Sect vs. ChurchEdit
The Catholic Church does not seem to aknowledge LDS as a Christian church. What is a neutral way of saying this is a sect of Christianity not recognized as truly Christian? (In my experience, they are very nice people, but not Christian according to this.) -- 10:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how a church with Jesus Christ in the name can be anything other than Christian. I grant you that they are a bit strange, but they are very useful to us genealogists (and always very pleasant and helpful). SemperBlotto 11:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- They changed their offical name primarily because the Catholic church, with a billion memebers, offically says that Mormons are not Christian (even though they do recognize most Protestant faiths as Christian.) They can assert anything they want, but that does not mean that the institution itself is recognized as being Christian. -- 11:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Here's a link from the Pope. -- 11:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- On a personal note: I'm not trying to bash LDSs by providing these links; I think the works they do in the name of Jesus Christ is good. But it certainly is a misrepresentation to label them a Christian Church. How can this entry be worded in a neutral way? --
11:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Of course not, Connel. If the Pope and the Orthodox church(es) (including the Eastern Orthodoxies) (the only two apostolic branches of the Christian faith) deny it's Christian nature, then it is ostensibly not Christian. It is not at all necessary that every one claiming to revere Jesus Christus is Christian. Muslims also revere Jesus Christus as Issa, but that does not make them Christians, not to speak about theosophy or Jehova's Witnesses. Therefore I embrace your conclusion. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Should we take Catholic dogma as the definition of what constitutes Christianity? I think it is a PoV: I'm not sure that the Pope's judgement in these matters is entirely impartial, given Vatican politics, and there are an awful lot of Christians (e.g. Anglicans) who aren't affiliated to Rome whose views about what constitutes Christianity is also valid. Allan 07:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I am glad that the Catholic Church is not the absolute authority of everything. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian Church. I am a follower of and believer in Jesus Christ as is every member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. AlexEagar 01:23, 7 October 2005 (MDT)
- Not being a Catholic myself, I too am glad the Pope is not the absolute authority of everything. But for a definitive definition of what Christianity is, the largest collective group of Christians seems like the appropriate ones to look to, for a definition of the term. I can only guess at the semantics and theological questions the Catholic church looked at in making their determination. And I am glad that you also have found Jesus. -- 08:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I just thought I'd add my opinion, but it looks like the definition we've got is fine. Anyway, using the following definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian church:
- 1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
- 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
- Before we go any further, let it be known that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, although I don't think said fact has any bearing on the discussion. Our church does profess a belief in Jesus as the Christ, and we try to follow His teachings. Therefore, by definition 1 we're Christians.
- Since we consider Christ to be the head of our church (our leader here on Earth, the prophet, receives revelation from Jesus Christ), our church is, as definition 2 states, "derived from Jesus or Jesus' teachings." — V-ball 17:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Capitalization of Church NameEdit
The name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
- My apologies. I did look at http://www.lds.org/ and saw it in all capitals in the logo at the top of the page. I've seen the capital D in Day several times, but now that you've found a more accurate clarification, I'm happy to make that correction. -- 07:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- One more question then, I see "LDS" as a common abbreviation, e.g. in the [http:www.sltrib.com/faith SL Tribune]. It is never "LdS", but for technological reasons, is sometimes "lds"; i.e. www.lds.org. [[[LDS]] is correct, right? -- 08:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- You've got that right on. We use "LDS" all the time, but never "LdS." In fact, this abbreviation is used in other languages as well, such as "СПД" in Russian, which interestingly doesn't follow capitalization at all since the words for "latter-day saints" (святые последних дней) in the Russian title of the Church aren't capitalized at all. — V-ball 17:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- They've changed the web site since I last researched this. Now the web site says "THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS" perhaps in an effort to sidestep the capitalization issues? All their textual links refer also to www.LDS.org although the url does not seem to force it to that using ServerName Apache directives nor redirecting aliases to that name (but instead, forces the *nix-ish all-lowercase style.) I'm pretty sure Netscape Enterprise server has an easier way of doing exactly that. It still seems inconsistent to use proper acronym/initialism capitalization, but not use proper "Title Case" capitalization for the organization name. (If it were in "Sentence case" then 'latter' and 'saints' would not be capitalized either...If it were proper "Title Case" then 'Day' would be.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, they changed the way they write the name in an effort to refocus members' and others' attention on the real focus of the religion, Jesus Christ. Anyway, I also put up a note about the capitalization of "Latter-day Saint" on the talk page of the Latter-Day Saint entry, because I really think that should be revisited (if it's ever been visited . . . ). — V-ball 15:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)