CHRISTIANITY DEFINED - (LDS Site Defining Christianity) OPEN

LDS site Foundation for Christian Studies ^

[greyfoxx39]

[snip]

 

 

CHRISTIAN DEFINED One might think that defining a Christian would be simple. Webster’s Dictionary defines the word Christian to mean “adherent of Christianity”, or “relating to or professing a belief in Christianity or Jesus Christ.” Simply put, a Christian is defined as one who believes in Jesus Christ. The Encyclopedia Britannica states: “…writers of Christian history normally begin phenomenologically when discussing Christian identity; that is, they do not bring norms or standards by which they have determined the truth of this or that branch of Christianity or even of the faith tradition as a whole but identify everyone as Christian who call themselves Christian.” According to Britannica, a revered source in continuous publication since 1768, a Christian is plainly defined as someone who calls themselves a Christian. Some Refute the Defining of a Christian Despite the simplicity of the aforementioned definitions, there are some individuals and institutions who sternly contend that there are self-described Christians, and in fact entire sects of self-proclaimed Christian religions, who should not be considered Christians at all. As odd as this may seem, such allegations are common and emotionally charged. The website religioustolerance.org attempted to define a Christian and described the exercise as a “lightning rod,” and that the conclusions they came up with generated “many emails from angry Christians who denounce it,” especially among “Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants.” The FCS encourages visitors to examine the content generated by religioustolderance.org on the subject of defining a Christian . Reminiscent of the Pharisees of old, the contentious individuals and institutions who deny the Christianity of others often utilize their personal interpretation of scripture and synthetic dogma to support their assertions. They contend the privilege of earning the Christian label is dependent on such things as being born again, believing in the Triune God, accepting certain creeds, and/or belonging to a particular faith community. The absurdity of the dynamic reaches its pinnacle when those who bear testimony of their devotion to Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and Redeemer are rebuked and denied the Christian marker by those who disagree with their religion and/or theological beliefs. It causes one to ponder—what would Jesus do? Historical Perspective The word “Christian” appears three times in the scriptures, all three in the New Testament. Acts 11:26 reveals that the Disciples of Christ were first referred to as Christians in Antioch, indicating those who followed Christ were starting to be referred to as Christians. Before that time it was common for those who followed Christ to refer to one another as brothers (or brethren), disciples, or believers. In Acts 26:20 King Agrippa tells Paul “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian,” likely indicating the term “Christian” was beginning to be used (perhaps even regularly) to refer to a believer in Christ. In 1 Peter 4:16, Peter refers to those who would “suffer as a Christian,” signifying that those who consider themselves Christian should be happy in their persecutions and trials. In all three scriptural references that use the term Christian, not one denotes any further requirement to be a Christian other than believing in and following Jesus Christ. In the Greek language (ancient and modern) it’s common to refer to a group of people by taking the root geographic location or ethnicity of that people and to add the suffix “anos.” For instance, those from the Cretan village of Spili are referred to as Spilianos, and a follower of Mohammed (Moameth in Greek) is referred to as Moamethanos. The reference to Christians in the original Greek translation of the New Testament is Christianos, meaning a follower of Christ. Although the term Christianos is historically believed to have been used in a derogatory sense by unbelievers, the meaning of the word remains. When one combines the three New Testament references to Christian, the historical context of the time, and the linguistics of the original Greek, one must conclude that a Christian is simply one who follows and/or believes in Christ. Should one desire to create a deeper definition of a Christian using 1 Peter 4:16, then the most far reaching conclusion that can be drawn is that a Christian is one who not only follows Christ, but more deeply puts their trust in him, is reliant upon him, and seeks to live a life that exemplifies him—all difficult traits to quantify and thus of little value in defining a Christian. The Testimony of an Apostle as a Litmus Test One would never doubt the testimony of the apostle Peter, despite the fact he had his own moments of weakness during the trial and Atonement of Christ. When asked by the Savior “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter boldly replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, ” to which Jesus Christ confirmed “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 16;15-17). Perhaps we can use Peter’s testimony as a litmus test for all prospective Christians: do they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God? If the answer is affirmative, then they are indeed a Christian. Jesus Christ in Humility was Inclusionary Jesus Christ never administered any theological exams to his disciplines, nor established any notable prerequisites to being a Christian other than to believe on him as the Son of God. Many were healed of the vilest of infirmities by simply believing in Jesus Christ as one who had the authority to perform such healings. There is no mention in the scriptures that the healed were made whole because they embraced the doctrine of the trinity, nor because they were classified as born again, nor because they belonged to a particular sect of believers. They were healed because they believed, or were blessed to have a believer intercede on their behalf, that Jesus was the Christ. Jesus was never one to be exclusionary in his ministry, but rather inclusionary across a broad spectrum. This is beautifully illustrated in Luke 9:49-50 which reads: “And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” Jesus did not ask about their specific belief system, nor what group of disciples they congregated with. Rather, Jesus proclaimed that those who act in His name are to be considered His disciples. Many Christians today would do well to understand this passage of scripture and apply it to their own actions towards others. The World in Pride is Exclusionary If Jesus was so inclusionary, why then do we have modern day Pharisees fighting so hard to narrow the definition of a Christian—even to the persecution of fellow Christians? Do these individuals, like the apostle John in the passage from Luke 9, seek for a more exclusive club and complain when others call themselves Christian but don’t practice the same rituals or beliefs as they do? The likely root of the reason for such passionate denials of Christianity upon others is pride and arrogance. Such pride can manifest itself into a fear of not clearly understanding the theological beliefs of others, nor taking the time to earnestly do so, thus resulting in the easier resolution of flatly denying to acknowledge another’s Christianity. There may be fear that such acknowledgement will lead to acceptance of another’s beliefs leading to a loss of membership or validity in their own religion. Greed may play a role in the denial of the Christian label by ecclesiastical leaders resisting the loss of tithe paying members by employing a strategy of quiet slander towards other denominations. Additionally, one cannot rule out the possibility of Saul’s Syndrome, where like Saul who persecuted the Christians of old out of his zeal for the law, well intentioned individuals seek to protect the faith—when in essence they are fighting against the true will of God. Excerpt from the article on Saul's Syndrome: in keeping others from the truth. Consider the Pharisee Saul before his radical conversion to the Lord when he afterwards became Paul. Through his disciplined spiritual education among the finest teachers in Jerusalem, and an unrivaled passion to protect the ways of the Lord as he knew it, Saul persecuted and fought against the spread of Christianity—even unto death among those he victimized. Paul was so blinded by his passion for what he believed to be right that he never considered that his interpretation of the scriptures and his spiritual belief system may be wrong. It wasn’t until the Lord himself appeared to Saul that he relinquished his incorrect interpretation of God’s doctrine and embraced the true gospel. How many millions today suffer from the same syndrome as Saul where religious passion overcomes the promptings of the Holy Ghost? No matter what the specific reasons are, the resulting fruits of such denials of Christianity are disunity in the body of Christ, the spread of misinformation, and the sowing of seeds of ”discord among brethren” (Prov. 6:19). Differences in Gospel Living, but all are Christians Beyond being identified as a Christian, there is an abundance of doctrine in the scriptures that helps explain true Christian beliefs and practices—even “the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2: 9-10). Some Christian theology is simple to understand, while other theological concepts are more difficult. Paul to the Corinthians and Hebrews used the metaphors of milk and meat to indicate there were simple doctrines (milk) and more complex doctrines (meat) (1 Cor. 3:2 and Heb. 5:12), and that one must be able to digest the milk before moving on to the more difficult to digest meat. Paul points out that there may be various stages of understanding of the doctrines of Christianity among Christians. This difference in doctrinal understanding, combined with the moral agency of mankind that can lead to good and bad choices, results in their being stronger Christians who live their lives according to the precepts espoused by Jesus Christ (Matt. 25:34-36), and weaker Christians who find it difficult to live their lives in accordance with the gospel (Matt. 7:21-23). Regardless of what stage there are in, both are Christians and both must individually exercise their moral agency to accept or reject the ordinances and principles of the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Likewise, both must accept the consequences of their actions in the Day of Judgment. There will be Christians (valiant and less valiant) in all three kingdoms in the eternities—perhaps even some who will end up relegated into outer darkness. Conclusion It is the hope and prayer of the FCS that the Christian world can unite on the simple principle of allowing everyone who claims Jesus Christ as their Savior to be respectfully referred to as a Christian without caveats. We can peacefully and considerately coexist as brothers and sisters in Christ, while ascribing to different Christian beliefs and church affiliations. Imagine what we can accomplish as a diverse Christian family working together to fulfill God’s purposes on earth.

[Elsie]

(LDS Site Defining Christianity)

You have GOT to be ******* me; RIGHT??

---

[Tennessee Nana]

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
____________________________________________

Oh, I dunn know...

Ted Bundy was rebaptised by the mormons recently...and given temple endowments...

[Elsie]

Where ya been?

[Elsie]

I predict prophecy that the #1 definition will be the one that most folks who follow these threads will say "AMEN!" to!

[Tennessee Nana]

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
____________________________________________

Ya think ????

Murderers and thieves and debaucherers usually are not popular...

Joey Smith was all those evil things and more...

Joey Smith loved himself and that was more than enough lovin’ for him...

[Tennessee Nana]

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
_________________________________________

Until they all run away from the “prophet” and then he has to go after them with his Danites..

Yes, Smith was not a popular guy...

Men do get mad when a prophet steals their wives...

and scams them for their life savings...

Why would that be ???

[greyfoxx39]

Clearly the "open" threads are more popular - people love a train wreck, if it bleeds it leads, and many are drawn like moths to a flame, putting more blood in the water, attracting more sharks and so it spirals. (How about that for mixing metaphors?)

Hmmmm...sounds kind of negative towards those who take part in the open threads, and there are quite a few of us, on threads on various beliefs.

So are you saying that proselytizing unchallenged, (and closed threads are nothing more than that), is more acceptable to you? If FReepers want to just discuss amongst themselves, a PM would be every bit as effective as a Devotional thread.

If this "proselytizing without challenge" were carried on in the world, would the independent Christian churches, of which there are many, who pay for one or two missionaries out of their members' pockets be equally represented with the churches that can call upon millions of dollars for tens of thousands of missionaries and for TV PR advertising?

Gee, it's sounding kind of like "Pay to Play".

[Tennessee Nana]

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.
___________________________________________________________

Jesus must have laughed when He read this blasphemy...

[Elsie]

 

If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

 

 

 

ANYBODY???

 

Even a fine looking fellow like THIS???

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Elsie]

The LDS is a business, not a faith.

The website is lds.ORG - fitting for an ORGANIZATION that owns real estate and farms and malls and publishing houses and newspapers and stores and ...

[Tennessee Nana]

AHHHHH

A new pic of Joe Smith...

With a natural skin tone...

[svcw]

Ok, I give. What the hell is that thing in the picture. It is so vile, yet I can not turn away.

[Elsie]

And so he is compelled to speak up, particularly if he is an "ex."

I heartily disagree!

I'm nowhere CLOSE to an 'ex' and I am one of the loudest mouths out here!

---

Here are MY marching orders:

NIV Matthew 28:18-20
18. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

KJV Luke 14:22-23
22. And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.
23. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

[greyfoxx39]

Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

Let's see....Benson said that in 1980...did he know there was a Constitution? What kind of "involvement" would require a "prophet"?

Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[2] The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[3] The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878,[4] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.[5] This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

Wikipedia

[Elsie]

But if they are thin skinned they shouldn't even read them.

Possibly, but if LURKERS want to understand MUCH of BOTH sides of an argument, they should avoid the CLOSED threads that allow no discussion of the opposing veiw.

[Elsie]

It very well might be, as some of the discussions on it are of an LDS nature, but it's not sanctioned by the LDS church, nor is it done by the LDS church.

While the BoM merely plagarizes stuff from the BIBLE, shouldn't the LDS Organization be required to say what it added as NEW STUFF?

---

FARMS and FAIRLDS are not 'connected' (wink-wink) with the MORMON church, either, but MORMONs on FR have NO problem with using what they find there to try to support the LDS religion.

[Elsie]

= = =

[Elsie]

The qualifier, "by far," seems quite strange.

Might be due to the weekend RM.

[SkyPilot]

Nowhere on the that site’s homepage does it cite the term “Mormon” - and the only place it lists LDS is where it gives a link to this:

“Catholic to LDS”

The LDS crowd has a history of attempting to recruit Catholics into the Mormon cult.

Excerpt:

The Executive Director and Founder of the Foundation for Christian Studies is Eric Shuster, who along with his wife Marilyn, left the rich and beautiful traditions of the Catholic faith to become members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1989. Before their conversion to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, both Eric and Marilyn were active and devoted Catholics—Marilyn having been a Franciscan Nun with a bachelor’s degree in Catholic Theology from the distinguished University of Saint Thomas in Houston Texas, and Eric having served in lay ministry and leadership positions in Texas and California. Their story of conversion, along with comprehensive comparisons of key doctrines between Catholicism and Mormonism, will be available in a forthcoming book scheduled for an April 2009 release preliminarily titled Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest.

Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest is the captivating story of Eric and Marilyn’s conversion from Catholicism to Mormonism with comparisons of 40 key doctrines between both religions that drove their life-changing decision.

[Elsie]

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

My how the Restored® have mellowed over the years! (Not OFFICIALLY, that is)

---

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/17#17

  17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
  18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
  20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”