Mormons are my favorite Christians today!

[RayThom]

With family values like this... Mitt Romney for President.

Romney / Jindal... 2016

[MajGenl.Meade]

I do hope not. I'm sure Hils is hoping he will run. Probably contributing to his campaign fund about now.

[dgs49]

We've had the Christian/Mormon discussion several times in the past, and on this Board it is simply a matter of people insisting that if Mormons call themselves "Christians" that's OK - because they know it is irritating to Mead and other Christians who may be posting here.

If one were to consider a woman who goes around calling herself a "Catholic Priest" - and there are many such women - anyone with a three digit IQ would perceive that the said woman "priest" is delusional. But if people who believe that Adam, Christ, and the Archangel Michael are the same person call themselves, "Christians," that's cool, and nobody can tell them different.

[rubato]

Protestants say Catholics aren't "really Christians", Catholics say Protestants aren't "really Christians", Seventh-Day-Adventists say that everyone who does not worship on the Sabbath aren't "really Christians", Jehovah's Witnesses say that no one but them are "really Christians", Apostolic Lutherans are doubtful about whether anyone else are "really Christians".

The wikipedia entry describes it this way:

"... Between denominations, theologians, and comparative religionists there are considerable disagreements about which groups can be properly called Christian, disagreements arising primarily from doctrinal differences between groups. For the purpose of simplicity, this list is intended to reflect the self-understanding of each denomination. ... "

Ho-hum. Its all made-up delusions and bullshit. I measure them by their collective behavior. Morally Catholics and mainline Protestants are the worst and most corrupt and their church institutions are the most evil. The Vatican has been a paragon of corruption for all of recorded history. Mennonites, Amish, some Quakers are the most god-like* in their behavior. But nobody is perfect.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Protestants say Catholics aren't "really Christians", Catholics say Protestants aren't "really Christians",

You obviously haven't gotten the memos...

Morally Catholics and mainline Protestants are the worst and most corrupt and their church institutions are the most evil.

"Most evil" (well, "most ignorant" anyway) is a characterization I would reserve for those who view those who disagree with them as "most evil"...

ETA:

Characterizing those who have honest disagreements with them as "evil" is a habit of the simple minded....

[MajGenl.Meade]

For the purpose of simplicity, this list is intended to reflect the self-understanding of each denomination. ...

Oh well, for the purposes of simplistic minds, "self-understanding" is a whole lot better than wrestling with any meaningful reality.

Reality is both better and simple - the Christian faith (which is not at all the same thing as a person's claim to be a Christian) is one which does not contradict the teachings of Jesus as found in the Bible.

As far as I know, only protestant denominations seek to conform to that standard - it being noted that Quakers, Amish and Mennonites are protestant. The Roman church, as with Mormons, JWs, Christian Science etc. follows "Jesus plus" in one variation or another... The Orthodox churches... I don't know much about them but if they teach that Mary is the intercessor between humankind and Jesus, let alone the Father, then they're off-beam.

The disagreements revolve around the degree to which a non-biblical doctrine (such as purgatory and the immaculate conception) removes a faith from the proper definition of "Christian". Believing that Mary remained a virgin (despite Jesus having brothers and sisters) might be a harmless variant whereas believing God was once a man is directly and utterly at odds.

Surely, there are Christians (more importantly, the saved) amongst the congregants of all those variations. In some cases, such would have to ignore that their own church teachings contradict the Bible. As to behavior, yep... we're all deficient there. That chap Paul said it best: "I am the worst of sinners". I think he had in mind that those who do (or should) know better are in worse shape than those who do not know... it's explained in a letter to the Romans, oddly enough.

[Big RR]

We've had the Christian/Mormon discussion several times in the past, and on this Board it is simply a matter of people insisting that if Mormons call themselves "Christians" that's OK - because they know it is irritating to Mead and other Christians who may be posting here.

If one were to consider a woman who goes around calling herself a "Catholic Priest" - and there are many such women - anyone with a three digit IQ would perceive that the said woman "priest" is delusional. But if people who believe that Adam, Christ, and the Archangel Michael are the same person call themselves, "Christians," that's cool, and nobody can tell them different.

Come on Dave; the anglican/episcopal church ordains women "priests", so it's hardly delusional (unless you either believe that only roman catholics can ordain "priests"). As for a woman calling herself a "catholic priest", my recollection is that catholic means universal and is much bigger than the church of Rome (many churches recite catholic church as part of their beliefs in both the Apostles and Nicene creeds even though they are not RC), so I see nothing delusional there either. Can a woman be a roman catholic priest? I'll leave that to the RC church which makes the rules that apply to the RC church.
The same is true regarding Christians; I'll fully agree that one cannot (or really should not) call oneself a roman catholic or a Lutheran or Episcopalian or whatever without complying with the rules of those denominations; but no one, not you nor Meade nor the pope or anyone else has any right defining what one must do to be a Christian. And if you find that viewpoint "irritating", there's nothing I can do about it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

but no one, not you nor Meade nor the pope or anyone else has any right defining what one must do to be a Christian

I don't have a "right" to say that a rose isn't a giraffe either. Leaving aside individuals (and what "one must do", which is not and has not been under discussion) and speaking of organizations, I'm pretty sure that Westboro Baptist isn't a Christian church - are you? And then there's the Lord's Resistance Army - I have no problem saying they are not a Christian church. Do you?

Branch Davidians? No (well, especially these days). People's Temple - no. How about a group with the doctrine that Jesus is the brother of the devil or that God was a man or that Jesus was the Archangel Michael in the flesh? No, I don't think those would be Christian churches since they deny what Jesus claimed to be true.

It seems to me - and by all means correct my error - that any group that denies what Jesus taught and teaches contrarily is defining itself as non-Christian, regardless of whose name they sling into their pamphlets.

Please note that I'm not taking up any contentious issue such as "women can't be pastors" as a defining characteristic.

[Big RR]

Meade--that's exactly the problem--we all have different ideas about what jesus has taught and how we should live; which is why we have many christian denominations. Christianity is, IMHO, a big tent which includes many with whom we'd disagree on many matters of doctrine. So whether you or I or anyone else considers any of the groups you cited Christian is of no real import; IMHO they can call themselves what they choose and we can say not all Christians believe what they do and that many believe the exact opposite.

Now I do have a problem understanding your position, however; you appear to have major doctrinal differences with some branches traditionally recognized as Christian (like roman catholicism) and yet refuse to say they are not chrisitan, while you say others which are not traditionally recognized as Christian (like the LDS) are not chrisitian. But I doubt it's the widespread recognition that drives your opinion, so what is it? Is saying a man has the power to forgive sins less of a doctrinal departure than the holy garments?

[MajGenl.Meade]

we all have different ideas about what jesus has taught

No, we don't. What he taught is written down. Do you mean we apply it differently?

ETA: I get a bit close tho'

The Roman church, as with Mormons, JWs, Christian Science etc. follows "Jesus plus" in one variation or another...

The disagreements revolve around the degree to which a non-biblical doctrine (such as purgatory and the immaculate conception) removes a faith from the proper definition of "Christian". Believing that Mary remained a virgin (despite Jesus having brothers and sisters) might be a harmless variant whereas believing God was once a man is directly and utterly at odds

I'm not one who leans much to the whore and beast of Babylon approach. Not today anyway.

[Big RR]

Apply it? No; but perhaps different understandings of the teachings.

As foeliever the differences you attribute to the RC church; one is that every ordained priest has the ability (power) to forgive sins (on behalf of god. I b)? And also that those sins can be unforgiven and retained (which is why excommunication is such a fearful thing to some). Is that in line with your understanding of Jesus' teachings?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I agree with the position that both parts that you mention are a misapplication of John 20:23. Not speaking koine Greek myself, I have to rely on those who do (or claim to). For a protestant, the "rule" is that if there are two contrasted understandings of the Greek, then one must look to the uncontested passages to see which of the two comports and which, if either, does not.

The Roman application is utterly at variance with Jesus' teachings on sin, not to mention those of Peter, Paul - but not Mary - James and the writer to the Hebrews. It has more to do with wielding temporal power than with Christ, IMO.

It is of a different order of magnitude to claiming that God was once a man or that Christ is the brother of the devil - neither of which is remotely any misapplication of koine Greek.

You sidestepped all my questions while I seek to respond to yours. Why is that?

[Big RR]

Meade--inasmuch that the questions you have asked me involve whether I believe certain churches are Christian or not, I answered them by saying my opinion does not matter as I have no control of the term Christian. So while I find the positions (at least the positions I know) of WBC to be at odds with my understanding of the teachings of jesus, to me that is immaterial as to whether they are a christian denomination or not. If they want tot call themselves christian, I will not waste my time saying they are not, but will point out the beliefs that are incongruous with those teachings. Ditto for the other groups you pointe out.

[quoteThe Roman application is utterly at variance with Jesus' teachings on sin, not to mention those of Peter, Paul - but not Mary - James and the writer to the Hebrews. It has more to do with wielding temporal power than with Christ, IMO.

It is of a different order of magnitude to claiming that God was once a man or that Christ is the brother of the devil - neither of which is remotely any misapplication of koine Greek.
][/quote]

Personally, application or misapplication of ancient greek manuscripts, I find the belief that there is no salvation/forgiveness other than through the RC church (and its clergy) is a lot more problematic to my understanding of the teachings of jesus than those LDS claims you cite (which I am taking at face value as I do not have the time to research them.

And yet I am content to allow them to call themselves what they will.

[wesw]

so you should also be content with calling the terrorists muslims fighting for their faith and their god, as they say as much....

[MajGenl.Meade]

You must get uncomfortable with that fence jammed up your butt, Big RR I say this with awe and admiration.

I give up (not a chance). Groups can call themselves Christian no matter what their beliefs are and no matter how false their teachings are to Jesus and Christianity -and you think that's just fine. Not only that, but you declare that no one has a "right" to say that their bizarre unchristian teachings that contradict Jesus in fact mean that they are not "Christian" at all. Kind of robs words of any real meaning doesn't it? Alice in Wonderlands all round, bartender!

I'm actually not seeking to mandate that you should or shouldn't call Mormons Christians or not-Christians. You on the other hand are seeking to mandate that I should not say they are not. Odd.

[Big RR]

Meade--if you and I were both named Bill, you'd have no right to demand that I stop calling myself Bill because all "Bills" act and behave as you do; you do not own the word Bill and have no right to say what a Bill must be or believe, nor do I. The same is true of the word Christian; you have no greater (or lesser) right to set forth the criteria for being Christian anymore than anyone else does, because there is no one person or group that owns that word. If you were the united Methodist church you could say people who do not meet your criteria were united Methodists; the same for any other denomination. But Christian is a more generic word which is not subject to that sort of control. If that means there's a fence up my but, so be it.

As for your "right" to say a person or group is not Christian, you can say what your want. I just think it is inaccurate. Alice In Wonderland? Somehow I see you sitting on the wall saying that word "chrisitan" means, and can only mean, what you say it does; just watch that you don't lean too much forward or backward or all the king's horses....

Some words have very specific meanings, others are broader or more generic. And IMHO, Christian is one of the latter.

As for mandating that you do not say that Mormons are Christians, I am doing no such thing. I am merely pointing out the incorrectness and arrogance of your position in insisting that the word mean only what you say it does. You do far better when you point out how the LDS strays from the teachings of jesus (and perhaps even the majority of Christian doctrine), but if you want to insist that the word can only be used for positions you agree with, go ahead and use it that way--I am not mandating anything, nor could I.

And FWIW, I have never said Mormons are chrisitian, only that they call themselves such and it is not for me to define the word in a way that refutes this.

wes--I am content to allow the "terrorists", like the mormons, to call themselves what they want.