Have you seen Apologia's blog that states LDS are not Christians? Thoughts?

[albeto]

Well explained, but very different from what Christians throughout history have believed and the Early Church Fathers wrote and believed.

 

I used to think that, too.

• We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods

• Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.

 

 

Irenaeus (ca. AD 115-202)

• yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.

• ...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, "Men are gods, and gods are men.

 

 

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)

• The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God.

 

 

Origen (ca. AD 185-251)

• To prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons... in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest...

• it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,†and even of having power to become sons of the Highest.

 

 

Justin Martyr (d. ca. AD 163)

 

 

There are many more examples

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh, but the fact is, we all have our differences and different standards by which we judge or determine things. :)

 

 

 

 

The question is, whose standards are "right"?

[Butter]

 

My point was that there is not agreement between various groups that Apologia would consider "Christian" or who would agree to the Nicene Creed upon what makes up "The Bible."

 

 

Very true!

 

And it's kind of ironic that chances are Apologia's people use one of the Protestant English translations... and so do we (since we're not required to use the KJV, just most do).

[mommaduck]

 

 

As Maus stated in the quote where you quoted her... King James Version. That's the Bible most English speakers in the Mormon Church use.

 

You aren't understanding. The KJV can chine with or without the Deutercanonicals ( what some call the Apocrypha). The Deutercanonicals vary depending upon if you are Protestant, Catholic, Oriental or Coptic Orthodox, or Eastern Orthodox.

[mommaduck]

 

 

I used to think that, too.

• We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods

• Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.

 

 

Irenaeus (ca. AD 115-202)

• yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.

• ...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, "Men are gods, and gods are men.

 

 

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)

• The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God.

 

 

Origen (ca. AD 185-251)

• To prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons... in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest...

• it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,†and even of having power to become sons of the Highest.

 

 

Justin Martyr (d. ca. AD 163)

 

 

There are many more examples

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The question is, whose standards are "right"?

 

You may use the same words and mean something entirely different than the writers and those that descend from them. Also, you cannot pick and choose parts without understanding the language, context, meaning, and practice, etc. Yes, we each have our standards and we aren't goin to agree on what those are. I'll stick with the Church that continued and was mostly unaffected by the mess in the West.

[Butter]

You aren't understanding. The KJV can chine with or without the Deutercanonicals ( what some call the Apocrypha). The Deutercanonicals vary depending upon if you are Protestant, Catholic, Oriental or Coptic Orthodox, or Eastern Orthodox.

 

 

Ah... Authorized version, 39 books in the OT and 27 in the NT, no Apocrypha (though on occasion leaders will quote from one of those books... and the Nicene Creed even).

[Dory]

 

As Maus stated in the quote where you quoted her... King James Version. That's the Bible most English speakers in the Mormon Church use.

 

 

Which KJV? The 1611 KJV had more books than the one that is commonly used now.

[milovany]

Duplicate post. See below.

[milovany]

But the original KJV (authorized version) did have the deuterocanonical books. So, now what?

[gardenmom5]

Maus, on 15 April 2013 - 10:38 AM, said: The LDS church uses the Bible as it is. We prefer the King James Bible for English speakers. We have not discarded any portion of it.

Which Bible? The Roman Catholic or Protestant version? Or something else? Roman Catholic Bibles typically have 46 books in the Old Testament while Protestant Bibles only have 39 books. I *think* Greek/Eastern Orthodox Bibles even have a few more?

 

 

:huh: I'm sorry, but I'm confused by your response. what part of "We prefer the King James Bible for English speakers" are you asking about? we use the same version that was published 400 years ago.

 

(BYU did an excellent 3 hour speical on the coming forth of the KJV for it's 400th anniversary. serious hanky warning. there was much sacrifice and lives were brutally taken *by* religious leaders during the 100 years leading to its publication.)

 

UPDATE: okay Mrs Mungo - I saw your explaination. makes more sense for what you meant, and more in line of what I would expect you to say.

[mommaduck]

 

 

Ah... Authorized version, 39 books in the OT and 27 in the NT, no Apocrypha (though on occasion leaders will quote from one of those books... and the Nicene Creed even).

 

The Authorized originally held the Deutercanonicals ;)

[albeto]

You may use the same words and mean something entirely different than the writers and those that descend from them. Also, you cannot pick and choose parts without understanding the language, context, meaning, and practice, etc.

 

I wonder that not a single LDS apologist has thought of that.

 

Yes, we each have our standards and we aren't goin to agree on what those are. I'll stick with the Church that continued and was mostly unaffected by the mess in the West.

 

 

That's nice. I'll stick with historical facts.

[mommaduck]

 

 

:huh: I'm sorry, but I'm confused by your response. what part of "We prefer the King James Bible for English speakers" are you asking about? we use the same version that was published 400 years ago.

 

(BYU did an excellent 3 hour speical on the coming forth of the KJV for it's 400th anniversary. serious hanky warning. there was much sacrifice and lives were brutally taken *by* religious leaders during the 100 years leading to its publication.)

 

If it's missing the Deutercanonicals are missing, then, no, you are only using part of it.

[mommaduck]

 

 

:huh: I'm sorry, but I'm confused by your response. what part of "We prefer the King James Bible for English speakers" are you asking about? we use the same version that was published 400 years ago.

 

(BYU did an excellent 3 hour speical on the coming forth of the KJV for it's 400th anniversary. serious hanky warning. there was much sacrifice and lives were brutally taken *by* religious leaders during the 100 years leading to its publication.)

 

If it's missing the Deutercanonicals are missing, then, no, you are only using part of it.

[TeacherZee]

:huh: I'm sorry, but I'm confused by your response. what part of "We prefer the King James Bible for English speakers" are you asking about? we use the same version that was published 400 years ago.

 

(BYU did an excellent 3 hour speical on the coming forth of the KJV for it's 400th anniversary. serious hanky warning. there was much sacrifice and lives were brutally taken *by* religious leaders during the 100 years leading to its publication.)

 

 

From Wikipedia (yeah yeah I know but it was the easiest place to get it)

 

There are 80 books in the King James Bible—39 in the Old Testament, 14 in the Apocrypha, and 27 in the New Testament. Most modern editions omit the Apocrypha; in those editions the number of books totals 66. The reasons for the omission of the Apocrypha can be found in the article "Biblical canon". The names of those books found in the Apocrypha section of their respective versions are in italics.

 

*bolding mine

[mommaduck]

 

 

I wonder that not a single LDS apologist has thought of that.

 

 

 

That's nice. I'll stick with historical facts.

 

Exactly why I'm where I am...historical facts (now I'm being that not everyone can agree on that either)

[gardenmom5]

this is also going on another classcial group I'm one. rumor is Dr. Wile is planning putting out another curriculum apparently he's not happy with what is happening with apologia.

[6packofun]

I guess I've always thought that Jesus CHRIST, the guy that Christians follow--hence the name of the religion?--gets to decide what constitutes his followers. He does, in the Bible. Early church fathers, current church leaders, MEN (humans) don't get to make up new rules by which to call themselves Christians, IMO. Does this mean we get to be jerks in how we point out that one CAN know true Christianity? Of course not. But accepting false, man-centered ideas on it isn't the proper response, either.

 

All of the ways that people say that the Bible can't be trusted, is contradictory, needs to change with the culture, isn't interpreted "correctly" fail to address the very essentials of the faith to which there should be no compromise. Argue all you want about what the Bible supposedly says is a sin or not, *how* we're supposed to do church and worship, etc., but the basic doctrine of the Christian faith is clear and it's also clear enough that we're not to add to those tenets as requirements for salvation. Change those and one is not following Christianity.

 

And I won't call someone a Christian just to make them feel better, but I am also not interested in making absolute, public declarations about anyone's spiritual state. On the other hand, we *are* called to make judgments and share the truths accordingly. Someone who labels themselves a Christian and wants to talk about gods on other planets is going to have a respectful conversation with me about that. lol (Probably not online, though. :) )

[PIE!]

There are so many opinions have been brought up I'd like to clarify and restate mine. I do not care if others label me as Christian or not. It doesn't matter what they think of me. It only matters what Christ thinks of me.

 

It does matter to me when people lie about what I believe, and insist that I believe their lies. Now there certainly are references, and I have no doubt that at some point, someone in the LDS church wrote that "Christians know nothing of God" or that "Christianity was hatched in hell" or "Christian Pastors are corrupt and blasphemous." But I certainly don't believe it, and it is not church doctrine. Many of the other statements had a bit of truth, but were twisted to sound different from what they mean. Some statements were accurate, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest when those are being debated.

 

I happily acknowledge that there are some major differences between the LDS faith and mainstream Christianity. I welcome discussion and debate on those points. If it was just the Nicene Creed, or continued revelation being discussed, there would be a legitimate argument. But to throw in a bunch of garbage and say that all Mormons believe it is what I have a problem with.

[milovany]

I guess I've always thought that Jesus CHRIST, the guy that Christians follow--hence the name of the religion?--gets to decide what constitutes his followers. He does, in the Bible.

 

It's not that simple. There was a living, growing, thriving church long before there was a Bible. There were martyrs dying for the faith long before there was a Bible. How did they live (and die for) their faith without the Bible telling them what to do and what constituted being a Christian? There must be a way, right?

 

Some Christians (and I would say "most," but that might be argued by others who wouldn't define "Christian" the same way as I would, and I respect that) would say it's the church that defines the terms and the ways, not the Bible; that the same Holy Spirit that eventually led the church to put together the Bible was able to guide the Church in all truth without having to have it written down. When the various letters were eventually made into the Scriptures (canonized), they just confirmed what the church had always been teaching. They didn't all of a sudden say, "Here is our faith, here is our fullness." That fullness, as promised by God, was already existent. (And in the same vein, the same Holy Spirit that did all mentioned before has also kept this early church united and strong for 2000 years, without change and without fail.)

 

Not picking an argument, just saying it's not so simple as saying, "It's in the Bible" with the assumption that all Christians use the Bible as the sole/main foundation of their faith. That assumption is incorrect, and that practice didn't come into play until 1500 years or so after the church was established.

[Dory]

It's not that simple. There was a living, growing, thriving church long before there was a Bible. There were martyrs dying for the faith long before there was a Bible. How did they live (and die for) their faith without the Bible telling them what to do and what constituted being a Christian? There must be a way, right?

 

Some Christians (and I would say "most," but that might be argued by others who wouldn't define "Christian" the same way as I would, and I respect that) would say it's the church that defines the terms and the ways, not the Bible; that the same Holy Spirit that eventually led the church to put together the Bible was able to guide the Church in all truth without having to have it written down. When the various letters were eventually made into the Scriptures (canonized), they just confirmed what the church had always been teaching. They didn't all of a sudden say, "Here is our faith, here is our fullness." That fullness, as promised by God, was already existent. (And in the same vein, the same Holy Spirit that did all mentioned before has also kept this early church united and strong for 2000 years, without change and without fail.)

 

Not picking an argument, just saying it's not so simple as saying, "It's in the Bible" with the assumption that all Christians use the Bible as the sole/main foundation of their faith. That assumption is incorrect, and that practice didn't come into play until 1500 years or so after the church was established.

 

There was scripture at that time though. Most of what was talked about in the NT was a reiteration of what was already known in what we call the OT.

[milovany]

Agreed, there was some of that, but I believe the gal I was responding to was referring to the teachings in the NT (on how to define what being a Christian is). She can correct me if I'm wrong!

[PachiSusan]

 

There was scripture at that time though. Most of what was talked about in the NT was a reiteration of what was already known in what we call the OT.

 

Yes, however Christianity is based in the New Testament writings, and I am sure that was what she was talking about.

[Dory]

 

Yes, however Christianity is based in the New Testament writings, and I am sure that was what she was talking about.

 

 

Ooohhh! I honestly had never heard that Christianity was based solely on NT writings. I had always been told that NT was based off what was already written with the additive that the things foretold in the OT had now happened. But then, I was raised in a Messianic household so that might have something to do with that point of view and perhaps my view on what those around me here have been saying has been misunderstood.

 

I avoid the use of the word Christian anyway. Way too controversial.

[mommaduck]

 

 

Ooohhh! I honestly had never heard that Christianity was based solely on NT writings. I had always been told that NT was based off what was already written with the additive that the things foretold in the OT had now happened. But then, I was raised in a Messianic household so that might have something to do with that point of view and perhaps my view on what those around me here have been saying has been misunderstood.

 

I avoid the use of the word Christian anyway. Way too controversial.

 

no one said solely.

[gardenmom5]

there is disconnect here for me. people are arguing over a word. (which was only part of the OP. that was apologia narrowly defining a word as they chose, and risking offending customers. but they're a business and if they want to offend customers - that's their right.)

 

I just flipped on the news - and someone set off bombs at the finish line for the boston marathon.

[PachiSusan]

Ooohhh! I honestly had never heard that Christianity was based solely on NT writings. I had always been told that NT was based off what was already written with the additive that the things foretold in the OT had now happened. But then, I was raised in a Messianic household so that might have something to do with that point of view and perhaps my view on what those around me here have been saying has been misunderstood.

 

I avoid the use of the word Christian anyway. Way too controversial.

 

 

To Christians, Jesus is the fulfillment of the Messianic Texts in the Jewish Canon of Scripture (AKA Old Testament to us) and the realization of the covenant that God made between himself and the Jewish people. For Bill: Jews do not believe that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah.

 

We do not ignore the OT - it's the basis of where we came from as a faith. However, the New Testament is about Jesus and his followers and all the teachings he brought forth as the fulfillment of all the promises of God to his people throughout the years.

 

The OT is used in the NT and Jesus quoted scripture of the time, which was the Jewish Holy Scriptures.

 

Please note that I am not saying that the Old Testament is used and read by Christians. What I mean to say is that the New Testament writings are those writings that define WHO Christ is and how his followers lived out following him.

[PachiSusan]

 

 

I just flipped on the news - and someone set off bombs at the finish line for the boston marathon.

 

 

That's infinitely more important than this back and forth. <sober>

[Joanne]

 

There was scripture at that time though. Most of what was talked about in the NT was a reiteration of what was already known in what we call the OT.

 

 

 

:blink: No, but many of the people featured in the NT expressed an OT worldview because it was observed, told, and eventually written by people who observed OT customs.

 

By definition and, if you believe, historically, the NT content was *decidedly* different.

[Spy Car]

 

 

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Messianic Texts in the Jewish Canon of Scripture (AKA Old Testament to us) and the realization of the covenant that God made between himself and the Jewish people.

 

 

Not according to the Jews.

 

Their concept of a messiah has never included this anointed leader being a man-god, or one personage of a godhead, or being any other form of divine being. This is a Christian innovation.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PachiSusan]

Not according to the Jews.

 

Their concept of a messiah has never included this anointed leader being a man-god, or one personage of a godhead, or being any other form of divine being. This is a Christian innovation.

 

Bill

 

 

Obviously, Bill. We as Christians believe Jesus is the fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic scriptures, the Jews do not. I didn't think I had to point that out, but since you brought it up. I will. Yes, you are right.

[Ameena]

Not according to the Jews.

 

Their concept of a messiah has never included this anointed leader being a man-god, or one personage of a godhead, or being any other form of divine being. This is a Christian innovation.

 

Bill

 

Obviously, Bill. We as Christians believe Jesus is the fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic scriptures, the Jews do not. I didn't think I had to point that out, but since you brought it up. I will. Yes, you are right.

 

I think what Bill was getting at {correct me if I'm wrong Bill}, is that Jews do not believe in a messiah that is equal to God, or one with God, as Christians do. From my understanding Jews believe Messiah = a leader & prophet for the end days, where Christians believe Messiah = one with god / God on earth.

[PachiSusan]

I think what Bill was getting at {correct me if I'm wrong Bill}, is that Jews do not believe in a messiah that is equal to God, or one with God, as Christians do. From my understanding Jews believe Messiah = a leader & prophet for the end days, where Christians believe Messiah = one with god / God on earth.

 

 

Sorry - was not near my phone and I hate typing more that a few words on my phone.

 

Yes, again, it is information that I thought that most of us already know. Excuse my assumption about that. It was sort of a sidebar to the discussion at hand and I didn't go into as much detail as perhaps I should have had I thought it through a little more.

 

Yes, the Jews thought that the Messiah would be a warrior and have an earthly kingdom. No, the Jews didn't expect him to claim divinity, and yes, Jews don't believe Jesus was the promised Messiah. Did I miss anything else that should be clarified?

 

<and please don't read this with any snark or attitude, because there is none there. :)>

[albeto]

 

Obviously, Bill. We as Christians believe Jesus is the fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic scriptures, the Jews do not. I didn't think I had to point that out, but since you brought it up. I will. Yes, you are right.

 

So... why is it appropriate for Christians to add to Jewish scripture (in opposition to the beliefs of the Jews) but not for Mormons to add to New Testament scriptures (in opposition to the beliefs of orthodox Christians)? Why is one considered "divinely inspired" and the other not?

[mommaduck]

 

 

So... why is it appropriate for Christians to add to Jewish scripture (in opposition to the beliefs of the Jews) but not for Mormons to add to New Testament scriptures (in opposition to the beliefs of orthodox Christians)? Why is one considered "divinely inspired" and the other not?

They could be lengthy and do we really want to go there?

[PachiSusan]

So... why is it appropriate for Christians to add to Jewish scripture (in opposition to the beliefs of the Jews) but not for Mormons to add to New Testament scriptures (in opposition to the beliefs of orthodox Christians)? Why is one considered "divinely inspired" and the other not?

 

Technically, the Mormons didn't ADD to the Bible, they wrote an entire book to include with the Bible. It wasn't divinely INSPIRED - it was divinely GIVEN to Joseph Smith in the form of the Golden Tablets, already written out for him. He translated it.

 

The Christians did not add to Jewish Scripture, but wrote the New Testament (over a long period of time) to show the fulfillment of the messianic promise that they saw. The people at the time WERE Jewish, believed the scripture, and lived it and believed that they were living in the time of the Savior, and that Savior was Jesus. Of course they were going to keep the teachings because they STILL BELIEVED that the Jewish people's history was their own. They wrote the next part: The story of Jesus as the fulfillment of God's promise.

 

Two totally different animals - two totally different things and any more discussion of this is going to bring down a hammer or offense to someone and that's the last thing I want to do.

[Kathryn]

 

 

So... why is it appropriate for Christians to add to Jewish scripture (in opposition to the beliefs of the Jews) but not for Mormons to add to New Testament scriptures (in opposition to the beliefs of orthodox Christians)? Why is one considered "divinely inspired" and the other not?

 

 

This makes no sense if the argument is Mormons ARE Christians. You're setting up a comparison where a group (Christians) added to an already existing canon (Jewish) and called themselves something new. To follow your analogy, Mormons then shouldn't call themselves Christian. Nobody has said they shouldn't be allowed to add whatever they want. The whole "debate" was whether or not Mormons are Christians.

[GSOchristie]

 

 

This makes no sense if the argument is Mormons ARE Christians. You're setting up a comparison where a group (Christians) added to an already existing canon (Jewish) and called themselves something new. To follow your analogy, Mormons then shouldn't call themselves Christian. Nobody has said they shouldn't be allowed to add whatever they want. The whole "debate" was whether or not Mormons are Christians.

 

 

I was thinking the same thing, but went to verify that the early Christians hadn't kept calling themselves Jews. From what I read, they called themselves Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians, but definitely Christians.

 

[GSOchristie]

And I can't find the quote, but did someone said that Eastern Orthodox (in their signature), did not believe that salvation comes solely through faith in Jesus. What else is required? I'm not being snarky, I honestly didn't know that there was other "stuff".

[PachiSusan]

I was thinking the same thing, but went to verify that the early Christians hadn't kept calling themselves Jews. From what I read, they called themselves Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians, but definitely Christians.

 

 

If the confusion came from my posts, I apologize. They Identified with their Jewish roots but definitely called themselves Christians with different monikers added to it.

[milovany]

And I can't find the quote, but did someone said that Eastern Orthodox (in their signature), did not believe that salvation comes solely through faith in Jesus. What else is required? I'm not being snarky, I honestly didn't know that there was other "stuff".

 

The quote I was replying to was this: "If you have a personal relationship with God, then you are saved, and are a Christian ..."

 

I'd need to have "personal relationship with God" defined, I guess, before I can make a definitive statement. I did assume by this (based on my personal history in the Christian faith) that what was meant was something along the lines of "If you've asked Jesus into your heart" or "If you've committed your life to Him." In other words, a one-time decision based on faith that results in a turning to the Christian God.

 

But it's the next part, actually, that causes me concern as an Orthodox Christian -- "then you are saved." The early church was never "once saved, always saved." Salvation is a process that takes a lifetime. The church taught this and the Bible supported it. The Bible says many things of salvation, and one of the foundational ones is "If you endure to the end, you will be saved." Is it the end of life, yet? No? Then we can't say someone is saved or not saved.

 

What else is required? Pressing on. Following the commandments of Christ. Participating in the sacraments He spoke of and that the ancient church offers. Pressing on. Living life where the fullness of the faith is (in the church). Pressing on. There's a saying, "

" This video gives a clear and beautiful picture of salvation in the ancient Christian faith.

 

So, because of both of those things, I have trouble with this entire statement as an Orthodox Christian. Relationship with God begins by turning Christ in faith, but it must continue on from there.

[albeto]

They could be lengthy and do we really want to go there?

 

I asked because I am genuinely curious. I do understand not all questions and bunny trails are interesting for everyone. It's okay to ignore these. :)

[albeto]

Technically, the Mormons didn't ADD to the Bible, they wrote an entire book to include with the Bible. It wasn't divinely INSPIRED - it was divinely GIVEN to Joseph Smith in the form of the Golden Tablets, already written out for him. He translated it.

 

The Christians did not add to Jewish Scripture, but wrote the New Testament (over a long period of time) to show the fulfillment of the messianic promise that they saw. The people at the time WERE Jewish, believed the scripture, and lived it and believed that they were living in the time of the Savior, and that Savior was Jesus. Of course they were going to keep the teachings because they STILL BELIEVED that the Jewish people's history was their own. They wrote the next part: The story of Jesus as the fulfillment of God's promise.

 

Two totally different animals - two totally different things and any more discussion of this is going to bring down a hammer or offense to someone and that's the last thing I want to do.

 

 

I'm trying to understand why the difference between the Jewish religion and Christian religion. Orthodox (conventional?) Christians don't accept the Mormon "conclusion" to the biblical message any more than Jews accept the Christian "conclusion" to the biblical message (inspired from Bill's point). I'm trying to figure out why it's okay on the one hand, but not the other. The points you've made, 1) a conclusion of an existing message; 2) inspired by the Holy Spirit, written by man; and 3) understood maintenance of original beliefs, can all be made for the LDS scriptures.

I do hope any misrepresentations I've made will be corrected.

 

I'm just trying to understand how this works.

[PachiSusan]

I'm trying to understand why the difference between the Jewish religion and Christian religion. Orthodox (conventional?) Christians don't accept the Mormon "conclusion" to the biblical message any more than Jews accept the Christian "conclusion" to the biblical message (inspired from Bill's point). I'm trying to figure out why it's okay on the one hand, but not the other. The points you've made, 1) a conclusion of an existing message; 2) inspired by the Holy Spirit, written by man; and 3) understood maintenance of original beliefs, can all be made for the LDS scriptures.

 

I do hope any misrepresentations I've made will be corrected.

 

I'm just trying to understand how this works.

 

The difference is that Christians do not call themselves Jewish anymore. They didn't try to change the definition of what Jewish is, they became a new religion based on Jesus Christ. Only the very first Christians self identified themselves with the moniker "Jewish". As time went on it was completely dropped.

 

#2 does not apply to Mormonism. Their Book of Mormon was not written by a man inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so but was GIVEN TO Joseph Smith, already written, by Angels or God. It was not inspired, but directly given to. That's a big difference to me.

 

I'm trying to step very carefully here.

[albeto]

This makes no sense if the argument is Mormons ARE Christians. You're setting up a comparison where a group (Christians) added to an already existing canon (Jewish) and called themselves something new. To follow your analogy, Mormons then shouldn't call themselves Christian. Nobody has said they shouldn't be allowed to add whatever they want. The whole "debate" was whether or not Mormons are Christians.

 

As I understand, orthodox Christians may or may not accept Mormon theology as included in Christian theology (as in, they are real Christians or not). Here's where I get confused: As I understand it, Jews do not accept Christian theology as a culmination of Jewish theology, whereas Christians do. In turn, many orthodox Christians do not accept Mormon theology as a culmination of Christian theology, whereas Mormons do. So I'm trying to figure out the standards used to identify the "right" faith.

[milovany]

I'm trying to understand why the difference between the Jewish religion and Christian religion. Orthodox (conventional?) Christians don't accept the Mormon "conclusion" to the biblical message any more than Jews accept the Christian "conclusion" to the biblical message (inspired from Bill's point). I'm trying to figure out why it's okay on the one hand, but not the other...

 

 

We need to answer this question honestly. Jewish people will believe one way, orthodox/historical Christians another, and LDS another, about this matter. Not all can be correct (although I'd reserve some side thoughts when it comes to Jewish and the orthodox Christian faith, which I won't go into here), and people have to decide which option they believe in and can put their faith in, and why. Once they do that, they have to be honest and realize that others will come to different conclusions, and hopefully respect that.

 

I'm hoping I come across that way because while I firmly believe that the Orthodox Church is where the fullness of the Christian faith lies, I also respect that others don't. I will admit that I have a far greater respect for the Mormon faith since I converted to the Orthodox Church, than I did before. I understand, now, where they're coming from, at least a little bit, when it comes to church and faith. When you believe God delivered a fullness of the faith in a certain way to a specific church, that's where you have to be. Who am I to make a judgment on the faith of others (or lack thereof)? I'll leave that up to God. If others WANT to know why I believe what I do, I'm happy to tell them. If they don't, they have a right to their own journey and I know that God is merciful, always merciful, and loving.

[PIE!]

I just saw on Apologia's blog that there will be a follow-up post Wednesday evening. I wonder what it will say.

[Xuzi]

 

As I understand, orthodox Christians may or may not accept Mormon theology as included in Christian theology (as in, they are real Christians or not). Here's where I get confused: As I understand it, Jews do not accept Christian theology as a culmination of Jewish theology, whereas Christians do. In turn, many orthodox Christians do not accept Mormon theology as a culmination of Christian theology, whereas Mormons do. So I'm trying to figure out the standards used to identify the "right" faith.

I think it all comes down to personal conviction, truthfully.

[Xuzi]

I just saw on Apologia's blog that there will be a follow-up post Wednesday evening. I wonder what it will say.

Gee, I can hardly wait. :p

[Chelli]

I just saw on Apologia's blog that there will be a follow-up post Wednesday evening. I wonder what it will say.

 

Why Catholics, Orthodox, and JW's Aren't Christians

 

Why People Who Are Reformed Aren't Christians

 

Why People Who Are Arminian Aren't Christians

 

Why People With Blonde Hair Aren't Christians

 

Wait, We've Realized WE Aren't Christians.

 

Nevermind...We'll Let Mormons Be Christians After All

 

:D

 

{all said completely in jest}

[PachiSusan]

I think it all comes down to personal conviction, truthfully.

 

And that just may be the period on this conversation that should happen. :)