“Christians could learn something from the LDS.”
Call me stupid, but aren’t the LDS under the same corporate umbrella of Christianity, like the Protestants or Evangelicals? So wouldn’t it be safe to say that the LDS are also Christian, and that because there are SO many Christian-based religions, a “Christian” person, when asked what religion they practice, would then get more specific – as in Non-Demon Denominational, or of the like? So, in the strictest of terms, wouldn’t the LDS be Christian and therefore the statement above be a mute point? I get that when people say Christian they usually mean Non-Denominational or similar, but when speaking about specific religions, wouldn’t then the above statement make no sense? Because if a person is saying they are of the LDS or Seventh Day Adventist or whatever belief, they are then going into the department of the division, right? So to say retail can learn more about sales from the shoe department wouldn’t make sense, right? Or would it?
I really want to get educated here. I’d ask Rustin, since he’s somewhat knowledgeable, but he’s sleeping and I need to get this down before I forget. Plus, I have never brought up religion on any blog before and thought it might be fun since it’s the Holidays, and since it’s really early and I’m a little cranky.
Normally, I’d be pretty confidant about my position, but – especially when involving the LDS – I find I’m surprised more often than not. They seem to be their own entity, not that there’s anything wrong that – hey, I’m a fan of anything marching to their own drum- I just want to be clear on things before I say anything stupid, unless I already have. Crap.
Anyway… Peace.
So tell me who’s more stupid, me or him?
So, now that I’m awake and you’re asleep… lets just have this conversation here.
Lets take the word Christian. Obviously an adaptation of core beliefs, and that is in the goodness and teachings of a being named Jesus Christ. So to my understanding, any person can safely be called a Christian if they believe in the teachings of Christ.
… or am I over simplifying?
Normally, I’d take that answer. Simple and delightful.
But in the spirit of being like everyone else lets over-complicate it and dig a little deeper.
What about those that believe there was a man named Jesus Christ who marched to his own drum, told some groovy stories, “drank some wine”, and then got crucified by the Romans because he was different, or corrupting their belief system. What about those that believe this man existed but don’t believe he was the son of God? Would this person then be a Christian? Or is he only Christian if he believes Jesus Christ is the son of God?
And… so to make your point clear, you are with me in believing that LDS is a branch of the Christian belief, and that Christians can’t learn from the LDS because as such the LDS ARE Christian? Oy vey.
Is that what you’re saying? That I’m not the stupid one?
Going to break it down to another semantic technicality. In my first comment I said “in the goodness and teachings of a being named Jesus Christ”. So a person is a Christian if they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ whether he is, in actuality, a real being or a figment of someone’s imagination.
If you ask a Mormon if they are Christian they will say yes. If you ask most other Christians if Mormons are Christian they will say no.
Its an argument of definition. If you say a Christian is someone who believes in Christ and his teachings then yes LDS are. But most Christians would say that is a weak definition.
Here are the big differences from what I know (and I do not claim to be any sort of expert).
Christian Trinity- The Trinity is the doctrine that there is only one God in all the universe and that He exists in three, eternal, simultaneous person: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
LDS Trinity- The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man.
Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones and that Jesus is a creation. It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (And that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers).
This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh, uncreated, yet born on earth, and the creator all. Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is god in flesh, it teaches that he is “a” god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity. These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God.
I vote more of their own entity. There are too many major differences between LDS and other Christian denomination doctrines.
Meh, I just skew simpler. It would be wrong to say thy there aren’t VAST differences with many Christian faiths.
Christianity is a pretty broad umbrella that I think could include just about any group that believed what Jesus had to say was worth listening to. I don’t see that the umbrella needs to take into account what sort of being you believe Jesus to be.
Then you would say Muslims are Christian because they believe Jesus to be a prophet?
Pretty much every other “Christian” denomination believes in the trinity. Which is why I would say that LDS is outside of the Christian umbrella and under and umbrella all of their own.
On another note: Merry Christmas to all who celebrate the birth of the savior no matter your denomination!
Ok.. good point.
I’m not ready to say that all Christians must hold the same definition of the trinity or ‘God head’, but there is something to be said for the position that Christ holds in the faith.
So I should be more specific about it. Instead of simply believing Jesus was a being who should be listened to… it should probably be more about Christ and his teachings being at the core of the belief system… which is something both non-denominational Christians and the LDS church share (along with many many others).
It would be simpler if there was one solid definition that everyone agreed to be correct… but as with all ecclesiastical leanings, it’s left up to interpretation.
So Janey, whoever started this topic… just link them to this thread and we’ll make sure they leave either more convinced of their correctness, or ready to re-examine the topic.
Definitional disagreements and debates are some of the toughest but they also bring up some of the best discussions on the subjects.
Hey look at your blog being a pinnacle of friendly debate! Bravo!
I totally agree with Ron in that it is an argument based on definition. Problem is whose definition? Theologists’, your pastor’s, Eddie Izzard’s, the Bible’s? There are so many definitions and theories out there that to claim any one as ‘the one’ would mean dismissing all others, which in turn would possibly mean dismissing a fellow brother’s definition of what he believes to be ‘the one’ definition… obviously. It is an interesting concept though, is non-trinitarianism considered Christian? And I guess it’s an argument hundreds of other people have had a million times over.
Some of these non-trinitarian sects (and I don’t mean the fundamentalists) certainly follow the Bible’s teachings (and some
), the same bible that Catholics and Protestants, use. So, shouldn’t that be enough? I guess if it were that simple it would make the world less interesting.