<p>“What some call “flip-flopping” could also be called reassessment of the situation and making appropriate adjustments, I suppose.”</p>
<p>Depends on why he flipflopped. If Romney flipflopped because he was commanded to do so by his church (which seems very likely), as President he might be guilty of precisely the things that JFK so assiduously asserted he wouldn’t be. And if that is not the case, it raises questions as why he taught his kids racism to begin with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think Mormons, Catholics and Evangelical Christians all have a smug attitude towards ‘unbelievers.’ </p>
<p>In comparison, though, I find the Mormons the least elitist and Evangelicals the most elitist.</p>
<p>Mormons allow room for EVERYONE to eventually return to God. There is no finite ‘once a non-Mormon dies he goes to hell’ as the other Christians do.</p>
<p>When I was raised Catholic, I was taught that non-Catholics either go to ‘hell’ or to ‘limbo’ but never see the ‘face of God.’</p>
<p>Evangelicals are the most brutal of all - anyone who is not a born-again Christian goes to ‘hell’ FOREVER.</p>
<p>Therefore, I would be FAR more concerned about an Evangelical’s attitude towards the ‘unsaved’ than I would about a Mormon’s attitude towards someone who, according to the LDS church, may eventually see the light.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>Since you don’t like it when Evangelicals think you are not a Christian, why do you think it’s ok for YOU to say that Mormons are not Christian?</p>
<p>Why should you define for a Mormon whether they are Christian or not? They consider themselves Christian, just as you do. Jews do not consider themselves Christian - THAT is what you are missing.</p>
<p>I apologize if I offend anyone, but I have to say I agree with jonri. LDS is not a Christian faith, to the extent that one defines “Christian” as someone who bases his/her faith on the tenets set out in the Apostles’ Creed. Mormon beliefs are at odds with these fundamentals. That doesn’t make them necessarily wrong (though I admit I believe they are), but it excludes them from the group of adherents commonly called Christians.</p>
<p>There will be some who feel that if Mormons consider themselves Christians, they have a right to call themselves Christians. I concede they have a right to call themselves anything they please, but they you might as well throw distinctions out the window - or just use a different term for what “used to be” Christianity. After all what would stop anyone from calling themselves Christians if they felt like it? The various Christian denominations differ on the peripherals, but all adherents who typically are referred to as “Christians” believe in the same set of fundamentals which allow us to continue to communicate with each other. </p>
<p>The Mormons do appear to me - my opinion, not fact - to obscure their beliefs in a mantel of mainstream Christian language. And the whole point of this is that they also obscure current and past views that are less socially acceptable. I don’t care about polygamy, since they did disavow that many years ago, long before Mitt. But mini is totally correct: if they only disavowed racism in 1978, and continue not to esteem women, what does that say about Romney and his social views? What was he saying in 1975, as an adult, on his mission trips? What is his world view and what does he want our country to look like in 100 years, with his being the first 8 ? These are valid questions for any candidate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well who decided on that criteria? The Catholics have their own criteria; why can’t Mormons have theirs? Why can some Christians define Christianity to others who believe themselves to be Christians? Who decided on such authority?</p>
<p>*Mormons allow room for EVERYONE to eventually return to God. *</p>
<p>you only get to go to the * good * heaven if you are married to a man who holds the priesthood and lets you in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that Mormons consider themselves to be Christians- after all don’t they have portraits of a blond Jesus in their family rooms?( I need a smily face that indicates a rhetorical ?)</p>
<p>It doesn’t bother me if they consider themselves Christians and I am curious why a few Christian sects seem to take it as a personal affront that they do so.
I am also curious however on the preoccupation of genealogy that seems unending in order to supply names to convert after death in temple ceremonies.</p>
<p>( Im sorry but my sisters insistence that our father had appeared to her in the temple and thanked her for converting him is over the top-he was Unitarian when he died)</p>
<p>To the point of who is or is not a Christian, I wouldn’t presume to instruct Jesus on who His faithful followers are. I’d prefer to let Him make that determination.</p>
<p>Lealdragon, an elephant could demand that it is – in fact – a zebra and it still wouldn’t be true. George Bush could state in public that he is a Democrat – but he’d still be a Republican. You can claim to be a Libertarian who just happens to believe in Stalinist autocracy – and you wouldn’t be Libertarian.</p>
<p>LDS teaching is so far from the basics that ALL Christian churches believe that there is simply no way that anyone educated in the matter can accept it.</p>
<p>This is something that is easy to research for yourself in 30 minutes on Google. Start with “mormons christianity” and see what you get.</p>
<p>This is not about “which is right,” by the way. I have an opinion on that, but it doesn’t matter. You don’t have to be either LDS or Christian to recognize that if one group teaches “A and not B” and the other teaches “A and B” that the two groups do not share a common belief set.</p>
<p>The majority of Friends consider themselves Christian, and explicitly reject all creeds, as Jesus did, including the so-called Apostles’ one.</p>
<p>Mitt can teach racism if he chooses to his children; I just wouldn’t vote for him, but at least we’d know what he believes. But I’d more concerned to learn that he flipflopped because adherence to his Church required him to do so. That, to my mind, would disqualify him from the Presidency, NOT because of his religion, but because of his character.</p>
<p>Okay, leal, then how would you define Christian dogma? The problem with the argument you are making - at least as I understand it, which may not be accurate - is that since -oops, can’t call them Christians. Let’s call the mainstream Protestant and Catholic denominations “Group 2” and Mormons “Group 1”. So the problem that I see with your argument is that the word “Christian” can no longer be used to define any integrated faith system: Group 1 believes that God was himself created on a different planet, and had children. One of them is Jesus. All humans are likewise God’s children and humans all have a little bit of God in them and can aspire to be gods too. Group 2 believes that God was not created but is the creator and eternal. We are not little gods, but were created by God in his image. Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are 3 in 1, and equally divine. Jesus is both divine and human. </p>
<p>Now, with that cryptic restatement of the two religions (and I may have mistated some of it since I am not a theologian), how do you reconcile that Group 1 and Group 2 share enough dogma in common to call them the same faith system? Either you are 1 or 2 but you can’t be both. </p>
<p>That’s the authority I’m using.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well that’s way better than burning in ‘hell’ FOREVER!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Elitism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree completely! And that goes for Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Agnostics, etc. too.</p>
<p>After all what would stop anyone from calling themselves Christians if they felt like it?</p>
<p>Isn’t that the point that Mohandas Gandhi was making when he observed
</p>
<p>Friends explicitly reject the Trinity. Jesus didn’t believe in the Trinity. He didn’t preach the Trinity. If you even mentioned the Trinity to him, he wouldn’t have known what you are talking about.</p>
<p>But I want to know what Mitt believes, and what Mitt teaches, and what causes him to flipflop - not what the doctrine of his church happens to be (except to the degree that it requires all of its members to act on church teachers or face excommunication).</p>
<p>hayden: You have chosen certain elements of doctrine to make your point, and I do see your point. </p>
<p>However, my point is that the choice of doctrine is rather arbitrary. As an impartial observer (since I do not believe in the bible as the ‘word of God’), they all seem pretty much the same to me, since they all believe in the bible, to varying degrees. </p>
<p>So it could be argued that MY criteria (of basing the definition of Christianity on adherence to the bible as the ‘word of God) could be considered just as valid as any other. (Of course, most Christians wouldn’t consider me Christian either! so my opinion probably counts about as much as the Mormons’.)</p>
<p>The Mormons do believe in the bible; they just believe in the Book of Mormon as well. To me, that is comparable to the fact that the Catholics believe in the bible, but just believe in the authority of the pope as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, so very, VERY TRUE!</p>
<p>Another, similar quote from Marion Zimmer Bradley’s masterpiece ‘The Mists of Avalon:’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>WashDad, interesting that you and I are going at this almost the exact same way.</p>
<p>I’m not saying “Christian” vs “non-Christian” in a judgmental way, prejorative way. I’m looking at it as a descriptive term, since we cannot communicate with each other unless we have a way to discriminate between things, like WashDad’s elephant vs zebra analogy.</p>
<p>The real question in my mind is not so much why people like me do not think of Mormons as Christians. The real question is, why do Mormons want to be called Christians? I don’t remember this being a big question before the past 20 years or so.</p>
<p>Actually, I can see validity in both points of view.</p>
<p>On the one hand, I can totally relate to the mainstream Christian’s claim to the Christian label. I feel much the same way about the label ‘vegetarian.’ As a vegetarian of 25 years, I get very annoyed when some people claim to be vegetarians just because they don’t eat red meat. Vegetarians do not eat anything that ever had a face! That means no chicken, no fish!!!</p>
<p>See? I get riled about that, too. So I’m just like the mainstream Christians getting riled about Mormons calling themselves Christian, in that respect.</p>
<p>Only because I am not a mainstream Christian am I able to also see the point of the Mormons (as well as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, another outcast religion, and, to some extent, even the Catholics!!!)</p>
<p>I don’t know why it’s so important to Mormons to be accepted by the mainstream Christian community. But I do know it’s a VERY sore spot with them. My son once belonged to a Mormon homeschool group and I became friends with some of the moms (very nice people, btw!) and they told me horror stories of how they tried to join Christian homeschool co-ops and were completely ostracized, as if they were evil. The moms didn’t want their kids playing with the Mormon kids. It was really sad. I felt bad for them, which is probably why I feel compelled to explore their point of view.</p>
<p>Maybe that’s the bigger issue - they just don’t want to be considered ‘evil’ or a ‘cult.’</p>
<p>I can relate - I’ve been told I was evil for wearing a crystal, practicing yoga, and…get this! being a vegetarian! Oh, and for having a picture of whimsical UNICORN (complete with butterflies) on my wall. (Good thing they didn’t see my books! yikes)</p>
<p>So I can sympathize.</p>
<p>We’re just asking for a little respect, ya know? But Evangelicals do not respect other religions, so that’s never gonna happen.</p>
<p>In a perfect world, everyone would respect others, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone.</p>
<p>mini, yes I understand there are huge differences between the Quakers and many of the other religions. The Quakers have changed a lot over the centuries. When I read the Quaker Meeting notes, it’s amazing to me that any ever survived to adulthood while remaining Quakers. The notes are full of people getting thrown out of the church right and left for kissing, for marrying out of the faith, for singing, and for any political involvement at all. My own ancestor was thrown out of a Virginian meeting for speaking to others about the impending war against England. I think the Quakers must have invented the revolving door !!</p>
<p>Bengali vegetarians eat fish - they call it “fruit of the sea”.</p>
<p>Leal & Emeraldkity - Gandhi is in my opinion about one of the most admirable human beings who ever lived. Plus he, like Churchill, had some of the all time best quotes. My personal favorite was, when asked what he thought about Western Civilization, answered “I think it would be a good idea”.</p>