I find this whole constant dog-chasing tail topic totally fruitless and dishonest. The LDS should just ‘fess up and say we ain’t Christians. We are saints. And that’s all we should call ourselves. I disagree with Nelson-Seawright’s conclusion. The solution is simple. Since non-Mormons came up with the term Christian, let them define it as they see fit. If they choose to say we aren’t Christian, then we aren’t Christian. Although I am a disciple of Christ, and will preach Christ to anyone and everyone that will listen, I never say I’m a Christian. I’m a saint. The whole modern push to get Christians to accept us as one of them, or call us by their own name, is indicative of the spiritual state of the church. We should just be what we are, what the Lord has called us to be, instead of trying to be something else, as defined by someone else. Intellectual takes on issues such as these often never get to the heart of the problem. Ever learning, a million words said, but never arriving at a conclusion, correct or otherwise. Endless discussions for nothing. A whole lot of hot air. You ask, “So what is Christianity?” I’d answer, “You tell me. You say you are the Christian. I’m a saint.” Now, if you’d asked, “So what is sainthood?” I’d be able to tell you.
Sorry for the rant, but the intellectual musings at by common consent make me want to barf.
LDSA, you are overlooking the fact that the term Christian appears in the both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon to refer to disciples of Jesus Christ, so this is not just a creedalist term invented at the same time the Bible was put together (by committee decision) at the Council of Nicea.
Where’s the scripture reference in the New Testament?
The Bible (or New Testament for that matter) as a collection of canonized texts as we know it now wasn’t complete and brought together under the direction of the Council of Nicea in 325, John. Are you referring to something else?
When I said, “non-Mormons came up with the term Christian,” I was referring to both the non-members of the New Testament and the non-members of the Book of Mormon. The New Testament and Book of Mormon saints called themselves “saints,” but at a certain time the non-members starting calling the saints “Christians.” It is similar to nowadays, the non-members calling us “Mormons” instead of “saints.” After awhile, the saints just say, “Okay, we’ll be called Mormons.” In that day, they did the same, they essentially said, “Okay, we’ll be called Christians.” There are only 7 verses in the Standard Works that uses the term “Christian” (3 verses in the New Testament and 4 verses in the Book of Mormon), whereas there are a gazillion uses of the word “saint.” In both books of scripture, the record indicates that it was the non-members who started calling the saints this term:
“And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” Acts 11: 26. “And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.” Alma 46: 15.
The Lord calls his people saints. That should be the only thing important to us.
Guys, I recently saw a good friend of mine in a fast-food joint in town. We were high school friends and still are to this day. He became a bishop here in town. But because of reorganization in ward boundaries, he has been released for a spell. Sharp, friendly guy. No doubt, he will be an important LDS leader in the days ahead.
Anyways, we were discussing his N.T. reading for this year. And he expressed to me his love for Acts. I mentioned to him my travels in Turkey this spring . . . Derbe, Lystra, Pisidian Antioch . . .
He immediately brought up the reference noted by LDSA, totally excited by the term first mentioned in Antioch (which I had to explain the two different Antiochs).
But LDSA, he showed great affection for this term. I think it is biblically artificial to separate “Christian” from “saint”. The term “saint” is precious to me, but I will also take some labels given by those hostile to me . . . “fundamentalist Christian.” This is accurate, too.
“Creedal Christian,” now that is another matter. John f., just brings that up in every comment on HI4LDS to spite me.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
I find this whole constant dog-chasing tail topic totally fruitless and dishonest. The LDS should just ‘fess up and say we ain’t Christians. We are saints. And that’s all we should call ourselves. I disagree with Nelson-Seawright’s conclusion. The solution is simple. Since non-Mormons came up with the term Christian, let them define it as they see fit. If they choose to say we aren’t Christian, then we aren’t Christian. Although I am a disciple of Christ, and will preach Christ to anyone and everyone that will listen, I never say I’m a Christian. I’m a saint. The whole modern push to get Christians to accept us as one of them, or call us by their own name, is indicative of the spiritual state of the church. We should just be what we are, what the Lord has called us to be, instead of trying to be something else, as defined by someone else. Intellectual takes on issues such as these often never get to the heart of the problem. Ever learning, a million words said, but never arriving at a conclusion, correct or otherwise. Endless discussions for nothing. A whole lot of hot air. You ask, “So what is Christianity?” I’d answer, “You tell me. You say you are the Christian. I’m a saint.” Now, if you’d asked, “So what is sainthood?” I’d be able to tell you.
Sorry for the rant, but the intellectual musings at by common consent make me want to barf.
LDSA, you are overlooking the fact that the term Christian appears in the both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon to refer to disciples of Jesus Christ, so this is not just a creedalist term invented at the same time the Bible was put together (by committee decision) at the Council of Nicea.
Where’s the scripture reference in the New Testament?
The Bible (or New Testament for that matter) as a collection of canonized texts as we know it now wasn’t complete and brought together under the direction of the Council of Nicea in 325, John. Are you referring to something else?
When I said, “non-Mormons came up with the term Christian,” I was referring to both the non-members of the New Testament and the non-members of the Book of Mormon. The New Testament and Book of Mormon saints called themselves “saints,” but at a certain time the non-members starting calling the saints “Christians.” It is similar to nowadays, the non-members calling us “Mormons” instead of “saints.” After awhile, the saints just say, “Okay, we’ll be called Mormons.” In that day, they did the same, they essentially said, “Okay, we’ll be called Christians.” There are only 7 verses in the Standard Works that uses the term “Christian” (3 verses in the New Testament and 4 verses in the Book of Mormon), whereas there are a gazillion uses of the word “saint.” In both books of scripture, the record indicates that it was the non-members who started calling the saints this term:
“And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” Acts 11: 26. “And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.” Alma 46: 15.
The Lord calls his people saints. That should be the only thing important to us.
Guys, I recently saw a good friend of mine in a fast-food joint in town. We were high school friends and still are to this day. He became a bishop here in town. But because of reorganization in ward boundaries, he has been released for a spell. Sharp, friendly guy. No doubt, he will be an important LDS leader in the days ahead.
Anyways, we were discussing his N.T. reading for this year. And he expressed to me his love for Acts. I mentioned to him my travels in Turkey this spring . . . Derbe, Lystra, Pisidian Antioch . . .
He immediately brought up the reference noted by LDSA, totally excited by the term first mentioned in Antioch (which I had to explain the two different Antiochs).
But LDSA, he showed great affection for this term. I think it is biblically artificial to separate “Christian” from “saint”. The term “saint” is precious to me, but I will also take some labels given by those hostile to me . . . “fundamentalist Christian.” This is accurate, too.
“Creedal Christian,” now that is another matter. John f., just brings that up in every comment on HI4LDS to spite me.