This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I most certainly am aware of the differences, although experience has led me to conclude that the perception of just how vast these differences are varies among Christians, including among Mormons. That there are differences is evident enough, and that these differences bear in great degree on the respective theologies is also clear.
The vast majority of Christians believe what Christianity has traditionally taught and holds as the orthodox understanding of the nature or Christ, namely, that he is the God-man, the second person of the Trinity. Any other belief about Christ begs the question as to whether such persons are Christians in the first place. So one must be careful in saying some Christians believe he is God and some believe is merely a created being.
Again, my experience with other Christians (many of whom who would identify themselves as being from the majority you mention) is that there is divergence in how "a Christian" is defined, and that there is likewise a no consensus as to the "vastness" of the differences you spoke of two posts ago, as it pertains to the character and nature of the Savior.
I understand your point, and yet some "mainstream" Christians do not tread quite so cautiously. That's my point. I know Trinitarian Christians who wouldn't so much as blink when responding to the question, "Are Mormons Christian?" or "Are Mormons Christians?" Their response would be—and has been—an absolute "Yes!"
There is no greater vastness than that between Creator and creature. Either Christ is the Creator or he is a mere creature, as we are. Since, as you agreed, it matters who Christ is, it would seem the most reasonable position is that Christians are to believe one or the other, and that we simply cannot call Christian all those who believe he is uncreated and those who believe he is created. One group is Christian and the other not.
That some may believe such does not make it true. There is much error that has crept into the church; much worldly, post-modernist thinking.LightWithin said:
That is an interesting way of putting it. As a father of 7 (almost 8), the vastness that existed between the creator (me) and the created (my children) could not have been greater than in the moment of their creation (conception). However, inherent in the creature was the capacity for enlargement. The vastness of separation between the creator and the creature has been shrinking since that moment of creation. One day there will be no significant separation between my children and I beyond gender, identity, experience and earthly age. If Christ was created but now is God, what vastness or separation remains? That, of course, is a discussion all to itself. But perhaps you can see why this difference in theology—created Savior vs. uncreated Savior—becomes to me (and, as I mentioned, to many Trinitarian Christians I know) a thing past which I can look when searching for fellow Christians.
Again, if Christ is God—which he is—whether or not he was a creature or uncreated makes little difference to me (in a philosophical sense). For other reasons it is important to me that I understand who and and what he is/was. I just don't personally see a reason to use that as a dividing line for Christian identity.
I think I've made my point here, and probably don't need to repeat why I differ in my use of this aspect of a Christian's beliefs.
True for whom? Did Jesus Christ ever use the term "Christian"? Did he spell out what it did and didn't mean? Did he apply it to some and not to others? Who, then gets to say who is Christian? To my knowledge, God has never drawn a line in the sand where the term "Christian" is concerned. Christ did, however, teach his disciples that "he that is not against us is on our part." (Mark 9:40) I'd say that's a powerful message. His disciples wanted to exclude, and Christ showed them that they were drawing the lines in the sand where they had no business doing so.
I agree.
**EDIT** My original response to this question was not in the context of what you asked. I misunderstood what you were asking. So I'm changing my response. You ask what has changed since that time when Christ told Joseph not to join any of the churches of his day because of the corruption of their doctrines, etc. Well a lot has changed and a lot has not changed. First off, the instruction given to Joseph not to join any church was specific to him and him alone. In other words, Christ's message was not that Joseph was to preach that people shouldn't join other churches, but he was ultimately to preach repentance and baptism in the New and Everlasting Covenant of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. This has remained consistent. As a full-time missionary, I did not preach that people shouldn't join X, Y, or Z church—that is not the message of the Gospel. I did preach the same thing that Joseph was commanded to preach. Some things that have changed are the perceptions, attitudes, opinions, and such of the mortals known as Mormons. Anyone well versed in American history knows that a general attitude of exclusiveness and divisiveness was alive and well among the sects of Christianity during the 1800s. This was not unique to Mormons, nor was it overcome by them. For the most part, all Christian groups treated those different than themselves with some degree of contempt, although this behavior was likely more observed in some regions than in others. Nor was this behavior exclusive to Christian religions. Many who professed no religion at all were just as self-centered. And yet it was, in part, this divisiveness among Christians that led Joseph to the grove in the first place! At any rate, this exclusiveness on the part of Mormons was pushed to extremes by relentless persecution. From the moment Joseph first told his vision outside his immediate circle of family and friends, he and his followers were persecuted in varying forms and degrees, culminating personally for Joseph in his death, of course. The attitude of isolation that accompanied Mormons up into the 20th century has changed. The bottom line is, we Mormons as a people have a different outlook and attitude than did the early Saints. I believe that better answers your question in the context of what followed...
Why should we not? By doing so we are not attempting to infiltrate them, assimilate them, or impose upon them that they change their beliefs or teachings, nor is our desire for inclusion an admission that there don't actually exist differences in our views. It just seems to me that if the Samaritan was the injured Jew's neighbor (and these two certainly had volatile theological differences), while the Jews who passed him by were not, then how does it square that Mormons and Trinitarians are not all "Christians"—a man-made term and categorization—so long as their conduct truly denotes that they are?
In my book this has zero bearing on whether or not two people—or two billion people—can accept each other as fellow Christians. I know that to many it does, but not to me. Was not the term "Christian" first uttered as an insult by those who did not believe in Christ? Was it not intended to exclude and isolate? If we would frown upon that, are we not hypocrites if we turn around and use it to exclude others who, by all standards but a few, are like us and are "on our part"?
Again, as in my previous post, who determines what Christianity is and who is Christian? Man. So if I embrace you as a Christian, have I violated a trust or covenant with God? Is He pleased or displeased with me? Have I taught false doctrine? Have I furthered or hindered God's cause?
I would not say that it was absolutely unique, although each vision or revelation from God to man is unique in its own right. Such visions and revelations have ever attended God's dealings with his children, so long as faith has been found among them. Nor do I see the relevance in isolating such an experience in relation to the New Testament or to the period in which it was played out and recorded. God's work is one eternal round, is it not?
I agree with what Christ said to Joseph on that occasion, and were I to disagree with it, upon what basis would I explain to God that I were doing so?
I do not aspire to become anything. I believe God, however, when He freely offers me all that He has. I am grateful for the offer of the gift, and strive to be worthy of it.
Because we have a much different understanding of what salvation is and means, I answer that it wholly depends on what the individual wants. God has revealed that His gifts offered to man are greater than man can comprehend. If a person wants to claim the greatest gift that God has offered—Exaltation (in LDS vernacular)—then there is an advantage to accepting the revelations of God in our day, for there is no other path (of which I know) outlined by God to it. If a person does not want to claim the ultimate gift—I would say that the salvific advantage of accepting the Restored Gospel diminishes as the glory of the offered gift desired by the person lessens.
No need to apologize for the questions.Sorry for all the questions. Feel free to ask me any!
Just kidding. But I didn't ask if you do aspire... I asked if you can... In the Mormon theology, can you aspire to be a god of some creation somewhere if you are found worthy? Is this a Mormon doctrine?Well, you've touched on a lot in here—baptism for the dead, the unchanging nature of God, limits of man's progression, etc. Kind of hard to make a simple, intelligent reply, since I am inclined to feel that so much clarification should precede a good response. So I'll just pass on commenting on this particular segment.
Thank you for your positive suggestion. However, I most certainly am not afflicted by unbelief. I would say that I do not believe fewer of God's words, but more... because of the instrumentality of Joseph Smith. I am not afraid of accepting his testimony.Forgive me, but this is disconcerting to a believer who rejects that Joseph Smith personally spoke with Christ or the angel Moroni. I think it would be delightful if you were to tell Him one day that you anchored yourself in His Word as opposed to Smith's word; that you obeyed His Words in Hebrews 13:9.
Yeah, you can. And I do. I guess my response was from the standpoint often projected onto LDS beliefs by others—that we aspire to something to which we shouldn't aspire—as though we are robbing God or something. So my answer was a little messy. We don't aspire to take from God that which He is not wont to give us. We aspire because He says we can, and because He encourages us to, and because He has cleared the path for us to do so, as any good father would.Nice answer, like a skill politician!
Well, I'm not sure I completely understand this follow-up question. Could you expound a bit on it? (I'm afraid that nuances in word usage in our respective religious vernaculars may cause me to answer your question from a misunderstood position)How different is the hope of our eternal existence between Mormons and Christians? Much different? I agree with what you said here. I'm just surprised you said it.
Comes before the Bible? Again, I apologize, but I don't follow you exactly. Are you asking if we place the Book of Mormon before the Bible in importance? Could you clarify?
I understand what you're saying. I just always find it disappointing. Not being excluded, mind you. But the reasons for which we're excluded.
LOL, have you ever read our history? Quite frequently those leading the charge to drive out or slaughter the Saints were the very local leaders of the various Christian denominations, to say nothing of who comprised the remaining membership of the mobs. I am glad that things today are not like that.
No prob. God bless.Thank you for your thoughtful responses, LightWithin.
And I don't disagree with any of them, although I see nothing in here that actually recognizes or gives God credit for His also-of-inestimable-worth gift called "agency" or "free will." It is often mislabeled as man's "works," but that's a whole different discussion.
Indeed.
Absolutely
True.
Indeed.
Absolutely.I'm glad to hear that
However, just to make sure we're on the same page:
Do you agree that because man is inherently incapable of not sinning, Jesus' sacrifice covers all sins, without exception?
Yes.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not upset about in the "upset" sense. It can be a source of frustration from time to time, though. I'm not going to stomp off or anything like that if you don't say "OK, we agree that you're a Christian like us."LightWithin,
It's me again!
You are upset that we don't consider Mormons to be Christian.
Ultimately it is because there is no path in traditional Christianity for man to lay claim on the greatest gift God has offered man—exaltation. I could list many other reasons, but that's the bottom line in the end. And it is both our privilege and duty to preach the gospel that will bring man to this greatest of all gifts, if he will accept it.
If a man does not believe in Christ, or worships Zeus or trees or cows, I would not think he would identify himself as a Christian (and I would agree with him), although if his dealings with his fellowmen exhibited Christ-like love and attributes, I would consider him a Christian soul nonetheless.
The atonement of Christ was infinite. There are no sins that mankind has or ever will commit for which Christ did not suffer and pay the price of justice in full measure.
We are all co-eternal with God (my belief), including Christ. And I do believe that there was a time when Christ was not God. But it is clear that he was God long before he was born into mortality, for he most certainly is the Creator.
You say the one who worshiped Zeus, trees and cows would not identify himself as a Christian, but what if he did? Would you agree with him or disagree?