Mormonism

[Dr. DTVT]

But the things I know about Mormonism (an entire additional volume of revelation, Christology regarding his divinity, etc) are central themes in new testament and cannot just be overlooked in order to have blind unity.

This is the best starting point for an arguement for not calling them "Christian", but I don't know if in and of itself that's enough given the large amount of similarities.

[yeshaberto]

tbh, I don't really see any value in throwing around proclamations of who is Christian and who isn't.  If being called a Christian is living exactly like Jesus and believing exactly according to Scripture, then only Jesus is a Christian 
my goal is to persuade those who say they are Christians (I Cor 5:11) to a further pursuit of the truth of Scripture (including myself)

[Dr. DTVT]

I was just sticking up for the little guy.  I have no real dog in this fight.

I will agree with your point of labels being largely useless.  I define people by what they do, not what they say they want to do or will do.

[yeshaberto]

I was just sticking up for the little guy.  I have no real dog in this fight.

I love that!

I wonder if you know how valid it is about their financial interests.  I have always heard that they had huge ownership of pepsico (frito lay, taco bell, pizza hut, pepsi, KFC, etc) though I also heard that some of it was sold.  I also heard they own Marriott. 

[jammindude]

Jammindude, I offer this refutation of your example using your own example.  The National Electrical Code is an agreed upon set of definitions and standards.  Other people can make their own standards higher or lower, but there is a standard definition of what an electrician is.  The only standard definition of a Christian is someone who believes Jesus is the son of God, and he is worshipped.  You're definition of a Christian is a higher standard, but not the accepted standard - just as you may have a personal standard that exceeds the National Electrical Code standards.

According to the Bible...the demons believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he is worshiped...So I could not disagree more.   

It's not a matter of following Jesus *perfectly*...but it is a matter of following Jesus *pattern*...    When you were a kid, did you ever try to trace your father's footsteps through the snow?   You couldn't do it perfectly...but you tried.   There's a big difference between that, and just stomping around at random.

My father once told me something that I think fits here:

If you were on trial...and the charge against you was "being a Christian"...would they have enough evidence to convict you?   NO PERSONAL OPINION is the yardstick by which a Christian is measured.   The example that Jesus set is the yardstick.     If someone follows the pattern Christ set (following in his footsteps) then that is a "footstep follower of Christ"...  Those who hate, go to war, and kill...do not follow the pattern Christ set.   The Crusades and the Inquisition were both perfect examples of "The Betty White Society for Animal Torture" illustration I pointed out earlier.   Anyone can read the pattern Christ set, and see that those two periods in history did not follow the pattern.

Even Jesus himself claimed that people would be doing really wonderful things *IN HIS NAME*...and yet he would deny them because they weren't following his pattern.    If Jesus Christ denies anything to do with someone...are they still Christian?   I would say absolutely not.   *I* don't set the pattern...the pattern is written.   Jesus sets the pattern.

 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22  On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23  And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matt 7:21-23 ESV)

[Dr. DTVT]

I wonder if you know how valid it is about their financial interests.  I have always heard that they had huge ownership of pepsico (frito lay, taco bell, pizza hut, pepsi, KFC, etc) though I also heard that some of it was sold.  I also heard they own Marriott.

No clue, but since they aren't promoted as a Morman or Christian company I don't really care.  If someone separates their personal beliefs from their business, I can could generally care less what they believe (assuming its a reasonable position).  Even when they don't keep them separate, I can overlook it if it is a product I want - Chick Fil'A and Cook Out come to mind, particularly Cook Out since its a place I want to eat at occasionally.

Jammindude, unfortunately I left out two tiny words in the statement that you bolded.  I meant to say "he is to be worshipped".  So my bad, happens quite often when I try to post at work - but those were important words.  I'm not going to argue with you though.  You're not going to change you mind, and I don't particularly want to change it, and likewise nothing you said has me inching off my position.

[jammindude]

That's cool...we're off topic anyway. 

It might make an interesting thread though.   What is a Christian?   I don't believe such a thing comes down to anyone's personal opinion...but I know others feel differently.

[Phantasmatron]

I wonder if you know how valid it is about their financial interests.  I have always heard that they had huge ownership of pepsico (frito lay, taco bell, pizza hut, pepsi, KFC, etc) though I also heard that some of it was sold.  I also heard they own Marriott. 

Not sure about the truth about Pepsico, although I've heard similar rumors.  They don't own Marriott, but the founder of the company was Mormon.  Which is why you'll find a Book of Mormon in the nightstand in a lot of their hotels. 

However, the LDS church's holdings and spending are kind of shrouded in mystery, since the leadership chooses not to disclose anything about the church's finances.    But the church's assets are estimated in the tens of billions and it is building a 5-billion-dollar mall in downtown Salt Lake.

[yeshaberto]

oh, that makes sense
thanks phantasmatron 

[bosk1]

It might make an interesting thread though.   What is a Christian?   I don't believe such a thing comes down to anyone's personal opinion...but I know others feel differently.

Have at it, if you are so inclined.  My take is the same as what Yesh posted above.  While I agree 100% with the principles you posted, I just do not think it is profitable to start drawing our own lines about who is and who is not a Christian.  In addition to the passages you cited above, I would also point out the fact that "Christian" was a term (and a somewhat derogatory one at that) giving by nonbelievers to those who were described as Jesus' disciples.  (Acts 11:26:  "...and when he had found [Paul], he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians...")  So, really, the issue is:  who are truly disciples.  Jesus answers the question this way:  "As he was saying these things, many believed in him.  So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  (John 8:30-32)  Parallel passages seem, at least to me, to clarify that by "abide in [Jesus'] word," he means obeying the things he and the apostles after him commanded.  So, really, that, and not merely professed belief, is the mark of being a Christian. 

[jammindude]

It might make an interesting thread though.   What is a Christian?   I don't believe such a thing comes down to anyone's personal opinion...but I know others feel differently.

Have at it, if you are so inclined.  My take is the same as what Yesh posted above.  While I agree 100% with the principles you posted, I just do not think it is profitable to start drawing our own lines about who is and who is not a Christian.  In addition to the passages you cited above, I would also point out the fact that "Christian" was a term (and a somewhat derogatory one at that) giving by nonbelievers to those who were described as Jesus' disciples.  (Acts 11:26:  "...and when he had found [Paul], he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians...")  So, really, the issue is:  who are truly disciples.  Jesus answers the question this way:  "As he was saying these things, many believed in him.  So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  (John 8:30-32)  Parallel passages seem, at least to me, to clarify that by "abide in [Jesus'] word," he means obeying the things he and the apostles after him commanded.  So, really, that, and not merely professed belief, is the mark of being a Christian.

Actually this pretty much sums up what I was *trying* to say...so thank you...and +1!!   

[Ħ]

Excellent bosk, that's exactly what I was looking for, too. So would you say "Christian" is just a term that can be defined any which way, just like any other word?

[bosk1]

So would you say "Christian" is just a term that can be defined any which way, just like any other word?

I don't understand what you mean.

[Ħ]

So would you say "Christian" is just a term that can be defined any which way, just like any other word?

I don't understand what you mean.

Since Christians were basically called Christians by nonbelievers, does it really matter whether Mormons are referred to as Christian or not?

[bosk1]

I'm not sure.  Like I said, in most contexts, I don't think it's our job to make that call.  But if asked, I have no problem giving my answer and why I believe what I do.

[jammindude]

Parallel passages seem, at least to me, to clarify that by "abide in [Jesus'] word," he means obeying the things he and the apostles after him commanded.  So, really, that, and not merely professed belief, is the mark of being a Christian. 

This is the part of bosk's quote that I really feel gets to the heart of the matter.    I don't know if going any further than that would do any good.   Other than to say that everyone probably has to make their own judgment call.   

BUT EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE....I don't see how anyone can call the Westboro Baptist Church "Christians" by any stretch of the imagination.    It's the same principle as that famous quote, "I can't *define* pornography...but I know it when I see it."   The reason why that quote really resonates is because people recognize that there are some things that can be very hard to define in absolute terms....but we can see extreme examples that *don't* fit the criteria. 

We could debate all day (and often have) about who is "prog" and who is not...or "what is prog?"    Even though opinions will vary drastically...no one in their right mind would say that Britney Spears is prog....even if she had a bubble gum remake of TSCO to try to make herself "prog"...  (but then again, there's always *that guy*...the unreasonable dissenter...)

[jammindude]

Having said all of that...I don't believe that "Christianity" should be defined by anything outside of Scripture.  Of course, your mileage may vary.   

The very term "Christian" comes from Scripture...so it seems to me ludicrous for any man to change the rules nearly 2000 years after the fact.   The pattern has been set.   Every person should become knowledgeable in what the pattern is...and then make an educated decision based on that knowledge.   

[bosk1]

Well, I might make the argument that J.W.'s are not "Christians," but I'm not sure that would get us anywhere other than to make you not like me very much. 



It is interesting though that the term "Christian" is only used 3 times in the entire Bible.  And, again, it is used all three times to denote a derogatory label applied to the disciples by nonbelievers (I can see an argument that the 1 Peter 4 reference is not derogatory, but I think it is there as well).

[jammindude]

I think you'd be surprised bosk...   I really don't "don't like" anyone.    I feel we all grow from discussion.  And if we reach an impasse, there's this beautiful thing called "agreeing to disagree"...and I honestly feel it's a lost art.    I kinda thought that was what politics was originally supposed to be based on... and that being educated included listening to the opinions of those you disagree with. 

Anyway.   I'd be fascinated in any objections you might have.  Shoot me a PM.   And if, in the end, we agree to disagree...I'm sure we'll walk away with a mutual respect.    (I honestly can't imagine ever "not liking" anyone....except this one ex-girlfriend...    )

[hefdaddy42]

It is interesting though that the term "Christian" is only used 3 times in the entire Bible.  And, again, it is used all three times to denote a derogatory label applied to the disciples by nonbelievers (I can see an argument that the 1 Peter 4 reference is not derogatory, but I think it is there as well).

This is true.  By all accounts, the earliest Christians didn't call themselves "Christians."

They called themselves "Jews."

[bosk1]

(I honestly can't imagine ever "not liking" anyone....except this one ex-girlfriend...    )

YOU LEAVE MY SISTER OUT OF THIS, BASTARD!!! 

















But, seriously, I'm cool with talking about it offline.  I'm sure that would be pretty educational, actually.  And I agree about "agreeing to disagree" being a lost art.  Perhaps a corollary to that is, arguing civilly about things is a lost art.  Actually, maybe it's not "lost" at all--it's just that we humans have to try hard to put those things into practice, and it's just easier not to bother, so we often just act self-righteously instead. 

[jammindude]

It is interesting though that the term "Christian" is only used 3 times in the entire Bible.  And, again, it is used all three times to denote a derogatory label applied to the disciples by nonbelievers (I can see an argument that the 1 Peter 4 reference is not derogatory, but I think it is there as well).

This is true.  By all accounts, the earliest Christians didn't call themselves "Christians."

They called themselves "Jews."

Once Cornelious converted, I would dispute this.   Even Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek".  It seems to me they referred to themselves as "belonging to The Way."   Which I believe is used as a proper title beginning at Acts 9:2...

[hefdaddy42]

Yes, "The Way" is a phrase that they used. 

But when Paul said that, he clearly said "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek", as well as neither male nor female, and neither slave nor free.  His point was that there was no hierarchy, all who are "In Christ" are equal with each other.  He wasn't saying that Jews and Greeks no longer exist.  Clearly they did.

[jammindude]

Of course, you are correct.    I was aware of the context...I just felt the principle of the statement was farther reaching.   But lest I get too far out on a limb, I'll retract it and start over.

Once Cornelius converted, and circumcision was no longer necessary, how could they all just refer to themselves as Jews?   You see, the implication of that Scripture is (as you said) there was no hierarchy.   Jews weren't better than Gentiles and vice versa.   The Gentiles weren't becoming Jews...they were becoming Christians.   So I don't see how anyone can make the statement that early Christians "called themselves Jews"...  If anything, they were risking the *wrath* of the Jews, because they dared to join themselves in *BROTHERHOOD* with uncircumcised Gentiles. 

I'm sure those who were Jews still called themselves Jews in the historical sense....the same as Jews call themselves Jews by birth today...but they had ceased to be part of the Jewish religious system.   Individuals might have referred to themselves as Jews by birth, but *as a group* they would not have identified their new sect by referring to themselves collectively as "Jews"....

[hefdaddy42]

Because they were Jews.  Even Paul still refers to himself as a Jew.

They were Jews because they were Jews.

Note that I said the "earliest" Christians.  They were Jews.  Not a Gentile among them.  That came later.

[jammindude]

Because they were Jews.  Even Paul still refers to himself as a Jew.

They were Jews because they were Jews.

Note that I said the "earliest" Christians.  They were Jews.  Not a Gentile among them.  That came later.

Not by much....three years.  Jesus died in 33...Cornelius converted in 36. 

[hefdaddy42]

Yes, but the Jews were still Jews, whether they followed Jesus or not.  AFAIK, there is no "opt-out" clause in being a Jew.

[jammindude]

Yes, but the Jews were still Jews, whether they followed Jesus or not.  AFAIK, there is no "opt-out" clause in being a Jew.

Well...that's why in my post I differentiated between a "born" Jew and a religious affiliation.    Your post seemed to make the claim that those who followed Christ called themselves Jews in the collective religious sense.   I disagree.    Those who were born Jews called themselves Jews....but this new group did not collectively refer to themselves as Jews. 

We might be saying the same thing actually...but I'm just clarifying. 

[Adami]

Yes, but the Jews were still Jews, whether they followed Jesus or not.  AFAIK, there is no "opt-out" clause in being a Jew.

Following another religion and officially joining it is "opting out" of being a jew. Not sure how it worked back then.



And the only reasons the original christians weren't all considered jews, is because jews as a whole did not believe Jesus was the messiah. Had we all beleived it, you'd all still be jews.

[hefdaddy42]

Yes, but the Jews were still Jews, whether they followed Jesus or not.  AFAIK, there is no "opt-out" clause in being a Jew.

Following another religion and officially joining it is "opting out" of being a jew. Not sure how it worked back then.



And the only reasons the original christians weren't all considered jews, is because jews as a whole did not believe Jesus was the messiah. Had we all beleived it, you'd all still be jews.

They followed Jesus, but there is nothing to indicate they stopped being Jewish.  In fact, we know that James was a well-respected person in Jerusalem even close to the outbreak of the Jewish War.  He was still a Jew.

[Adami]

Yes, but the Jews were still Jews, whether they followed Jesus or not.  AFAIK, there is no "opt-out" clause in being a Jew.

Following another religion and officially joining it is "opting out" of being a jew. Not sure how it worked back then.



And the only reasons the original christians weren't all considered jews, is because jews as a whole did not believe Jesus was the messiah. Had we all beleived it, you'd all still be jews.

They followed Jesus, but there is nothing to indicate they stopped being Jewish.  In fact, we know that James was a well-respected person in Jerusalem even close to the outbreak of the Jewish War.  He was still a Jew.

Yes, but once you follow a false messiah, you tend to be out of the club.

[bosk1]

Aren't we just splitting hairs?  Part of the confusion is that "being a Jew" means different things in different contexts.  One could be a Jew back then in several ways:  (1) religiously, (2) culturally, (3) nationally, and/or (4) racially (more or less).  For example, after his conversion, Paul was no longer a Jew as far as #1 was concerned (which he was very clear about), but still was in terms of 2-4.  Peter, on the other hand, seems to have still considered himself a Jew religiously, and it apparently took him awhile to figure out that that wasn't the case.

[hefdaddy42]

Plus, other evidence points to Christian Jews being kicked out of synagogues until the times of the Jewish War and following.

[Adami]

Aren't we just splitting hairs?  Part of the confusion is that "being a Jew" means different things in different contexts.  One could be a Jew back then in several ways:  (1) religiously, (2) culturally, (3) nationally, and/or (4) racially (more or less).  For example, after his conversion, Paul was no longer a Jew as far as #1 was concerned (which he was very clear about), but still was in terms of 2-4.  Peter, on the other hand, seems to have still considered himself a Jew religiously, and it apparently took him awhile to figure out that that wasn't the case.

I agree. My point was that you guys split off because the jewish religion as a whole didn't agree with the view that Jesus was the messiah. Had they all agreed, no split would have happened and judaism would include belief in jesus.

[hefdaddy42]

Aren't we just splitting hairs?  Part of the confusion is that "being a Jew" means different things in different contexts.  One could be a Jew back then in several ways:  (1) religiously, (2) culturally, (3) nationally, and/or (4) racially (more or less).  For example, after his conversion, Paul was no longer a Jew as far as #1 was concerned (which he was very clear about), but still was in terms of 2-4.  Peter, on the other hand, seems to have still considered himself a Jew religiously, and it apparently took him awhile to figure out that that wasn't the case.

I agree. My point was that you guys split off because the jewish religion as a whole didn't agree with the view that Jesus was the messiah. Had they all agreed, no split would have happened and judaism would include belief in jesus.

Actually, I believe the big split happened because after the Jewish War, most of the remaining Christians were Gentile converts who had no ties to Judaism proper.  The original Jewish Christians just died out before the end of the first century.  Yes, they were being ostracized by other Jews by that point, but it eventually became a moot point.