president, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.
The "On Faith" panelist is a well-known evangelist, author and founding pastor of Third Day Worship Centers. He was born in Newark, N.J., and grew up in Bethlehem, Pa. He attended Penn State University and graduated from Kutztown University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's degree in education. He earned a Master's degree in educational leadership from Lehigh University. He's also a graduate of Bethany Bible Institute. Ordained by the Assemblies of God at the age of 23, he was elected to oversee the Assemblies of God Hispanic Youth Ministries for the 17 states in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic Region. In 1997, Rodriguez assisted in a church planting initiative where he founded and provided pastoral oversight to churches in Pennsylvania and New York City. In August 2000, the Assemblies of God invited Samuel to speak at the World Pentecostal Congress, Celebration 2000, in the RCA Dome in Indianapolis. In the spring of 2001, he helped start the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, which is affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals. He is a regular speaker for Promise Keepers, the Assemblies of God, other organizations and a regular contributor to Ministry Today, Outreach, Connexion, and Enrichment Journal. He lives in Sacramento, California with this three children and his wife of 18 years, Eva. Eva is the Senior Pastor of an Assemblies of God Church, Christian Worship Center
Close.
Samuel Rodriguez
president, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.
Rev. Samuel Rodriguez is president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.
more »
says it in the church name: "the chuch of Jesus Christ of latter day saints"
Also read thier 13 articles of faith:
#1. We believe in god the Eternal Father, and in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost
Only Christian faith that believes that Jesus Christ the Savior of the world wisited the American Continent. -Per the Book of Mormon.
Considering these 3 facts they should be considered the most christian faith. (no other church faith share these 3 simple facts!!!
further more,
they believe in the Bible(jews), B of Mormon(ancient american indian prophet), and modern prophet Joseph smiths writings in Doctrine and Covenants (ex: word of wisdom, they do not smoke or drink alchohol or coffee)
Man, with all this confusion, it sure would be nice to have a prophet in our time. Guess the Lord doesn't care as much about our eternal well-fare as he did the people of ancient times.
I really enjoyed reading this article, though it's been a while since it first posted. (I'm behind the times while still raising children at home.)
I am a Latter-day Saint. I do not consider myself a "Christian" in today's definition of that term. I would have to say I consider myself a "Restored Christian," rather. What is the difference? It has nothing to do with how well Americans tolerate me or my Church. It has everything to do with how the Nicene Creed was created and dictated - through the then-modern, accepted and peer-pressure-infused Greek doctrine, orthodoxy and politics - what "Christians" OUGHT to believe and through pay-offs, bribes, peer-pressure, political maneuvers and pure pride and selfishness (without a trace of revelation, and dare I say evil influences) came to be. This is what all the churches who claim to be Christian today have founded their belief and theology on. All the while, "The Law", "The Prophets", and all other Biblical writings were writing to the Jews, in Jewish prose, and not for the Greeks. The Greeks, with their metaphysical inclinations could not understand these writings - try as they may. By the time the Nicene creed was calculated and written up, too much Greek philosophy and metaphysics had corrupted the belief and thinking of the people who wrote it (hence the idea of the "trinity" as "three-in-one," pure methaphysics!) The true power of God to direct His kingdom (aka: His Church) upon the earth, otherwise known as the Priesthood Power, which Christ gave to Peter and His disciples, had by this time died off. All those left had deviated from the true form of Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ and His apostles. In Nicea we then had a group of "intellectuals/spirituals" who decided for themselves, with more political motives than religious motives, to write this "Creed" to serve as a "measuring stick" of sorts for all "Christianity." To use an old southern term, it was hogwash! They had no revelation, inspiration, nor authority to write such a creed, much less impose it on the world. Yet that is exactly what happened.
Fast forward to today. Today's "Christian" has deviated so far off course from what a "Christian" believed even only 150 years ago, as to make the two seem like they are from completely different religions. The Gospel does not change with the times - God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The commandments still stand today. Yet religions have changed, and continue to do so "to keep up with the times." You look at 98% of "Christians" today and none of them live the commandments. They break the Sabbath, they take the Lord's name in vain, they commit adultery, they lie, etc. So where is a TRUE Christian to be found today? Certianly not in today's Churches ( speaking overall.) None of these Churches are built on the foundation that Christ delineated for His Church when He first set it up while He was with His disciples. He founded His church on "The rock" - which is not Peter, but the Priesthood that Peter held. His true Church was to be founded on Prophets, Priesthood, and Apostles, and only through His authority. There is only one "TRUE" Christian Church today- that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.... RESTORED CHRISTIANITY.
If one were to unbiasly study the Holy Bible and the teachings of all the prophets, most notably Isaiah, one would come to understand that the Lord's Priesthood and Church was prophesied to "fall away" for a time from off the earth, and would, by necessity, need to be "restored" in the last days. The prophecies abound. They have come true. And here is His true and only Church today.
I gladly agree that we are not like any other Christian of today. In fact, I will say that Mormons are the only true Christians today. All other churches are the ones that are not Christian. They follow the Greek's philosophy of what "god" ought to be... they do not follow what Jesus Christ's philosophy of what "God" is.
I hope the LDS Church will never be considered "mainstream," for it will never be such. It shall forever stand as the only true, restored Church of Jesus Christ.
The Lord has provided for all people who are willing and desirous to know the truth, to come and learn of Him. One can visit www.mormon.org in order to do that or look up the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the phone book and call them.
The Lord stated "By their fruits, ye shall know them" [who follow me.] One can look around and find no other Church, who as a whole, shows forth greater fruit. Our fruits prove it, the Holy Bible proves it, the Book of Mormon proves it, the Holy Spirit proves it - this is His Church. Try it!
Well, Mormon in SD,
Perhaps the reason mainstream America cannot grasp the idea that mormons are christian is because your own leaders said so. Then when it became advantageous to change they started talking out of the other side of their mouths...as they always do.
I just do not understand why mainstream America cannot grasp the idea that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are Christians. Jesus Christ and the Atonement are central to everything that we believe in. Mainstream society may debate whether we are considered a "cult" or not, but the arguement that we are not Christians is provincial and inaccurate.
Maryland said this: "Joseph Smith, a purported grifter in New York, claimed he dug up golden tablets (which no one besides himself ever saw)and created a whole new religion out of whole cloth, using the name of Jesus Christ and many Biblical words such as "salvation" and "grace" to put forward non-Biblical doctrines"
I have one thing to say, Maryland. For goodness sakes, read the Book of Mormon, at least the beginning of it, the preface where 11 witnesses state that they saw and/or handled the golden plates. Quit spouting off all the anti-Mormon nonsense. It only makes you sound uninformed.
To all you nay-sayers:
Truthfully, I think that if we ever become main-stream, as evangelicals think of as mainstream, then we, as a church, will be in danger of apostacy. But, I don't believe that will happen. It is abundantly clear that we are different. We are not a part of the Reformation, or of the Protestant rebellion. Our church organization and teaching is the Restoration of the ancient gospel, as taught in the Old Testament and the New Testament, before the early church councils of scholars,who had no claim of prophecy or revelation, created the creeds that completely contradicted the teachings of the Apostles, and made Our Heavenly Father into an unimaginable essence,without form, without body, without passions, not the True God that we worship. If any thing is heretical and non-biblical, it isn't our beliefs, it is the doctrine of the trinity, the man-made creeds that are part and parcel of traditional Christianity.
That whole argument was blown away by the simple faith, and prayers, of a young farm boy in 1820. Joseph Smith saw the truth for himself. Like others before him, such as Stephen in Acts 7: 55-56, he saw God the Father, and Jesus Christ. Why is it so hard for people to understand that? I wonder if it's because people are doing just what those who stoned Stephen did, as stated in the very next verse: "Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord..."
We seem to be back where we started. The Christian view of the Bible is not that it is an anthology but that it is the revelation of the Jesus Christ, the incarnate God. In John 6, Jesus said the Bible, or the Word of God, is "life," Jesus said. For those who receive the Word as truth, it is in fact life -- not simply ideas or doctrines but the very essence of God's life imparted to us by merely reading it and meditating on it. In fact, John so closely associated the Word of God with the life of Jesus that He identifies Jesus as the "Word."
My point again is. Christianity is about a relationship with God. It is about knowing intimately the Person of Jesus Christ.
We seem to be back where we started. The Christian view of the Bible is not that it is an anthology but that it is the revelation of the Jesus Christ, the incarnate God. In John 6, Jesus said the Bible, or the Word of God, is "life," Jesus said. For those who receive the Word as truth, it is in fact life -- not simply ideas or doctrines but the very essence of God's life imparted to us by merely reading it and meditating on it. In fact, John so closely associated the Word of God with the life of Jesus that He identifies Jesus as the "Word."
My point again is. Christianity is about a relationship with God. It is about knowing intimately the Person of Jesus Christ.
We seem to be back where we started. The Christian view of the Bible is not that it is an anthology but that it is the revelation of the Jesus Christ, the incarnate God. In John 6, Jesus said the Bible, or the Word of God, is "life," Jesus said. For those who receive the Word as truth, it is in fact life -- not simply ideas or doctrines but the very essence of God's life imparted to us by merely reading it and meditating on it. In fact, John so closely associated the Word of God with the life of Jesus that He identifies Jesus as the "Word."
My point again is. Christianity is about a relationship with God. It is about knowing intimately the Person of Jesus Christ.
Maryland:
I believe that the Bible is an anthology. Some of the stories in it tell of events in Middle Eastern history. Some of the stories in it bear striking resemblance to stories from much older cultures. Some of the stories in it are fables. Some of the stories in it appear to be accounts of either nightmares or the result of eating some bad shrooms.
As with any anthology, I choose the stories that appeal to me, and skip the ones that I don't like.
A story need not be factually accurate to contain truth. Dr. Suess' story of The Sneetches is a good example. As far as I know, there are no beaches filled with frolicking sneetches, with or without stars on their bellies. But the story contains a vital truth - if you base your sense of worth on outward appearances and the superficial, live your life in a constant state of jealousy over what others have, and are constantly trying to keep up with the neighbors, you will make your own life miserable.
It is not necessary for me to believe all of anything I read in order to glean valuable insights from it. That applies to the Bible or any other religious scripture, as well as the writings of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Homer, Petronius, Carlos Castenada, Ray Bradbury, Starhawk, Pablo Neruda, Kurt Vonnegut, Barbara Kingsolver, Shakespeare, Lorca, Twain, Dr. Suess, Byrd Baylor, Merlin Stone, Silver Ravenwolf, and many others, the music of Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, John Lennon, George Harrison, and others, and even children's tv programs like Sesame Street, Captain Kangaroo, and Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
I assume from your statements that you believe the Bible to be fantasy -- made up by men who elevated a gifted rabbi to become the equal of God.
Interestingly enough, that is precisely the reason the religious leaders of Jesus' time handed Him over the Romans to be crucified. Jesus claimed to be God. Standing before the Jewish high priest, He declared "I AM," using the name that God gave Himself in Exodus.
The high priest immediately condemned Him to death for blasphemy.
If you don't believe the Bible, that's fine. But then you need to exclude the Bible from your spiritual calculus. Otherwise you become self-contradicting.
For example, Biblical Christianity is completely incompatible with other religions. Not only does it profess that Jesus is God, but it also states that the only way to a right relationship to God is through faith in Jesus. Every other religion in the world states in one form or another that people have to do things to be in right relationship with God -- whether its good deeds, obey a moral code, go to Mecca, or whatever. Christianity says that it is impossible for people to do anything to make themselves right with God. God had to do it Himself. He had to come down in human form and pay the penalty for their sins so that they could, by grace through faith, enter into right relationship with Him. It is grace -- a free gift.
It is also noteworthy that Jesus did not take on the Roman Empire. Rather He took on the Jewish religious establishment, who were teaching people that hyper-legalism was the path to God.
Maryland:
The difference between the laws of physics and spiritual laws are that the laws of physics can be proven to apply exactly the same to all. Not only can I unerringly predict that a dropped object will fall, if I know the mass of the object and the height from which it is dropped, I can accurately predict the speed at which it will fall. Furthermore, anyone with basic math skills can do the same. In other words, it works the same for everyone.
Religion and spirituality are highly subjective and experiential by nature. Even within the same specific church congregation, you will find that no two people have exactly the same idea about what God is, no two people view their relationship with God exactly the same way, and no two people hav had identical spiritual experiences. Two people can pray identical prayers, both with fervent belief, and one may receive that which s/he prayed for while the other does not.
One of the spiritual organizations to which I belong has the philosophy that all religions spring from One source, but none are complete in and of themselves, and all have been corrupted over time. They believe that Moses got part of the divine message, but only that part which was needed for his day and time. The same goes for Jesus, Gautama, Mohammed, Lao-Tsu, Confucius, etc., on down through our contemporary philosophers, teachers, and prophets. Only by working toward peaceful co-existence and common ground among all religions will any of them find completion. Multiple spokes come from the same hub, and multiple roads lead to the same destination. That makes a lot of sense to me.
As far as Jesus is concerned, I see him as a radical rabbi who challenged the religio-political staus quo, and pissed off a lot of people to the point where they wanted him dead, and they got what they wanted. Like many other heroic figures, legends grew up around him after his death. I believe that he had some really good ideas - for example, sharing what you have with those in need is a good thing to do, no matter what faith you practice, or if you practice no faith at all. I don't believe that he literally fed thousands to satiation and had leftovers with 5 matzoh and 3 fish (or whatever the numbers were). I believe the story is an encouragement to share what you have, even if it's only a little, and both you and the person you help will benefit from it.
The key difference between our points of view is that you seem to measure spiritual beliefs by whether they "work for you." I measure them by whether they are true.
In my view -- and in the view of the Bible -- the spiritual world has spiritual laws that are just as immutable as the physical laws of the material world, such as gravity and thermodynamics. I might stand on top of a building and declare that I don't believe in the law of gravity, i.e. "that's fine if it works for you but it doesn't work for me." But if I throw myself off the building the law of gravity still applies to me. The same is true in the spiritual realm. We might decide to pick and choose which spiritual laws we respect, but we do so at our own peril.
Again, the central question of the Bible is: Who is Jesus Christ? I took your path for many years, practicing forms of Hinduism, Buddhism, panthiesm, transcendentalism and other "isms." It was only in my 20s, thanks to the grace of God, that I discovered that what I was looking for was not a "what" but a "Who?" And He has a name: Jesus.
I have come to understand that Jesus is not just the Son of God, He is fully God. And yes, the cross is hard to understand, but no it is not child abuse. It is pure Love laying His life down for us that we might be set free from the power of sin and death and become children of God. This is indeed a spiritual truth. The Bible itself says that it cannot be understand by the natural mind and indeed is automatically rejected by the natural mind because it is spirtually discerned (see 1 Cor 2:12-15).
This is why I suggest that you view the Bible not in terms of a collection of statements or doctrines but as the revelation (or non-revelation, you be the judge) of this Person named Jesus. Who was He? Who is He?
(A final point: The Hebrew Scriptures were written many hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. One could argue that Jesus purposely lived His life to conform to what they say about the Messiah. But to what gain? The Hebrew Scriptures declare the Messiah to be a "man of sorrows and familiar with suffering" who would be led like a sheep to the slaughter to bear our sins and transgressions (see Isaiah 53). What possible gain could Jesus get from living a life that fits that description, ending in a torturous death on the cross? So either He was who He said He was or He was a complete nutcase.)
1) OK, we'll put it in your terminology. Once a person is born to physical parents, that person cannot be unborn. But children can emancipate themselves from their parents, basically voiding the relationship. I emancipated myself from the god of the Bible.
2) If Jesus is not mentioned by name in the OT, then whether or not certain passages are actually references to him is a matter of interpretation. And since the Bible was compiled into its present form long after the death of Jesus, it stands to reason that the editors of this anthology would have chosen texts that they could interpret that way.
3)I don't consider it extraordinary that your god would not only allow, but command, that his son die for someone else's sake. I consider it child abuse. And abused children usually do as their parents tell them without argument. I cannot accept an offer of someone else to be punished in my place, just as I would not accept the murder of an animal as a substitute for my taking the responsibility for the consequences of my own actions. I do my best to be a decent, ethical, moral person. When I make a mistake, I do what I can to correct it, deal with whatever consequences I have to because of it, learn from it, resolve not to make the same mistake again.
I'm glad that you have a path that works for you. It just doesn't work for me because I find too much of the theology/doctrine/dogma - hwatever you wish to call it - either impossible to believe or morally reprehensible. And I am well aware of the Christian tradition of "Believe it even if it doesn't make sense to you." But I can't believe something that does not makes sense to me. And I can't worship a god who does things that I consider immoral.
1) I was stating a principle that applied to your statement that you were a former Christian. The principle is, according to the Bible, that there is no such thing as a "former Christian." One cannot be unborn again if one is born again in Christ. So in that respect, I don't need to know you to be able to say that what you said was untrue, according to the Scripture.
2) You are correct that your memory of Scripture is rusty because the Old Testament makes many references to Jesus and the resurrection, even if His name is not mentioned. Isaiah 53, for example, is a prophetic chapter completely about the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The expression "Jesus is hidden in the OT, and revealed in the NT" is true. In fact, I could teach the entire Gospel from the first three chapters of Genesis. Every major theme of the New Testament has its foundation in those three chapters.
3) You are correct that it is extraordinary that God would send His Son to bear the price of our sin and rebellion on the cross. It is also remarkable that the Son would obey the Father and actually go through with it. That is what the Bible calls "love." It is the most powerful force in the universe. It is the very nature of God. There is no way for us to comprehend the sufferings of Christ on the cross, except to understand that they were beyond our imagining.
You touch on one of the difficult concepts in the Bible when you address the issue of substitutionary atonement, i.e. that sins could be transferred from one being to another. Under the law of Moses, the people of Israel were instructed to sacrifice animals, whose spilled blood would cover, but not remove, the sins of the people. In the New Testament, Jesus is the Lamb of God, on whom our sins were transferred and whose blood not only covers our sins bur washes them away -- paid in full. There is no logical reason that this is true. It is one of the givens of the Bible. This is the way the spiritual world works.
Finally, you mention all the bloodshed in the Bible. The Bible is a very real book that reflects both the physical and spiritual reality of the world. The world is covered in blood. So is the Bible. The world is filled with imperfect people, so is the Bible. The key to the Bible is that, through God's love and Jesus' blood spilled on the cross, God has overcome the evil in the world and redeemed those who have faith in Jesus from it.
If you do an extensive study of the Bible, you will find that it is completely consistent book from beginning to end. The themes and truths expressed in the beginning are carried through right to the end. While we may not understand every last verse or every last story, God makes it very clear what He is saying about the nature of the spiritual world and our place in it.
The question is not whether the Bible makes sense, therefore, it is whether it is true or not. It is an important question because if it is true, there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ.
Rodriguez is just another example of a so-called Christian pastor with a vested interest and hidden agendas.
"The vast majority of evangelicals still consider the Mormon faith to be a heretic deviation from biblical orthodoxy."
I hasten to remind the Reverend that Christ also was reviled and rejected by his own kind. So, is that a test of His divinity? Since he was dis-approved by his own He should be dis-avowed as God? Did that remove Him from the God category? Was He "mainstream"?
Who set themselves up as the moral authority to deny the title of Christian to someone else? Where do they get their authority? They have only assumed it.
So-called Christians who claim to love God but revile their neighbors because they worship the same God un-like the way they do, belie their own beliefs.
maryland:
Your contradicting my comments about what I do and don't believe perfectly illustrate a big part of the problem among religions. Having never met me, knowing nothing about me other than what I have posted in this forum, you feel qualified to make declamatory statements regarding the nature of my relationship with the divine.
When I go to pagan gatherings, people of many different paths are there. I would never dream of telling someone who followed a different path than my own that s/he wasn't really pagan. And if one of my pagan friends were to convert to Christianity, I would certainly never tell her/him that s/he was never really pagan.
It's not up to me to define other people's faiths for them according to my own. Each person's walk with the divine entity of her/his choice is their own to define.
And just FYI, my reasons for no longer believing in the resurrection:
1- It makes no sense, even within Christian theology. If your god can raise people from the dead, then why didn't he do it more often? My memory of your scriptures is rusty, but I don't recall any mention of it in the OT. And there were only a few in the NT.
2- It negates the idea of Jesus as a sacrifice and makes him a hypocrite. According to your scriptures, he knew that he would rise again. So he didn't really give his life for anyone; at the most, he loaned it our for a few days. He experienced no net loss. If I do something that I know will kill me in order to save someone else's life, I know before I do so that I am giving up something precious that I cannot get back, and I have deemed the loss worthwhile. That's what makes it a sacrifice.
3- It paints your god as one sadistic s-o-b and a lousy parent, neither of which inspire worship. He brings a child into the world for the sole purpose of allowing him to be tortured to death for sins he didn't commit? What kind of parent is that? Would you hand your innocent child over to the state to be executed in place of a serial killer? Of course not! And even if you did, how would that absolve the serial killer's guilt? It wouldn't - it would simply add to it, for now he would not only have the blood of the people he killed on his hands, but also the blood of the innocent person who was killed in his stead.
Obviously it's a free country so people can believe what they want to believe.
My point was simply that the Bible provides clear statements about what it means to be a Christian. The Mormons contradict those statements yet still want everyone to call them Christians. This is dishonest. The Mormons should clearly state that they are a separate religion that believes things that contradict the Bible. Instead they want to have it both ways. They want to say "We believe the Bible" but then espouse doctrines that completely contradict Biblical truth.
Frankly, I don't think most Mormons know what their church really holds as doctrine -- the history of their theology is such a morass of oddball doctrines, not to mention a moving target. The central point that white males can become gods completely contradicts the Bible (based on a misintepretation of a single verse of scripture that is completely out of line with the sweep of Biblical truth from Genesis to Revelation). There are many web sites out there that will go point by point through Mormon theology and reveal the non-Biblical doctrines.
My point related to you was simply that, in my understanding of the Bible, once you are a Christian you are always a Christian. If you end up worshiping pagan idols later in life, then you were never really a Christian to begin with. Christianity is not about an intellectual decision we make about Christian doctrine, it is about a new birth in Christ. My experience is that those who experience this new birth personally know Jesus Christ, the Person, love Him dearly, are indwelt by His Holy Spirit, and simply could not truly leave Him.
Finally, you said you have ceased to believe in the resurrection. My experience is that people who believe in God but don't believe in the resurrection would not have any difficulty believing that God could raise a dead being to life again. After all, God is God. What troubles them is what the Bible says about the crucifixion and the resurrection -- i.e. that Jesus had to take upon Himself their sins and pay the price for them. In other words, they are helpless sinners dependent on the grace of a loving God. Many people have difficulty accepting that they are indeed sinners who need a Savior.
Fair enough. My original point, however, was that Christianity is, in fact, a one-size-fits-all faith. Jesus Himself said "I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Likewise, John wrote: "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
There is not a lot of wiggle room in those (and other) statements in the Bible.
Joseph Smith, a purported grifter in New York, claimed he dug up golden tablets (which no one besides himself ever saw)and created a whole new religion out of whole cloth, using the name of Jesus Christ and many Biblical words such as "salvation" and "grace" to put forward non-Biblical doctrines.
Maryland:
You are free to believe what you wish about whether or not I was ever a "real" Christian. I know what I was, what I believed, what I felt at the time I made my profession of faith, etc. What you believe about my afterlife destination really isn't relevant to anyone but you, as is what you believe about LDS' afterlife destination.
I now follw an eclectic path that includes some of the teachings of the monotheistic scriptures (Torah, New Testament, Qu'ran), as well as elements of Buddhism, Sufism, Mahikari, paganism, humanism, and other philosphies/theologies. I'd say that my path is predominantly pagan, and I have to say that I am happier and more spiritually balanced and at peace now than I ever was as a Christian. Your path works for you, and I am happy for you. But it does not work for me, just as my path would never work for you. When it comes to spirituality, one size does not fit all, which is why I don't care what religion a political candidate practices, as long as s/he is qualified and capable of doing the job.
I seriously doubt that "America" continues to be suspicious of the Mormon religion. I hear far too many positive comments from people outside the church. Its true that the press and a few internet blogs like to increase readership by digging up issues like polygamy, which is the heritage of every Christian who believes in the Old Testament, and hasn't been practiced by Latter Day Saints in over 100 years. Sort of like arguing about the influence on upcoming elections of the president's wooden teeth... Oh..yeah.. no president has had wooden teeth in over 100 years...
As for being "mainstream Christians", I quite agree. Mormons are definitely not mainstream Christans. They did not participate in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials or any of many other atrocities commited in the name of Christ. In fact I am sure Christ himself is not "mainstream" either.
I am sure he would not condone the persecution of any religion claiming to do good and follow his teachings, or trying to make the world a better place. The fact is any person's Christianity is really between himself and Jesus Christ, and how closely he or she is committed to following the teachings of Jesus Christ, one of which is "thou shalt not judge."
I would respectfully submit that you were never truly a Christian in the true Biblical sense of what it means to be a Christian. Jesus told the Pharisee Nicodemus, a religious man, that no one could enter the kingdom of God unless he (or she) is born again of the Spirit. This is a much different standard than simply professing a belief in the resurrection of Jesus. It means, in a spiritual sense, a laying down of one's old life apart from God and a rebirth into new life in the body of Christ. The only way this can occur is, to use a common expression, to do business with God on the basis of the cross of Jesus. You can be a very religious person and not be born again. Indeed, the religious people of Jesus' times were the very people who crucified Him.
Why do you need to do business with God on the basis of the cross? You mention the idea of karma -- that you get what you deserve. The same idea is true in Christianity. Apart from God's grace, you get what you deserve for your sins. The God of the Bible doesn't grade on a curve. His standard is perfection. To enter God's presence and His kingdom, one must be holy and perfect -- 99.9 percent doesn't get you in. You can be the kindest, most moral person in the world and a single sin will separate you from God's presence for eternity.
The only solution the Bible offers is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. He took upon Himself our sins and in exchange gave us His righteousness and holiness -- his perfection. This divine exchange is at the heat of Christianity.
The Bible acknowledges that this is hard to believe. In fact, Paul wrote: "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those of us who are being saved it is the power of God."
The question at hand is not whether it is hard to believe or whether it makes sense to our minds. The question at hand is whether it is true or not. I would encourage anyone to explore this question fully before answering. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." Those who seek will find.
Could members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) be more "Christian" than Evangelicals? . . Oral traditions of Jewish and early Christian temple worship and portions of the Apocrypha referred to “mysteries”:
Early Christian churches, continued the Jewish temple worship traditions:
1) Baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family
2) Lay clergy
3) Anointing with holy oil after baptism
4) Then clothing in white clothing
An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. http://www.imj.org.il/eng/exhibitions/2000/christianity/ancientchurch/structure/index.html
.
And read Exodus Ch 29 for Aaron and his sons” ordinances. . Jewish Temple practices were continued by Christians prior to the time of the Emperor Constantine [see St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.) Lecture XXI]. . . Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them
A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ being separate, divine beings, united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?
The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity, which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."
Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. . . .He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity.
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) have concern for their ancestors” spiritual welfare, so they practice proxy baptism. (1 Corinthians 15:29 & Malachi 4:5-6).
Only members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue these practices of First Century Christians. The Cross became popular in the Fifth Century A.D. But Mormons don”t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”:. All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.
It”s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be the more authentic Christian. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.
* * *
And the National Study of Youth and Religion done by UNC-Chapel Hill in 2005 found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LDS Evangelical
Attend Religious Services weekly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71% . . . . 55%
Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life –
extremely important . . . 52. . . . . . 28
Believes in life after death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 . . . . . . 62
Believes in psychics or fortune-tellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . 5
Has taught religious education classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 . . . . . . 28
Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline . . . . . . . . . . . .68 . . . . . . 22
Sabbath Observance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . . . . . . 40
Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 . . . . . . 56
Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . 19
Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen
(very supportive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 . . . . . . 26
Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping
Teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality . . . 84 . . . . . . 35
Disclosing typical anti-mormon literature without supporting your argument is declaring your ignorance to the religion and revealing your animosity towards it. Much of what you said is utterly false and therefore disqualifies the remainder of your statements.
Did you know: that the word gospel means "Good News". that when Jesus was born the Angels announced to the world that this was Good News for all people and Peace to whom God's favor rests which happens to be two distinct messages think about it. that Jesus asked us to forgive everybody for everything an infinite number of times, do you think that God asked us to be more forgiving than God Himself think about it. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
I was raised in Utah, a Morman. Mormans believe they will be gods in the celestial kinghdom and have more than one wife. A married women,the only kind that will reach this highest heavenly kingdom, can only get there if her husband makes it. When they become gods, they will be over a kingdom like earth and you, my heathen friend, will be the subject of their little land. They are told that they should seek public offic to one day transform this land into the kingdom of zion. Please, check the morm,an teachings closely before voting to put a Morman of high standing in office.
Maryland:
If a Christian is a person who believes in the resurrected Jesus, then I am a former Christian. I once believed in the resurrection; I no longer do. I once believed in Santa; I no longer do. I once believed there were monsters under my bed; I no longer do. Beliefs change.
I find much wisdom in your book, as well as much dreck. I find much wisdom and much dreck in the scriptures of other faiths as well. I find much wisdom and much dreck in secular writings. I take wisdom where I find it and incorporate it into my rather eclectic spiritual path. Often the wisdom in different paths overlaps. I leave the dreck behind, no matter what its source.
I find that the passages in which Jesus encourages the sharing of one's bounty with those who have less to be worthwhile. Christianity is hardly the only faith that espouses that. I find ,most of your ten commandments to be practical guidelines for living - respect your elders, set aside time to feed your spirit. The commandments against false witness, theft, murder, adultery, and covetousness could be condsensed into one - If it isn't yours, don't mess with it. But I will not remove my altar to my gods from my living room. I reject the idea that there is only one true path. And don't even get me started on Paul.
I find that Buddhism's eight-fold path - right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right consciousness to be highly practical, with the added benefit of not requiring belief in a deity. Christianity has its "fruits of the spirit" which are similar, but posits that it is impossible to live this way without its god.
I find that the concept of karma in many Eastern faiths also makes sense. What you put out, you get back. Again, your faith also has the idea of 'reaping what you sow."
I find that the respect for the natural world in paganism makes a whole lot of sense. The more we hurt the planet, the more we hurt ourselves. Composting, organic gradening, and conscientious consumption are acts of worship for me. And that overlaps with "dressing and keeping the garden."
These overlapping ideas among many faiths are part of the reason that I believe there are multiple valid paths and that each individual should choose the path that best suits him or her.
The fundamental issue with accepting Mormonism as a "branch" of the modern fundamentalist wing of Christianity or even Christianity as a whole lies with two questions: one, who is it that has the right to determine whether or not such an inclusion is apropos, and two, whether or not the inclusion of Mormonism in Christianity would exert any undue pressure, whether openly or more subversively, on the faith to change to fit basic aspects of the Christian doctrine.
As it stands, Mormonism clearly rejects several basic tenets of fundamentalist Christianity. As a former evangelical, I know that many of the shapers of Christian doctrine in the various branches of Christianity would take tremendous issue with the inclusion of Mormonism in their loose "umbrella" of different faiths.
Aside from my personal view that religion should play no role in the public sphere and that such a distinction between whether or not one is a Christian is wholly-irrelevant to their practice of their own individual faith and their personal relationship with the God that they have constructed (which, by virtue of one's own mind, is at once similar and yet radically different from all other interpretations of certain faiths, let alone different faiths altogether), it is important to acknowledge that the so-called "spirit of Mormonism" might very well erode under the pressures to conform with Christian doctrine if it is included under that aforementioned umbrella.
In reality, this distinction is important to a great many Americans, if not politically. Will Mormonism have its wings clipped by other Christian sects if it is considered a member of the flock? The answer, in my mind, is a resounding yes.
Hi, Danny B - I hope you're still tuning in to this thread.
I was happy to see your mention of St Peter as the first Pope, because I remembered learning that, too, as a kid.
Meanwhile, I since learned that the Catholic Church wasn't even established until after the council of Nicea in 325 - way after Peter's time. And it was Paul, not Jesus, who spread the ideas that eventually became called Christianity. Jesus didn't coin that term. Later followers did.
Every church leader whant his church to grow. They do anything they can to find "a lost sheep" and recruit it to their church. It does not matter if the leader is Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical or any other church. Everyone is looking for people.
Church leaders with theological training are trained for this, and they take classes in mission, evangelism and discipleship training. Who is doing the blame game? Evangelicals are growing, and as I see it there is a competition in finding all "lost sheeps".
Most of the times this so called "lost sheep" is a burned out Christian that have experienced a little bit too much pain from his/her own church. They are looking for another place to worship God.
Does this so called lost sheep have a will of their own? Of course. Evangelicals have very often won the battle before, and the lost sheep (often a Catholic or Orthodox) becomes an Evangelical.
But.. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are also in this competition. They also want to grow (as all the other churches). Evangelicals are shouting out loud warnings, because they want the little lost sheep to come to them.
Is it possible that Evangelical leaders have an agenda of their own in this matter? Personally I think so. Evangelical leaders are paid to recruit lost sheep, and their salary is growing if their church is growing. Money talks, and it seems that it is talking a lot, and loud.
By what criteria are you defining "Christian?" The Christianity that was established by Jesus Christ when he was upon the earth? The one with apostles, prophets, an ardent and committed missionary force, and the law to "love thy neighbor as thyself?" Or a religious philosophy that has evolved and changed over the centuries; that allows itself to be the judge of all other religions--and say what they are and what they are not? Perhaps it is our definitions, and not our daffy notions--that need to be examined and compared.
From a solider in Iraq-
We daily see the pompous effects of acts committed in the name of belief and religion. For all those here that proclaim the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to not be Christian I hold up the unending acts of kindness and charity that the LDS Church has performed over the last few years. The constant acts of service rendered by the church to persons caught up in natural disasters round the globe alone demonstrate the Christ like intentions of the church. By their acts shall ye know them.
Here in Iraq I have met Figian soldiers serving our country that know of Mormons and many others that have come here to help out from arround the world. The trend is that the Church of Jesus Christ has done more to demonstrate is christian attributes than any other proclaimed christian organization out there.
Why aren`t these posts working? I type my brilliant words for all to see. I push the submit button and my wisdom disappears into the ether. IS the WAPO prejudiced against me or am I just paranoid?
America, like other nations, has always been bigoted against and intolerant of people that it does not like. They disapprove and resent people who say what they do not what to hear or see. It is only the Walt Disney version of the always decent American who can do no wrong that you are talking about. In your dreams. If you do not believe me just ask Joe McCarthy, Black people, Asians, Hispanics, the poor, Japanese internees during WWII. America believes in every man for himself. Fairness is a function of the bottom line not ethics or morality or altruism. Stop romancing with your nicely drawn analysis that has left realities out of the equation.
To Emanuel A Floor:
Those were very insightful and kind comments. I think you might well send a letter to that same effect to President Hinckley, and he would redouble his efforts to try and teach the members to recognize the good in all religious faiths and the importance of showing that in how we treat others daily. Granted, the LDS are very imperfect in this. Your comments need the careful consideration of all LDS who may read this blog. Thanks for the insights from your perspective and that of your wonderful children.
I don't know for sure what your assumption was regarding the New Testament and if one believes additional books (or testimonies of Christ) can be added or not. Might I add something additional to what Henry James has already contributed:
I've come across a number of times the argument that because Revelation 22:18 states "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book", many believe that no additional scripture can be added. This argument could not be further from the truth. The books in the New Testament are not all in chronological order. If it were, Revelations would not have been the last book in the New Testament, causing every book written after John's Revelations invalid and blasphemous.
In addition, the Old Testament states the same thing. So should we disregard the New Testament altogether? Of course not. Those statements were written by John the Revelator for his book - not others.
I wish On Faith had a FAQ so people could stop mass-posting the same questions, hoping to stump someone else on another board. For those who try to convince themselves that Mormon doctrine is incorrect on deity, you can follow this link to R. Albert Mohler Jr's blog where someone else posted the same thing. A commenter by the name of "RENE" argued it very well. You can find the link here:
I was born a member of the Greek Orthodox Church in Salt Lake City, Utah. As a teenager I was a friend to many Mormons and attended their Seminary Classes in High School.I reached the point where I thought I might join the Mormon Church. I understood their concepts and I was impressed by the calibre of the members I knew -- but when push came to shove it was my association with the Greek culture and strong association with the Roman Catholic Church that kept me well grounded in the beliefs and teachings that have the basis of my religious life. Eventually I affiliated with the Catholic Church where I have found great peace in the simplicity of the mass. I found that the Mormons have beliefs and opinions that counter mine. I live peacefully among them and at 71 am glad I rejected the Mormon lessons I was taught. Living in Salt Lake City gives me an upfront view of the pressures that are everywhere for Mormon Church members. The Mormons say: :"live in the World but do not become a part of the World." I am glad that I live among the Mormons but am not a part of their religious world. Many Mormons fail to realize that all people want to be and are good parents, live decent lives and love God. Many Mormons tend to believe that they alone have a corner on all of these atributes. When our daughter, then 7, was told by her Mormon friends that because she was not a Mormon she could not have Family Home Evening on Monday Nights -- her response was simply - "at our house we have family home evening every night of the week." When Mormons learn they alone are not the only people that have family values -- and that all people have value in the eyes of God -- they will find more friends. Many are so involved in their daily and weekly programs that they seem to lack a real devotion to God. It has always seemed to me that their connection to records, numbers, units, etc., leaves out the devotions that many of us find so important. Their form of worship is very simple and their meetings are essentialy filled with teachings by their leaders on all of their beliefs. They spend a lot of time reminding themselves what they believe and reinforcing the lessons. It is a form of "worship" far different than anything most people know or desire.
Mormons should not worry about Evangelicals calling them non-Christians, because many of these same people call Catholics (and others) non-Christians. For some samples, try Googling "Are C
All Comments (148)
visit: www.lds.org
Official Website for the common nicknames: "mormons", "Latter day saints", "LDS faith"
Mr. Sam Rodriguez should have included this in his article, so as not to bias the official beliefs of the nicknamed "mormons".
to find out if mormons are christian. 3 questions
1. ask your self what is the "mormons" church's name? (the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints)
2. what says thier articles of faith?(believe in jesus as savior)
3. what is the book of Mormon? (christ in ancient america)
March 2, 2008 9:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2008 21:25
visit: www.lds.org
Official Website for the common nicknames: "mormons", "Latter day saints", "LDS faith"
Mr. Sam Rodriguez should have included this in his article, so as not to bias the official beliefs of the nicknamed "mormons".
to find out if mormons are christian. 3 questions
1. ask your self what is the "mormons" church's name? (the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints)
2. what says thier articles of faith?(believe in jesus as savior)
3. what is the book of Mormon? (christ in ancient america)
March 2, 2008 9:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2008 21:23
the mormon faith is christian.
says it in the church name: "the chuch of Jesus Christ of latter day saints"
Also read thier 13 articles of faith:
#1. We believe in god the Eternal Father, and in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost
Only Christian faith that believes that Jesus Christ the Savior of the world wisited the American Continent. -Per the Book of Mormon.
Considering these 3 facts they should be considered the most christian faith. (no other church faith share these 3 simple facts!!!
further more,
they believe in the Bible(jews), B of Mormon(ancient american indian prophet), and modern prophet Joseph smiths writings in Doctrine and Covenants (ex: word of wisdom, they do not smoke or drink alchohol or coffee)
-very simple . . . .
March 2, 2008 9:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2008 21:04
Man, with all this confusion, it sure would be nice to have a prophet.
February 3, 2008 6:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 3, 2008 18:27
Man, with all this confusion, it sure would be nice to have a prophet in our time. Guess the Lord doesn't care as much about our eternal well-fare as he did the people of ancient times.
February 3, 2008 6:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 3, 2008 18:24
Man, with all this confusion, it sure would be nice to have a prophet.
February 3, 2008 6:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 3, 2008 18:22
I really enjoyed reading this article, though it's been a while since it first posted. (I'm behind the times while still raising children at home.)
I am a Latter-day Saint. I do not consider myself a "Christian" in today's definition of that term. I would have to say I consider myself a "Restored Christian," rather. What is the difference? It has nothing to do with how well Americans tolerate me or my Church. It has everything to do with how the Nicene Creed was created and dictated - through the then-modern, accepted and peer-pressure-infused Greek doctrine, orthodoxy and politics - what "Christians" OUGHT to believe and through pay-offs, bribes, peer-pressure, political maneuvers and pure pride and selfishness (without a trace of revelation, and dare I say evil influences) came to be. This is what all the churches who claim to be Christian today have founded their belief and theology on. All the while, "The Law", "The Prophets", and all other Biblical writings were writing to the Jews, in Jewish prose, and not for the Greeks. The Greeks, with their metaphysical inclinations could not understand these writings - try as they may. By the time the Nicene creed was calculated and written up, too much Greek philosophy and metaphysics had corrupted the belief and thinking of the people who wrote it (hence the idea of the "trinity" as "three-in-one," pure methaphysics!) The true power of God to direct His kingdom (aka: His Church) upon the earth, otherwise known as the Priesthood Power, which Christ gave to Peter and His disciples, had by this time died off. All those left had deviated from the true form of Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ and His apostles. In Nicea we then had a group of "intellectuals/spirituals" who decided for themselves, with more political motives than religious motives, to write this "Creed" to serve as a "measuring stick" of sorts for all "Christianity." To use an old southern term, it was hogwash! They had no revelation, inspiration, nor authority to write such a creed, much less impose it on the world. Yet that is exactly what happened.
Fast forward to today. Today's "Christian" has deviated so far off course from what a "Christian" believed even only 150 years ago, as to make the two seem like they are from completely different religions. The Gospel does not change with the times - God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The commandments still stand today. Yet religions have changed, and continue to do so "to keep up with the times." You look at 98% of "Christians" today and none of them live the commandments. They break the Sabbath, they take the Lord's name in vain, they commit adultery, they lie, etc. So where is a TRUE Christian to be found today? Certianly not in today's Churches ( speaking overall.) None of these Churches are built on the foundation that Christ delineated for His Church when He first set it up while He was with His disciples. He founded His church on "The rock" - which is not Peter, but the Priesthood that Peter held. His true Church was to be founded on Prophets, Priesthood, and Apostles, and only through His authority. There is only one "TRUE" Christian Church today- that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.... RESTORED CHRISTIANITY.
If one were to unbiasly study the Holy Bible and the teachings of all the prophets, most notably Isaiah, one would come to understand that the Lord's Priesthood and Church was prophesied to "fall away" for a time from off the earth, and would, by necessity, need to be "restored" in the last days. The prophecies abound. They have come true. And here is His true and only Church today.
I gladly agree that we are not like any other Christian of today. In fact, I will say that Mormons are the only true Christians today. All other churches are the ones that are not Christian. They follow the Greek's philosophy of what "god" ought to be... they do not follow what Jesus Christ's philosophy of what "God" is.
I hope the LDS Church will never be considered "mainstream," for it will never be such. It shall forever stand as the only true, restored Church of Jesus Christ.
The Lord has provided for all people who are willing and desirous to know the truth, to come and learn of Him. One can visit www.mormon.org in order to do that or look up the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the phone book and call them.
The Lord stated "By their fruits, ye shall know them" [who follow me.] One can look around and find no other Church, who as a whole, shows forth greater fruit. Our fruits prove it, the Holy Bible proves it, the Book of Mormon proves it, the Holy Spirit proves it - this is His Church. Try it!
November 1, 2007 3:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 1, 2007 03:37
Well, Mormon in SD,
Perhaps the reason mainstream America cannot grasp the idea that mormons are christian is because your own leaders said so. Then when it became advantageous to change they started talking out of the other side of their mouths...as they always do.
October 2, 2007 12:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 2, 2007 12:30
I just do not understand why mainstream America cannot grasp the idea that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are Christians. Jesus Christ and the Atonement are central to everything that we believe in. Mainstream society may debate whether we are considered a "cult" or not, but the arguement that we are not Christians is provincial and inaccurate.
September 19, 2007 2:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 19, 2007 14:23
m832k
July 2, 2007 5:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2007 17:05
Maryland said this: "Joseph Smith, a purported grifter in New York, claimed he dug up golden tablets (which no one besides himself ever saw)and created a whole new religion out of whole cloth, using the name of Jesus Christ and many Biblical words such as "salvation" and "grace" to put forward non-Biblical doctrines"
I have one thing to say, Maryland. For goodness sakes, read the Book of Mormon, at least the beginning of it, the preface where 11 witnesses state that they saw and/or handled the golden plates. Quit spouting off all the anti-Mormon nonsense. It only makes you sound uninformed.
To all you nay-sayers:
Truthfully, I think that if we ever become main-stream, as evangelicals think of as mainstream, then we, as a church, will be in danger of apostacy. But, I don't believe that will happen. It is abundantly clear that we are different. We are not a part of the Reformation, or of the Protestant rebellion. Our church organization and teaching is the Restoration of the ancient gospel, as taught in the Old Testament and the New Testament, before the early church councils of scholars,who had no claim of prophecy or revelation, created the creeds that completely contradicted the teachings of the Apostles, and made Our Heavenly Father into an unimaginable essence,without form, without body, without passions, not the True God that we worship. If any thing is heretical and non-biblical, it isn't our beliefs, it is the doctrine of the trinity, the man-made creeds that are part and parcel of traditional Christianity.
That whole argument was blown away by the simple faith, and prayers, of a young farm boy in 1820. Joseph Smith saw the truth for himself. Like others before him, such as Stephen in Acts 7: 55-56, he saw God the Father, and Jesus Christ. Why is it so hard for people to understand that? I wonder if it's because people are doing just what those who stoned Stephen did, as stated in the very next verse: "Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord..."
June 11, 2007 9:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 21:37
We seem to be back where we started. The Christian view of the Bible is not that it is an anthology but that it is the revelation of the Jesus Christ, the incarnate God. In John 6, Jesus said the Bible, or the Word of God, is "life," Jesus said. For those who receive the Word as truth, it is in fact life -- not simply ideas or doctrines but the very essence of God's life imparted to us by merely reading it and meditating on it. In fact, John so closely associated the Word of God with the life of Jesus that He identifies Jesus as the "Word."
My point again is. Christianity is about a relationship with God. It is about knowing intimately the Person of Jesus Christ.
May 15, 2007 4:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 16:55
We seem to be back where we started. The Christian view of the Bible is not that it is an anthology but that it is the revelation of the Jesus Christ, the incarnate God. In John 6, Jesus said the Bible, or the Word of God, is "life," Jesus said. For those who receive the Word as truth, it is in fact life -- not simply ideas or doctrines but the very essence of God's life imparted to us by merely reading it and meditating on it. In fact, John so closely associated the Word of God with the life of Jesus that He identifies Jesus as the "Word."
My point again is. Christianity is about a relationship with God. It is about knowing intimately the Person of Jesus Christ.
May 15, 2007 4:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 16:55
We seem to be back where we started. The Christian view of the Bible is not that it is an anthology but that it is the revelation of the Jesus Christ, the incarnate God. In John 6, Jesus said the Bible, or the Word of God, is "life," Jesus said. For those who receive the Word as truth, it is in fact life -- not simply ideas or doctrines but the very essence of God's life imparted to us by merely reading it and meditating on it. In fact, John so closely associated the Word of God with the life of Jesus that He identifies Jesus as the "Word."
My point again is. Christianity is about a relationship with God. It is about knowing intimately the Person of Jesus Christ.
May 15, 2007 4:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 16:55
Maryland:
I believe that the Bible is an anthology. Some of the stories in it tell of events in Middle Eastern history. Some of the stories in it bear striking resemblance to stories from much older cultures. Some of the stories in it are fables. Some of the stories in it appear to be accounts of either nightmares or the result of eating some bad shrooms.
As with any anthology, I choose the stories that appeal to me, and skip the ones that I don't like.
A story need not be factually accurate to contain truth. Dr. Suess' story of The Sneetches is a good example. As far as I know, there are no beaches filled with frolicking sneetches, with or without stars on their bellies. But the story contains a vital truth - if you base your sense of worth on outward appearances and the superficial, live your life in a constant state of jealousy over what others have, and are constantly trying to keep up with the neighbors, you will make your own life miserable.
It is not necessary for me to believe all of anything I read in order to glean valuable insights from it. That applies to the Bible or any other religious scripture, as well as the writings of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Homer, Petronius, Carlos Castenada, Ray Bradbury, Starhawk, Pablo Neruda, Kurt Vonnegut, Barbara Kingsolver, Shakespeare, Lorca, Twain, Dr. Suess, Byrd Baylor, Merlin Stone, Silver Ravenwolf, and many others, the music of Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, John Lennon, George Harrison, and others, and even children's tv programs like Sesame Street, Captain Kangaroo, and Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
May 15, 2007 12:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 12:48
Lepi:
I assume from your statements that you believe the Bible to be fantasy -- made up by men who elevated a gifted rabbi to become the equal of God.
Interestingly enough, that is precisely the reason the religious leaders of Jesus' time handed Him over the Romans to be crucified. Jesus claimed to be God. Standing before the Jewish high priest, He declared "I AM," using the name that God gave Himself in Exodus.
The high priest immediately condemned Him to death for blasphemy.
If you don't believe the Bible, that's fine. But then you need to exclude the Bible from your spiritual calculus. Otherwise you become self-contradicting.
For example, Biblical Christianity is completely incompatible with other religions. Not only does it profess that Jesus is God, but it also states that the only way to a right relationship to God is through faith in Jesus. Every other religion in the world states in one form or another that people have to do things to be in right relationship with God -- whether its good deeds, obey a moral code, go to Mecca, or whatever. Christianity says that it is impossible for people to do anything to make themselves right with God. God had to do it Himself. He had to come down in human form and pay the penalty for their sins so that they could, by grace through faith, enter into right relationship with Him. It is grace -- a free gift.
It is also noteworthy that Jesus did not take on the Roman Empire. Rather He took on the Jewish religious establishment, who were teaching people that hyper-legalism was the path to God.
May 15, 2007 11:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 11:59
Maryland:
The difference between the laws of physics and spiritual laws are that the laws of physics can be proven to apply exactly the same to all. Not only can I unerringly predict that a dropped object will fall, if I know the mass of the object and the height from which it is dropped, I can accurately predict the speed at which it will fall. Furthermore, anyone with basic math skills can do the same. In other words, it works the same for everyone.
Religion and spirituality are highly subjective and experiential by nature. Even within the same specific church congregation, you will find that no two people have exactly the same idea about what God is, no two people view their relationship with God exactly the same way, and no two people hav had identical spiritual experiences. Two people can pray identical prayers, both with fervent belief, and one may receive that which s/he prayed for while the other does not.
One of the spiritual organizations to which I belong has the philosophy that all religions spring from One source, but none are complete in and of themselves, and all have been corrupted over time. They believe that Moses got part of the divine message, but only that part which was needed for his day and time. The same goes for Jesus, Gautama, Mohammed, Lao-Tsu, Confucius, etc., on down through our contemporary philosophers, teachers, and prophets. Only by working toward peaceful co-existence and common ground among all religions will any of them find completion. Multiple spokes come from the same hub, and multiple roads lead to the same destination. That makes a lot of sense to me.
As far as Jesus is concerned, I see him as a radical rabbi who challenged the religio-political staus quo, and pissed off a lot of people to the point where they wanted him dead, and they got what they wanted. Like many other heroic figures, legends grew up around him after his death. I believe that he had some really good ideas - for example, sharing what you have with those in need is a good thing to do, no matter what faith you practice, or if you practice no faith at all. I don't believe that he literally fed thousands to satiation and had leftovers with 5 matzoh and 3 fish (or whatever the numbers were). I believe the story is an encouragement to share what you have, even if it's only a little, and both you and the person you help will benefit from it.
May 15, 2007 10:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 10:17
Lepi:
The key difference between our points of view is that you seem to measure spiritual beliefs by whether they "work for you." I measure them by whether they are true.
In my view -- and in the view of the Bible -- the spiritual world has spiritual laws that are just as immutable as the physical laws of the material world, such as gravity and thermodynamics. I might stand on top of a building and declare that I don't believe in the law of gravity, i.e. "that's fine if it works for you but it doesn't work for me." But if I throw myself off the building the law of gravity still applies to me. The same is true in the spiritual realm. We might decide to pick and choose which spiritual laws we respect, but we do so at our own peril.
Again, the central question of the Bible is: Who is Jesus Christ? I took your path for many years, practicing forms of Hinduism, Buddhism, panthiesm, transcendentalism and other "isms." It was only in my 20s, thanks to the grace of God, that I discovered that what I was looking for was not a "what" but a "Who?" And He has a name: Jesus.
I have come to understand that Jesus is not just the Son of God, He is fully God. And yes, the cross is hard to understand, but no it is not child abuse. It is pure Love laying His life down for us that we might be set free from the power of sin and death and become children of God. This is indeed a spiritual truth. The Bible itself says that it cannot be understand by the natural mind and indeed is automatically rejected by the natural mind because it is spirtually discerned (see 1 Cor 2:12-15).
This is why I suggest that you view the Bible not in terms of a collection of statements or doctrines but as the revelation (or non-revelation, you be the judge) of this Person named Jesus. Who was He? Who is He?
(A final point: The Hebrew Scriptures were written many hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. One could argue that Jesus purposely lived His life to conform to what they say about the Messiah. But to what gain? The Hebrew Scriptures declare the Messiah to be a "man of sorrows and familiar with suffering" who would be led like a sheep to the slaughter to bear our sins and transgressions (see Isaiah 53). What possible gain could Jesus get from living a life that fits that description, ending in a torturous death on the cross? So either He was who He said He was or He was a complete nutcase.)
May 15, 2007 9:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 09:32
Maryland:
1) OK, we'll put it in your terminology. Once a person is born to physical parents, that person cannot be unborn. But children can emancipate themselves from their parents, basically voiding the relationship. I emancipated myself from the god of the Bible.
2) If Jesus is not mentioned by name in the OT, then whether or not certain passages are actually references to him is a matter of interpretation. And since the Bible was compiled into its present form long after the death of Jesus, it stands to reason that the editors of this anthology would have chosen texts that they could interpret that way.
3)I don't consider it extraordinary that your god would not only allow, but command, that his son die for someone else's sake. I consider it child abuse. And abused children usually do as their parents tell them without argument. I cannot accept an offer of someone else to be punished in my place, just as I would not accept the murder of an animal as a substitute for my taking the responsibility for the consequences of my own actions. I do my best to be a decent, ethical, moral person. When I make a mistake, I do what I can to correct it, deal with whatever consequences I have to because of it, learn from it, resolve not to make the same mistake again.
I'm glad that you have a path that works for you. It just doesn't work for me because I find too much of the theology/doctrine/dogma - hwatever you wish to call it - either impossible to believe or morally reprehensible. And I am well aware of the Christian tradition of "Believe it even if it doesn't make sense to you." But I can't believe something that does not makes sense to me. And I can't worship a god who does things that I consider immoral.
May 14, 2007 10:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 10:32
Lepi:
1) I was stating a principle that applied to your statement that you were a former Christian. The principle is, according to the Bible, that there is no such thing as a "former Christian." One cannot be unborn again if one is born again in Christ. So in that respect, I don't need to know you to be able to say that what you said was untrue, according to the Scripture.
2) You are correct that your memory of Scripture is rusty because the Old Testament makes many references to Jesus and the resurrection, even if His name is not mentioned. Isaiah 53, for example, is a prophetic chapter completely about the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The expression "Jesus is hidden in the OT, and revealed in the NT" is true. In fact, I could teach the entire Gospel from the first three chapters of Genesis. Every major theme of the New Testament has its foundation in those three chapters.
3) You are correct that it is extraordinary that God would send His Son to bear the price of our sin and rebellion on the cross. It is also remarkable that the Son would obey the Father and actually go through with it. That is what the Bible calls "love." It is the most powerful force in the universe. It is the very nature of God. There is no way for us to comprehend the sufferings of Christ on the cross, except to understand that they were beyond our imagining.
You touch on one of the difficult concepts in the Bible when you address the issue of substitutionary atonement, i.e. that sins could be transferred from one being to another. Under the law of Moses, the people of Israel were instructed to sacrifice animals, whose spilled blood would cover, but not remove, the sins of the people. In the New Testament, Jesus is the Lamb of God, on whom our sins were transferred and whose blood not only covers our sins bur washes them away -- paid in full. There is no logical reason that this is true. It is one of the givens of the Bible. This is the way the spiritual world works.
Finally, you mention all the bloodshed in the Bible. The Bible is a very real book that reflects both the physical and spiritual reality of the world. The world is covered in blood. So is the Bible. The world is filled with imperfect people, so is the Bible. The key to the Bible is that, through God's love and Jesus' blood spilled on the cross, God has overcome the evil in the world and redeemed those who have faith in Jesus from it.
If you do an extensive study of the Bible, you will find that it is completely consistent book from beginning to end. The themes and truths expressed in the beginning are carried through right to the end. While we may not understand every last verse or every last story, God makes it very clear what He is saying about the nature of the spiritual world and our place in it.
The question is not whether the Bible makes sense, therefore, it is whether it is true or not. It is an important question because if it is true, there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ.
May 14, 2007 9:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 09:57
Rodriguez is just another example of a so-called Christian pastor with a vested interest and hidden agendas.
"The vast majority of evangelicals still consider the Mormon faith to be a heretic deviation from biblical orthodoxy."
I hasten to remind the Reverend that Christ also was reviled and rejected by his own kind. So, is that a test of His divinity? Since he was dis-approved by his own He should be dis-avowed as God? Did that remove Him from the God category? Was He "mainstream"?
Who set themselves up as the moral authority to deny the title of Christian to someone else? Where do they get their authority? They have only assumed it.
So-called Christians who claim to love God but revile their neighbors because they worship the same God un-like the way they do, belie their own beliefs.
May 13, 2007 4:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 13, 2007 16:43
maryland:
Your contradicting my comments about what I do and don't believe perfectly illustrate a big part of the problem among religions. Having never met me, knowing nothing about me other than what I have posted in this forum, you feel qualified to make declamatory statements regarding the nature of my relationship with the divine.
When I go to pagan gatherings, people of many different paths are there. I would never dream of telling someone who followed a different path than my own that s/he wasn't really pagan. And if one of my pagan friends were to convert to Christianity, I would certainly never tell her/him that s/he was never really pagan.
It's not up to me to define other people's faiths for them according to my own. Each person's walk with the divine entity of her/his choice is their own to define.
And just FYI, my reasons for no longer believing in the resurrection:
1- It makes no sense, even within Christian theology. If your god can raise people from the dead, then why didn't he do it more often? My memory of your scriptures is rusty, but I don't recall any mention of it in the OT. And there were only a few in the NT.
2- It negates the idea of Jesus as a sacrifice and makes him a hypocrite. According to your scriptures, he knew that he would rise again. So he didn't really give his life for anyone; at the most, he loaned it our for a few days. He experienced no net loss. If I do something that I know will kill me in order to save someone else's life, I know before I do so that I am giving up something precious that I cannot get back, and I have deemed the loss worthwhile. That's what makes it a sacrifice.
3- It paints your god as one sadistic s-o-b and a lousy parent, neither of which inspire worship. He brings a child into the world for the sole purpose of allowing him to be tortured to death for sins he didn't commit? What kind of parent is that? Would you hand your innocent child over to the state to be executed in place of a serial killer? Of course not! And even if you did, how would that absolve the serial killer's guilt? It wouldn't - it would simply add to it, for now he would not only have the blood of the people he killed on his hands, but also the blood of the innocent person who was killed in his stead.
May 11, 2007 1:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 13:43
Lepi:
Obviously it's a free country so people can believe what they want to believe.
My point was simply that the Bible provides clear statements about what it means to be a Christian. The Mormons contradict those statements yet still want everyone to call them Christians. This is dishonest. The Mormons should clearly state that they are a separate religion that believes things that contradict the Bible. Instead they want to have it both ways. They want to say "We believe the Bible" but then espouse doctrines that completely contradict Biblical truth.
Frankly, I don't think most Mormons know what their church really holds as doctrine -- the history of their theology is such a morass of oddball doctrines, not to mention a moving target. The central point that white males can become gods completely contradicts the Bible (based on a misintepretation of a single verse of scripture that is completely out of line with the sweep of Biblical truth from Genesis to Revelation). There are many web sites out there that will go point by point through Mormon theology and reveal the non-Biblical doctrines.
My point related to you was simply that, in my understanding of the Bible, once you are a Christian you are always a Christian. If you end up worshiping pagan idols later in life, then you were never really a Christian to begin with. Christianity is not about an intellectual decision we make about Christian doctrine, it is about a new birth in Christ. My experience is that those who experience this new birth personally know Jesus Christ, the Person, love Him dearly, are indwelt by His Holy Spirit, and simply could not truly leave Him.
Finally, you said you have ceased to believe in the resurrection. My experience is that people who believe in God but don't believe in the resurrection would not have any difficulty believing that God could raise a dead being to life again. After all, God is God. What troubles them is what the Bible says about the crucifixion and the resurrection -- i.e. that Jesus had to take upon Himself their sins and pay the price for them. In other words, they are helpless sinners dependent on the grace of a loving God. Many people have difficulty accepting that they are indeed sinners who need a Savior.
May 11, 2007 12:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 12:44
Maryland:
Your sciptures say that your faith is the only one true faith. You believe that your book is the only true book. That's fine for you.
Mormons believe there are two true books. Fine for them.
Many other faiths believe that their scriptures are the only truth. Fine for them.
I believe that no scripture is 100% applicable to all people, that all of it contains some truth, but none of it works for me in toto. Fine for me.
Some people believe that no scripture is true. Fine for them. It's all good.
May 10, 2007 6:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 18:17
lepidopteryx:
Fair enough. My original point, however, was that Christianity is, in fact, a one-size-fits-all faith. Jesus Himself said "I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Likewise, John wrote: "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
There is not a lot of wiggle room in those (and other) statements in the Bible.
Joseph Smith, a purported grifter in New York, claimed he dug up golden tablets (which no one besides himself ever saw)and created a whole new religion out of whole cloth, using the name of Jesus Christ and many Biblical words such as "salvation" and "grace" to put forward non-Biblical doctrines.
May 10, 2007 4:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 16:55
Maryland:
You are free to believe what you wish about whether or not I was ever a "real" Christian. I know what I was, what I believed, what I felt at the time I made my profession of faith, etc. What you believe about my afterlife destination really isn't relevant to anyone but you, as is what you believe about LDS' afterlife destination.
I now follw an eclectic path that includes some of the teachings of the monotheistic scriptures (Torah, New Testament, Qu'ran), as well as elements of Buddhism, Sufism, Mahikari, paganism, humanism, and other philosphies/theologies. I'd say that my path is predominantly pagan, and I have to say that I am happier and more spiritually balanced and at peace now than I ever was as a Christian. Your path works for you, and I am happy for you. But it does not work for me, just as my path would never work for you. When it comes to spirituality, one size does not fit all, which is why I don't care what religion a political candidate practices, as long as s/he is qualified and capable of doing the job.
May 10, 2007 8:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 08:51
Great comments Dale! My thoughts exactly!
May 10, 2007 2:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 02:11
great comments Dale! My thoughts exactly!
May 10, 2007 2:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 02:11
I seriously doubt that "America" continues to be suspicious of the Mormon religion. I hear far too many positive comments from people outside the church. Its true that the press and a few internet blogs like to increase readership by digging up issues like polygamy, which is the heritage of every Christian who believes in the Old Testament, and hasn't been practiced by Latter Day Saints in over 100 years. Sort of like arguing about the influence on upcoming elections of the president's wooden teeth... Oh..yeah.. no president has had wooden teeth in over 100 years...
As for being "mainstream Christians", I quite agree. Mormons are definitely not mainstream Christans. They did not participate in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials or any of many other atrocities commited in the name of Christ. In fact I am sure Christ himself is not "mainstream" either.
I am sure he would not condone the persecution of any religion claiming to do good and follow his teachings, or trying to make the world a better place. The fact is any person's Christianity is really between himself and Jesus Christ, and how closely he or she is committed to following the teachings of Jesus Christ, one of which is "thou shalt not judge."
May 10, 2007 12:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 00:54
Lepidopteryx:
I would respectfully submit that you were never truly a Christian in the true Biblical sense of what it means to be a Christian. Jesus told the Pharisee Nicodemus, a religious man, that no one could enter the kingdom of God unless he (or she) is born again of the Spirit. This is a much different standard than simply professing a belief in the resurrection of Jesus. It means, in a spiritual sense, a laying down of one's old life apart from God and a rebirth into new life in the body of Christ. The only way this can occur is, to use a common expression, to do business with God on the basis of the cross of Jesus. You can be a very religious person and not be born again. Indeed, the religious people of Jesus' times were the very people who crucified Him.
Why do you need to do business with God on the basis of the cross? You mention the idea of karma -- that you get what you deserve. The same idea is true in Christianity. Apart from God's grace, you get what you deserve for your sins. The God of the Bible doesn't grade on a curve. His standard is perfection. To enter God's presence and His kingdom, one must be holy and perfect -- 99.9 percent doesn't get you in. You can be the kindest, most moral person in the world and a single sin will separate you from God's presence for eternity.
The only solution the Bible offers is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. He took upon Himself our sins and in exchange gave us His righteousness and holiness -- his perfection. This divine exchange is at the heat of Christianity.
The Bible acknowledges that this is hard to believe. In fact, Paul wrote: "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those of us who are being saved it is the power of God."
The question at hand is not whether it is hard to believe or whether it makes sense to our minds. The question at hand is whether it is true or not. I would encourage anyone to explore this question fully before answering. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." Those who seek will find.
May 9, 2007 4:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 16:56
Could members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) be more "Christian" than Evangelicals? . . Oral traditions of Jewish and early Christian temple worship and portions of the Apocrypha referred to “mysteries”:
Early Christian churches, continued the Jewish temple worship traditions:
1) Baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family
2) Lay clergy
3) Anointing with holy oil after baptism
4) Then clothing in white clothing
An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. http://www.imj.org.il/eng/exhibitions/2000/christianity/ancientchurch/structure/index.html
.
And read Exodus Ch 29 for Aaron and his sons” ordinances. . Jewish Temple practices were continued by Christians prior to the time of the Emperor Constantine [see St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.) Lecture XXI]. . . Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them
A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ being separate, divine beings, united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?
The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity, which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."
Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. . . .He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity.
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) have concern for their ancestors” spiritual welfare, so they practice proxy baptism. (1 Corinthians 15:29 & Malachi 4:5-6).
Only members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue these practices of First Century Christians. The Cross became popular in the Fifth Century A.D. But Mormons don”t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”:. All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.
It”s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be the more authentic Christian. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.
* * *
And the National Study of Youth and Religion done by UNC-Chapel Hill in 2005 found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LDS Evangelical
Attend Religious Services weekly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71% . . . . 55%
Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life –
extremely important . . . 52. . . . . . 28
Believes in life after death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 . . . . . . 62
Believes in psychics or fortune-tellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . 5
Has taught religious education classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 . . . . . . 28
Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline . . . . . . . . . . . .68 . . . . . . 22
Sabbath Observance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . . . . . . 40
Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 . . . . . . 56
Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . 19
Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen
(very supportive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 . . . . . . 26
Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping
Teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality . . . 84 . . . . . . 35
May 9, 2007 2:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 14:36
Kathy,
Disclosing typical anti-mormon literature without supporting your argument is declaring your ignorance to the religion and revealing your animosity towards it. Much of what you said is utterly false and therefore disqualifies the remainder of your statements.
May 9, 2007 12:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 12:03
Did you know: that the word gospel means "Good News". that when Jesus was born the Angels announced to the world that this was Good News for all people and Peace to whom God's favor rests which happens to be two distinct messages think about it. that Jesus asked us to forgive everybody for everything an infinite number of times, do you think that God asked us to be more forgiving than God Himself think about it. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
May 9, 2007 10:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 10:47
I was raised in Utah, a Morman. Mormans believe they will be gods in the celestial kinghdom and have more than one wife. A married women,the only kind that will reach this highest heavenly kingdom, can only get there if her husband makes it. When they become gods, they will be over a kingdom like earth and you, my heathen friend, will be the subject of their little land. They are told that they should seek public offic to one day transform this land into the kingdom of zion. Please, check the morm,an teachings closely before voting to put a Morman of high standing in office.
May 9, 2007 9:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 09:32
Maryland:
If a Christian is a person who believes in the resurrected Jesus, then I am a former Christian. I once believed in the resurrection; I no longer do. I once believed in Santa; I no longer do. I once believed there were monsters under my bed; I no longer do. Beliefs change.
I find much wisdom in your book, as well as much dreck. I find much wisdom and much dreck in the scriptures of other faiths as well. I find much wisdom and much dreck in secular writings. I take wisdom where I find it and incorporate it into my rather eclectic spiritual path. Often the wisdom in different paths overlaps. I leave the dreck behind, no matter what its source.
I find that the passages in which Jesus encourages the sharing of one's bounty with those who have less to be worthwhile. Christianity is hardly the only faith that espouses that. I find ,most of your ten commandments to be practical guidelines for living - respect your elders, set aside time to feed your spirit. The commandments against false witness, theft, murder, adultery, and covetousness could be condsensed into one - If it isn't yours, don't mess with it. But I will not remove my altar to my gods from my living room. I reject the idea that there is only one true path. And don't even get me started on Paul.
I find that Buddhism's eight-fold path - right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right consciousness to be highly practical, with the added benefit of not requiring belief in a deity. Christianity has its "fruits of the spirit" which are similar, but posits that it is impossible to live this way without its god.
I find that the concept of karma in many Eastern faiths also makes sense. What you put out, you get back. Again, your faith also has the idea of 'reaping what you sow."
I find that the respect for the natural world in paganism makes a whole lot of sense. The more we hurt the planet, the more we hurt ourselves. Composting, organic gradening, and conscientious consumption are acts of worship for me. And that overlaps with "dressing and keeping the garden."
These overlapping ideas among many faiths are part of the reason that I believe there are multiple valid paths and that each individual should choose the path that best suits him or her.
May 9, 2007 9:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 09:11
The fundamental issue with accepting Mormonism as a "branch" of the modern fundamentalist wing of Christianity or even Christianity as a whole lies with two questions: one, who is it that has the right to determine whether or not such an inclusion is apropos, and two, whether or not the inclusion of Mormonism in Christianity would exert any undue pressure, whether openly or more subversively, on the faith to change to fit basic aspects of the Christian doctrine.
As it stands, Mormonism clearly rejects several basic tenets of fundamentalist Christianity. As a former evangelical, I know that many of the shapers of Christian doctrine in the various branches of Christianity would take tremendous issue with the inclusion of Mormonism in their loose "umbrella" of different faiths.
Aside from my personal view that religion should play no role in the public sphere and that such a distinction between whether or not one is a Christian is wholly-irrelevant to their practice of their own individual faith and their personal relationship with the God that they have constructed (which, by virtue of one's own mind, is at once similar and yet radically different from all other interpretations of certain faiths, let alone different faiths altogether), it is important to acknowledge that the so-called "spirit of Mormonism" might very well erode under the pressures to conform with Christian doctrine if it is included under that aforementioned umbrella.
In reality, this distinction is important to a great many Americans, if not politically. Will Mormonism have its wings clipped by other Christian sects if it is considered a member of the flock? The answer, in my mind, is a resounding yes.
May 9, 2007 8:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 08:57
Hi, Danny B - I hope you're still tuning in to this thread.
I was happy to see your mention of St Peter as the first Pope, because I remembered learning that, too, as a kid.
Meanwhile, I since learned that the Catholic Church wasn't even established until after the council of Nicea in 325 - way after Peter's time. And it was Paul, not Jesus, who spread the ideas that eventually became called Christianity. Jesus didn't coin that term. Later followers did.
Pretty interesting, huh?
May 9, 2007 8:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 08:41
Every church leader whant his church to grow. They do anything they can to find "a lost sheep" and recruit it to their church. It does not matter if the leader is Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical or any other church. Everyone is looking for people.
Church leaders with theological training are trained for this, and they take classes in mission, evangelism and discipleship training. Who is doing the blame game? Evangelicals are growing, and as I see it there is a competition in finding all "lost sheeps".
Most of the times this so called "lost sheep" is a burned out Christian that have experienced a little bit too much pain from his/her own church. They are looking for another place to worship God.
Does this so called lost sheep have a will of their own? Of course. Evangelicals have very often won the battle before, and the lost sheep (often a Catholic or Orthodox) becomes an Evangelical.
But.. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are also in this competition. They also want to grow (as all the other churches). Evangelicals are shouting out loud warnings, because they want the little lost sheep to come to them.
Is it possible that Evangelical leaders have an agenda of their own in this matter? Personally I think so. Evangelical leaders are paid to recruit lost sheep, and their salary is growing if their church is growing. Money talks, and it seems that it is talking a lot, and loud.
May 9, 2007 6:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 06:56
By what criteria are you defining "Christian?" The Christianity that was established by Jesus Christ when he was upon the earth? The one with apostles, prophets, an ardent and committed missionary force, and the law to "love thy neighbor as thyself?" Or a religious philosophy that has evolved and changed over the centuries; that allows itself to be the judge of all other religions--and say what they are and what they are not? Perhaps it is our definitions, and not our daffy notions--that need to be examined and compared.
May 9, 2007 6:49 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 06:49
From a solider in Iraq-
We daily see the pompous effects of acts committed in the name of belief and religion. For all those here that proclaim the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to not be Christian I hold up the unending acts of kindness and charity that the LDS Church has performed over the last few years. The constant acts of service rendered by the church to persons caught up in natural disasters round the globe alone demonstrate the Christ like intentions of the church. By their acts shall ye know them.
Here in Iraq I have met Figian soldiers serving our country that know of Mormons and many others that have come here to help out from arround the world. The trend is that the Church of Jesus Christ has done more to demonstrate is christian attributes than any other proclaimed christian organization out there.
May 9, 2007 5:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 05:44
Why aren`t these posts working? I type my brilliant words for all to see. I push the submit button and my wisdom disappears into the ether. IS the WAPO prejudiced against me or am I just paranoid?
May 9, 2007 4:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 04:24
America, like other nations, has always been bigoted against and intolerant of people that it does not like. They disapprove and resent people who say what they do not what to hear or see. It is only the Walt Disney version of the always decent American who can do no wrong that you are talking about. In your dreams. If you do not believe me just ask Joe McCarthy, Black people, Asians, Hispanics, the poor, Japanese internees during WWII. America believes in every man for himself. Fairness is a function of the bottom line not ethics or morality or altruism. Stop romancing with your nicely drawn analysis that has left realities out of the equation.
May 9, 2007 4:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 04:22
To Emanuel A Floor:
Those were very insightful and kind comments. I think you might well send a letter to that same effect to President Hinckley, and he would redouble his efforts to try and teach the members to recognize the good in all religious faiths and the importance of showing that in how we treat others daily. Granted, the LDS are very imperfect in this. Your comments need the careful consideration of all LDS who may read this blog. Thanks for the insights from your perspective and that of your wonderful children.
May 9, 2007 1:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 01:59
A noble effort to please your editor, Mr. Rodriguez.
May 9, 2007 1:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 01:37
Seattle Liberal:
I don't know for sure what your assumption was regarding the New Testament and if one believes additional books (or testimonies of Christ) can be added or not. Might I add something additional to what Henry James has already contributed:
I've come across a number of times the argument that because Revelation 22:18 states "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book", many believe that no additional scripture can be added. This argument could not be further from the truth. The books in the New Testament are not all in chronological order. If it were, Revelations would not have been the last book in the New Testament, causing every book written after John's Revelations invalid and blasphemous.
In addition, the Old Testament states the same thing. So should we disregard the New Testament altogether? Of course not. Those statements were written by John the Revelator for his book - not others.
May 9, 2007 1:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 01:25
I wish On Faith had a FAQ so people could stop mass-posting the same questions, hoping to stump someone else on another board. For those who try to convince themselves that Mormon doctrine is incorrect on deity, you can follow this link to R. Albert Mohler Jr's blog where someone else posted the same thing. A commenter by the name of "RENE" argued it very well. You can find the link here:
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/r_albert_mohler_jr/2007/05/is_mormonism_in_the_mainstream.html
May 9, 2007 1:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 01:08
I was born a member of the Greek Orthodox Church in Salt Lake City, Utah. As a teenager I was a friend to many Mormons and attended their Seminary Classes in High School.I reached the point where I thought I might join the Mormon Church. I understood their concepts and I was impressed by the calibre of the members I knew -- but when push came to shove it was my association with the Greek culture and strong association with the Roman Catholic Church that kept me well grounded in the beliefs and teachings that have the basis of my religious life. Eventually I affiliated with the Catholic Church where I have found great peace in the simplicity of the mass. I found that the Mormons have beliefs and opinions that counter mine. I live peacefully among them and at 71 am glad I rejected the Mormon lessons I was taught. Living in Salt Lake City gives me an upfront view of the pressures that are everywhere for Mormon Church members. The Mormons say: :"live in the World but do not become a part of the World." I am glad that I live among the Mormons but am not a part of their religious world. Many Mormons fail to realize that all people want to be and are good parents, live decent lives and love God. Many Mormons tend to believe that they alone have a corner on all of these atributes. When our daughter, then 7, was told by her Mormon friends that because she was not a Mormon she could not have Family Home Evening on Monday Nights -- her response was simply - "at our house we have family home evening every night of the week." When Mormons learn they alone are not the only people that have family values -- and that all people have value in the eyes of God -- they will find more friends. Many are so involved in their daily and weekly programs that they seem to lack a real devotion to God. It has always seemed to me that their connection to records, numbers, units, etc., leaves out the devotions that many of us find so important. Their form of worship is very simple and their meetings are essentialy filled with teachings by their leaders on all of their beliefs. They spend a lot of time reminding themselves what they believe and reinforcing the lessons. It is a form of "worship" far different than anything most people know or desire.
May 8, 2007 11:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 8, 2007 23:51
Mormons should not worry about Evangelicals calling them non-Christians, because many of these same people call Catholics (and others) non-Christians. For some samples, try Googling "Are C