together and make what it believed official.
Look, all I am doing is providing a little historical background. Most Christian sects mean something fundamentally different than LDS (and a couple other sects) when we talk about Christ.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yeah, I know about the doctrine of the Trinity and in general how it was settled on. I'm surprised that it's what being Christian means, though. It's a fundamental doctrine of many churches, yes, but is it really the doctrine of the Father and the Son being one that means Christianity, or is it the more general belief in Christ and his teachings? That's what I'm confused about.
Fluffy_Kitten, I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of everyone deciding what one given religion believes and doesn't. That doesn't make sense to me. An organized religion tends to govern its own set of doctrine and practices, and those aren't usually open to vote or debate by the general populace.
As far as giving everyone their right to think what they want to about the LDS church and its beliefs, and even promote those opinions...fine, but that doesn't mean they're correct, and won't necessarily be valued the same as, say, official statements by the church itself, or statements from some expert. In defining what the church means to yourself, or what it means to a society, I guess that's still up for grabs.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Well, yeah, I know about the doctrine of the Trinity and in general how it was settled on. I'm surprised that it's what being Christian means, though. It's a fundamental doctrine of many churches, yes, but is it really the doctrine of the Father and the Son being one that means Christianity, or is it the more general belief in Christ and his teachings? That's what I'm confused about.
It's both. Depending on the context and who is using the term and for what purpose.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Well, yeah, I know about the doctrine of the Trinity and in general how it was settled on. I'm surprised that it's what being Christian means, though. It's a fundamental doctrine of many churches, yes, but is it really the doctrine of the Father and the Son being one that means Christianity, or is it the more general belief in Christ and his teachings? That's what I'm confused about.
Fluffy_Kitten, I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of everyone deciding what one given religion believes and doesn't. That doesn't make sense to me. An organized religion tends to govern its own set of doctrine and practices, and those aren't usually open to vote or debate by the general populace.
As far as giving everyone their right to think what they want to about the LDS church and its beliefs, and even promote those opinions...fine, but that doesn't mean they're correct, and won't necessarily be valued the same as, say, official statements by the church itself, or statements from some expert. In defining what the church means to yourself, or what it means to a society, I guess that's still up for grabs.
Their religion defines Christianity as X.
You and OSC and other Mormons seem to want them to base their definition of what it means to be a Christian on Y because, to paraphrase, that's what everyone else generally believes.
I don't understand why you and other Mormons don't understand why some other religions are as loathe to call you Christians as you would be to call other faiths legitimately Mormon, or LDS, or whatever. You don't take polls from non-Mormons on what your religion believes is true and where spiritual authority comes from, and neither do they. You've already acknowledged this, so I'm unclear as to why you persist in thinking that your appeals are going to do anything.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem with the analogy of LDS defining who is LDS vs Evangelicals defining who is Christian is that LDS is a specific religion, Christian is an umbrella term. Cat is to animal as LDS is to Christian (or Baptist is to Christian). A cat can define who is a cat, LDS can tell who is LDS, but a cat can't define who is an animal.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't understand why you and other Mormons don't understand why some other religions are as loathe to call you Christians as you would be to call other faiths . . . "
Because of the political and moral implications. It has consiquences that are far more than simply theological. When someone says another person is not Christian, in a country where "Christian" means good, honest, hardworking and to say "non-Christian" means deceptive, greedy, perhaps even dangerous, that is not a light accusation. Just look at the word you used, "loathe," that denotes more than a disagreement over terms. It is a statement of hostility.
The second thing is something far more viceral for a Mormon. When Mormons hear "non-Christian" what they hear is more than a denial of the Trinity. It is a way to dismiss the very heart felt and absolutely unquestionable devotion to a Deity that, regardless of what its detractors say, is a personal Savior and center of Worship. It is like saying Jews don't really worship G-d because they don't hold to the Trinity. After all, if Christians are to be consistant, then they should call everyone who doesn't hold the Trinitarian concept atheists. That is NOT going to be taken well by others.
"Perhaps it would be helpful if Mormons started with their own little religion and let people they considered outside the real faith say what is and isn't Mormon?"
I would love that to be the case and see it all the time. Let them if there is at least a tangable reason for doing so, such as a belief in the Book of Mormon. I am frustrated by the mainstream Mormon Church trying to get people to not call the fundimentalist polygamists who trace the faith to Joseph Smith as not Mormon. It is hypocritical and disgusting! I don't care if the LDS Church is trying to send a message that they don't practice polygamy anymore by doing that, it isn't right! Now, if the polygamist groups want to be called "Mormon" is another matter. If they don't, and I have never known anyone ask them, maybe they shouldn't.
"People died over this."
Maybe more people should die over this. I know in the past Mormons have.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is that really the "true" definition? It seems to focus on one narrow aspect of mainstream Christian theology. I would think it would be more general.
To many people it's not "narrow." If there's anything that frustrates me about these conversations, it's the tendency to have what I consider to be important in my faith defined by someone who doesn't share it.
The best short summary I can give is that "one in being with the Father" is an essential element of the atonement. It touches on every single aspect of our faith.
quote:It's a fundamental doctrine of many churches, yes, but is it really the doctrine of the Father and the Son being one that means Christianity, or is it the more general belief in Christ and his teachings?
It's the doctrine of the Father and Son - as well as all the other doctrines this impacts - that determines how the word is used within the context of my faith. It is the general belief in Christ and his teachings that determines how the word is used outside my faith.
In other words, what kmboots said.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "I don't understand why you and other Mormons don't understand why some other religions are as loathe to call you Christians as you would be to call other faiths . . . "
Because of the political and moral implications. It has consiquences that are far more than simply theological. When someone says another person is not Christian, in a country where "Christian" means good, honest, hardworking and to say "non-Christian" means deceptive, greedy, perhaps even dangerous, that is not a light accusation. Just look at the word you used, "loathe," that denotes more than a disagreement over terms. It is a statement of hostility.
Well, now that is a problem that we should be addressing.
quote:
"People died over this."
Maybe more people should die over this. I know in the past Mormons have.
Really? You think death and killling is better than understanding some history and recognizing that words can have different meanings in different contexts?
Now that does strain my concept of "Christian".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cat is to animal as LDS is to Christian (or Baptist is to Christian). A cat can define who is a cat, LDS can tell who is LDS, but a cat can't define who is an animal.
I understand that that's your perspective. I don't agree that that is the perspective of many Christian churches. For them, Christian is to religion as cat is to animal. If you're baptized as a Baptist, that's good in a Methodist church, an Assembly of God church, a Lutheran church, etc. The specific subset is irrelevant so long as the doctrine matches what they view as Christian.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:When someone says another person is not Christian, in a country where "Christian" means good, honest, hardworking and to say "non-Christian" means deceptive, greedy, perhaps even dangerous, that is not a light accusation.
quote:When someone says another person is not Christian, in a country where "Christian" means good, honest, hardworking and to say "non-Christian" means deceptive, greedy, perhaps even dangerous, that is not a light accusation.
Pity the poor Jew.
Well, no one's stopping the Jew from converting. (very much kidding)
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:To many people it's not "narrow." If there's anything that frustrates me about these conversations, it's the tendency to have what I consider to be important in my faith defined by someone who doesn't share it.
The best short summary I can give is that "one in being with the Father" is an essential element of the atonement. It touches on every single aspect of our faith.
This is important enough to be repeated.
The whole 'Christian' debate is more than whether one 'follows Jesus' or not; it's a fundamental difference between Mormon theology and Christian about the way the universe works.
In classical Christian theology, the only person capable of performing such an act as redemption from the Fall is God himself, the infinite creator. (See Colossians 1, and Galatians.) Christ in Mormon theology is not God in the same way God the Father is God. Rather, he is the Son of God, a created, separate, and subject being. This is not true in Trinitarian theology. Thus, to classical Christians, Mormon Christology seems inadequate to meet the requirement of atonement.
There's nobody in Mormon theology who's thought through the atonement with the rigor and attention to scripture that Aquinas or Anselm have. BH Roberts is probably the closest. Mormons talk about the importance of the atonement, and how it saves from sin, but we piggyback on Calvin's substitutionary theory without really thinking through the details.
So, yeah, there is a real difference here, a deeply theological one; it's not merely bigotry.
(By the way, Constantine didn't enunciate the Nicean creed; that was the council of bishops, the heirs to the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit. So they themselves believed.)
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
huh. I guess I'm always surprised when people are surprised that religions tend to be judgmental in determining what qualifies as being part of their faith.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Scholar's analogy has more logical consistency than yours, Amanecer.
I'm not sure if I agree, but I'm also not sure it matters. If you're not addressing the perspective of the people that are disagreeing with you, you're not having a productive conversation.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Imagine that the college of science at a university has several different departments. There's organic chemistry, microbiology, particle physics, geology, zoology, physical chemistry, and quantum physics. They're all fairly different departments, and they're not that interchangeable. People don't tend to move from one to the other, and there isn't much overlap. But they're all under the umbrella of "science." So along comes an astronomy department, wanting to be included in the college of science. And of course it would be unfair to reject them because, say, they don't do experiments like the other departments do. Astronomy is different, but it's the same as the other departments where it really matters. Each of these departments shares certain core aspects -- the scientific method, doing research, analyzing data, publishing papers, and the departments all agree that these are the important things which define the umbrella of science. Additionally, a professor from the particle physics department thinks of herself as a member of the particle physics department more than as a member of the college of science. The individual designation is more important than the umbrella term.
From what I'm reading, this seems to be the LDS view of things -- "science" is "Christianity" in this analogy, and each of the departments are a sect of Christianity. Sure, the LDS/astronomy department goes about things in a pretty different manner, but it shares the characteristics that matter with all the other departments. Additionally, science/Christianity is an umbrella term that is seen as secondary to department/sect.
Here's how most evangelical Christians probably view things:
Now imagine that there's a microbiology conference going on. There are plenty of microbiology departments from many different universities there. Each department has its own governing structure, and its own specialty. One department has chosen to focus on building a TB research facility, while another is lucky enough to be near Yellowstone and has a bunch of labs that study the extremophiles that live in the water there. There may be a bit of rivalry sometimes between competing departments, and it gets pretty intense once in awhile, but most people consider themselves microbiologists first and members of their department second. It's all one field, with the study of single-celled organisms as the common theme, and there's a lot of overlap and plenty of movement between all the departments, even though there are some significant differences. But then a group of entomologists ask to participate in the conference. "Look," they say, "We study small forms of life, too. I mean, you study bacteria and you guys over here study ameobas. If you have both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, it's not a big jump to include bugs too." But the microbiologists insist that microbiology means single-celled organisms, and refuse to accept the entomologists' argument that the number of cells really isn't important.
Microbiology/Christianity is the important identifier here, and department/sect is less important. The different departments/sects have different styles, practices and focuses (or beliefs that are not considered essential). But they all agree on what microbiology/Christianity is, and that definition is pretty important to them. The entomologists/LDS consider the whole multicellular/trinitarian thing an unimportant part of the definition of microbiology/Christianity, but the rest of the microbiologists/Christians think it's essential.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
By Mormon Definition: Christian = Follower of Christ
By "Christian" Definition = Believer in specific Doctrines concerning Christ.
So my question is, what does it take to be saved. If someone accepts Christ and tries to be the best person as possible. Are they required to have a perfect understanding of the trinity to be saved?
I think alot of times the frustrations that members of our religion feel comes from that (in most cases) We are doing our best to live honest decent "Christian" lives. Yet we are still being condemned due to doctrinal differences. Not on how we are saved, or why we are saved, or even what saves us, but on the exact characteristics of that savior.
posted
Do the Mormons here consider the various offshoots of the LDS church to still be "Mormon?" That seems like an analogous situation. I mean, if they believe the Book of Mormon is correct and they believe Joseph Smith restored the church and their primary differentiation is just in which way they believe the line of succession branched...
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Not on how we are saved, or why we are saved, or even what saves us, but on the exact characteristics of that savior.
What's more important?
For trinitarian Christianity "how we are saved" and "what saves us" are absolutely dependent on the those "exact characteristics" of the savior.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:By Mormon Definition: Christian = Follower of Christ
By "Christian" Definition = Believer in specific Doctrines concerning Christ.
That's too easy, I think. Mormons hold particular doctrines concerning Christ, and indeed, the main reason Mormons proslytize is because we believe our doctrines are more correct than other people's doctrines.
Further, do you believe that followers of Christ should believe that Christ was divine?
quote:Do the Mormons here consider the various offshoots of the LDS church to still be "Mormon?
I think that's an accurate use of the term. Others disagree.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Yet we are still being condemned due to doctrinal differences.
Condemned? To what?
Might I paraphrase just about every Protestant I ever met while growing up as a Mormon in North Carolina..."You're a Mormon? You're going to go to hell." Each of these people subsequently cut all ties with me and commenced mocking me publicly in any way they could possibly think of. Would you mind pointing out which commandment that is? Thou shalt mock they neighbor, perhaps?
I'm sorry. That was probably a little harsh. But having been completely ostracized by "Christians" had an interesting affect on me as a child. Someone said I wasn't a Christian. My response was typically, "If I have to be like you to be a Christian, then thank goodness I'm not."
I don't have to subscribe to your definition of who is and isn't a Christian. I know who I am. I love Jesus Christ. He has done more to guide me and protect me than any force outside of myself could ever do. Am I going to hell because I don't subscribe to your definition of what a Christian is? I don't think any person who as ever existed, save one, has any right to say that. And guess what...He never did.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I wouldn't speak for Evangelicals, but the official Catholic Doctrine (which is usually more conservative than the average American Catholic) is not that non-Christians go to hell.
So at least we are not condemning you.
And, in my opinion, those people were asses.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, now that is a problem that we should be addressing.
quote:And, in my opinion, those people were asses.
kmboots, I think you are at least starting to understand what we are talking about. Mormons could care less about getting called "Orthodox Christians," "Traditional Christians," "Trinitarian Christians," or etc. We would be just fine getting called "Mormon Christians" or even "Non-Trinitarian Christians." Anything, other than "non-Christians" that the use, intended or not, denies us our core belief in Jesus Christ as more than a moral leader, but in fact a Savior! In fact, I have known Protestant Christians say that Catholics WERE NOT Christians. How would that make you feel? Would you protest or just say, well your right. I have beliefs that are different from you so, by your definition, I guess I'm not a Christian.
quote:Do the Mormons here consider the various offshoots of the LDS church to still be "Mormon?
I think I for one answered that question. I think MattB did as well. There are some Mormons who think otherwise, including sadly the LDS leadership, but I think that is wrong and counter-productive. Not to mention, I believe in past discussions on that matter that other Mormons of Hatrack have also expressed they would label anyone as Mormon who expresses belief in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith as Prophet. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them theologically, organizationally, or authoratatively.
quote:. . . poor Jews
Yep. Exactly. But hey, they get included as the "Judeo-Christian" labelling now.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomD, believe it or not I actually feel for your situation. On the other hand, I don't think you actually understand that Mormons are often treated like you rather than at a different level than you. You just refuse to see that because I think you equate Mormons and Christians as the same thing. Not that I am complaining about that.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, I don't think you actually understand that Mormons are often treated like you rather than at a different level than you.
Mormons are only treated like pagans in towns where there are so few legitimately non-Christian people that the "real" Christians need to start counting the points of the stars on their bellies. I'm not expecting Mormons and atheists to align against the Baptists any day soon; the reverse, however, happens fairly often.
In other words, Mormons only get discriminated against when there's no one else conveniently to hand.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, they may align with Mormons, but they often talk out the other side of their mouths with vitriol. That is why I think Mormons are oh so slightly starting to feel used, a point of this thread.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, of course you're being used. You're a minority. You'll be tolerated until you become the most obviously different group left, and then you'll be persecuted. That's basically the way it works.
To be honest, I'm just disappointed that the Mormons are apparently only now realizing that some right-wing Evangelicals have a nasty streak. (Note: that "some" is in there quite explicitly. I do not mean to imply that all or most or even a significant minority of Evangelicals are "nasty." However, I think a disproportionate number of politically-minded and/or media-savvy Evangelicals are very nasty, indeed, perhaps because it's exactly that sort of person who's drawn to politics and/or mediavangelism.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
