- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Granted, most LDS are Christians. OK, probably almost all LDS are Christians. But do you have to be a Christian to Stay LDS? hawkgrrrl pointed out in another thread that Jesus is reported to have acted rather partisan-like toward the Jews on occasion. I assume from that statement she takes a rather flexible view of the personality of Jesus. Perhaps you and I do too.
The vocal LDS seem to have spent a lot of capital lately proving or demonstrating to
certainpeople that LDS are Christians. This is in spite of the fact that to most of the world, if you say you are a Christian, that’s good ’nuff. So at this forum we have this ideal that drives us to try to get used to the idea of saying “I am LDS. This is my church too.” Then is it okay to say “LDS I am, but Christian I am not”? Does that serve possibly any useful purpose? Or is it better to say, “I am LDS. I am also a Catholic, a Muslim, and a Jew.”?
KM
I’m not sure I completely get where you are headed with this Kupord. It seems like you are asking if we can consider ourselves to be “LDS” but no consider ourselves “Christian?” I see a couple directions in that. There’s this historical and academic definitions of “Christian,” which people use to say that LDS are not Christians. What they mean really is a fine point — that we do not completely accept specific, long-established creeds of theirs. Most people think of Christians as people who simply believe in Jesus Christ and follow the teachings attributed to Him.
I suppose by my own definitions in another thread, it might be possible to be LDS and not consider yourself “Christian.” If someone wanted to self-identify as LDS (cultural only maybe?) and found value in the mythology, BUT did not believe that Jesus existed …. it seems like a stretch, but who am I to say? It seems a difficult path to navigate.
Well, we are ostensibly committed to labeling ourselves “LDS”. And I suppose that implies answering affirmatively the temple recommend question “Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?” Perhaps I am wondering what form that testimony might take. I tend to think of the atonement of Christ as being the atonement he brought to pass by his ministry that changed the world. Those of us who are touched by his memory and teachings are brought toward oneness.
I think Mormons are Christians — both in the academic and common usage sense. So I think I agree with you Kupord. If someone asked me the simple question “Are you a Christian?” I would answer yes without hesitation or qualification.
Valoel wrote:If someone asked me the simple question “Are you a Christian?” I would answer yes without hesitation or qualification.
Hmm. So maybe that’s the real question. Why don’t I want to say I am a Christian? Maybe deep inside I figure it’s bad enough saying I am LDS without claiming Christianity too.
😆 Hi KM, I think I struggled with something very similar myself for a while. What I was afraid of is how other people defined the word, and what they would project onto me from making the claim. Since then I feel like I have gotten past most of my concerns related to other people’s definitions, and I just try to understand for myself what I can take from anything.
Personally I also have no hesitation claiming that I am Christian. Although I have serious reservations in drawing the line between literal and figurative too far over in the literal territory. I believe Jesus was the master teacher, and that he willingly gave his life to place an exclamation point on his teachings. My goal in life is to follow the principles that he taught – and to try to understand the fullest meanings of those things. I do see the “salvation” of mankind as coming through those principles that he taught (love, charity – if the world can save itself from destruction this is the only way) so what else would apply besides (potential?) savior and redeemer?
kupord maizzed wrote:I tend to think of the atonement of Christ as being the atonement he brought to pass by his ministry that changed the world. Those of us who are touched by his memory and teachings are brought toward oneness.
I am with you on that one, and personally think it is a valid “testimony.”
I think the problem is the difference of really trying to be Christlike by understanding the nature of Christ vs. wanting to be associated with those who call themselves Christian. A rising actor on a show we like was featured in an article for being a Christian and trying to live his Christian lifestyle while he’s in Hollywood. I asked my DH how Christian he was. My qualifier was “Is he so Christian that he thinks all Mormons are a cult?” Basically, it’s tough to want to belong to a club that is so un-Christian. hawkgrrrl wrote:the nature of Christ
I would like to understand more about what you mean by this.
KM
Hmmm. What I meant by “the nature of Christ” is what kind of person he REALLY was (there is some evidence that he existed, but the nature of his personality is certainly questionable), not what kind of person has he been assumed to be through projection or association. When many people say “Christ-like” they mean things like being charitable, kind, merciful, patient, long-suffering but there were other components to his personality (at least based on the various written accounts) that we don’t hear that much about. That’s probably to the heart of my original comment. So I don’t dismiss the desire to be like Christ (or like Buddha even), just what that really means vs. what people usually mean when they say it. I don’t care much for being “accepted” by a labeled group. I am a believer in, and follower of, the teachings associated with Jesus Christ. So that is what I meant by saying I don’t hesitate to self-identify as a “Christian.” Whether I fit into someone else’s group, or I am rejected by them, that doesn’t matter so much to me. People use labels to simplify things sometimes. There’s nothing wrong with it so long as they also understand that (a category is not monolithic, and not the whole story). Fwiw, whenever someone asks me if I am Christian (or claims that I’m not), I try to say something like: “That term (‘Christian’) means different things to different people. I believe I am a Christian, but I’m not sure if you would or not. Do you have a few minutes to listen to me explain my beliefs and see if you think I am?”
If they are serious and really want to know, they will listen – or pick a different time to do so. If they aren’t interested in making that decision for themselves (or have made it already), they will turn me down – and that will be it. No debates, no hard feelings, no arguments – no change from before the question was asked. Nothing gained, but nothing lost.
We had a training meeting for the bishops in our stake last night, and one of the points that was made to them was to invite in such a way that it is easy for the other person to say, “No.” Don’t challenge; rather, invite – but give them a dignified and easily accessible way out in the invitation itself. That’s what I try to do when someone questions my “Christianity”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.