Hello Everyone

[Jay 4 Christ]

I have a question and hope it is okay to ask it here. My family, they always tell me that Mormons are not Christians. They say this very strongly, ike it is not a discussion subject. Because of this I started to research why Mormons say they are Christians and now I am confused more than before. I see Jesus Christ everywhere in the Mormon language, then I see people saying no that does not count, so I am trying to understand who is deciding this and based on the rules, there a checklist? I am not asking this to attack anyone I am honestly trying to learn and also to survive family dinners. 

So, why do Mormons consider themselves Christian? Thank you for your patience with a learner.

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Hi Jay. Exmormon atheist here. Mormons (Latter-day Saints as they prefer) consider themselves Christians because they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior. He is a being solely responsible for their redemption. Mainstream evangelical Christians reject them as Christians because they want to gate-keep the word. Latter-day Saints do not believe in the Nicene creeds and explicitly reject core post biblical doctrines like the Trinity.

I personally think that anyone leveraging a definition to discriminate and look down on a minority is stupid. I think it's fine to say that Latter-day Saints are not "mainline" Christians. Or that they reject many doctrines that most "Christians" accept as fact. But to say they are not Christian is just asinine. 

[JVW]

47 minutes ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

I have a question and hope it is okay to ask it here. My family, they always tell me that Mormons are not Christians. They say this very strongly, ike it is not a discussion subject. Because of this I started to research why Mormons say they are Christians and now I am confused more than before. I see Jesus Christ everywhere in the Mormon language, then I see people saying no that does not count, so I am trying to understand who is deciding this and based on the rules, there a checklist? I am not asking this to attack anyone I am honestly trying to learn and also to survive family dinners. 

So, why do Mormons consider themselves Christian? Thank you for your patience with a learner.

If you're allowed to read threads in the other forums this one is a really interesting discussion about Apologetics vs Polemics 

It basically boils down to something like "many Evangelical Christians and Protestants don't define themselves by what they believe as much as they define themselves by what they don't believe resulting on spending time being overly critical of other faiths." In my experience, those who are working on discovering and refining their own beliefs are very friendly towards the LDS. Thank you for being one of those types of people.

Another thing I'm being reminded of are several essays by this Early Church historian https://substack.com/@orthodoxchristian?utm_source=global-search . In his essays like 

https://kennethbwrites.substack.com/p/the-great-worship-cover-up-the-loudest
https://kennethbwrites.substack.com/p/when-christians-didnt-accept-jesus 

there is a very, very clear picture painted that shows how different modern Christianity is from Christianity pre 19th century. Apparently the Second Great Awakening was a seismic event that impacted the way Christians worship and resulted in it being divorced from Christian traditions prior to it. This essay is also a really great one https://kennethbwrites.substack.com/p/the-bible-did-not-arrive-by-parachute which is especially fun to read if you didn't know ...

Quote

That books were removed from the most widely read English Bible, the King James Version, more than three hundred years after it was first printed by Protestant Christians.

Anyways, I digress.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christian*

*Unless your definition of Jesus is different than theirs.

Everything that is important about Jesus Christ, i.e. everything we are taught about Him in the Old and New Testaments both Protestants, Evangelicals, and Latter-day Saints are in agreement over. So where the Christian calls out the Latter-day Saint as believing in a different Jesus is in the following ways:

- Jesus and Satan aren't brothers.

- We can't become Gods in heaven and won't get our own planet.

- Joseph Smith was a conman/you are in a demonic cult/we are all prophets and don't need any other man to gatekeep and approach God.

- God is done revealing scripture. The book of Revelation says that anyone who adds to this book will be cursed, and the Book of Mormon is trying to add to the Bible.

I'd venture to say that these are the most common jabs at my church. The first two aren't true. In the best light they are gross misrepresentations of LDS doctrine. Point three people can believe whatever they want, but I personally like Joseph the more I learn about him. I hope I can be more like him when I grow up. Point 4 is dumb. The book of Revelation wasn't even part of the Bible when it was written and first circulated, so how could it be referring to anything other than itself in that verse?

Hopefully this addresses your OP. I hope you will stick around and that we can have many fun conversations together that result in all of us growing as Christian people and resulting in us being better disciples of Jesus Christ. Cheers brother!

[Pyreaux]

16 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

I have a question and hope it is okay to ask it here. My family, they always tell me that Mormons are not Christians. They say this very strongly, ike it is not a discussion subject. Because of this I started to research why Mormons say they are Christians and now I am confused more than before. I see Jesus Christ everywhere in the Mormon language, then I see people saying no that does not count, so I am trying to understand who is deciding this and based on the rules, there a checklist? I am not asking this to attack anyone I am honestly trying to learn and also to survive family dinners. 

So, why do Mormons consider themselves Christian? Thank you for your patience with a learner.

Latter-day Saints believe in the divinity of the Bible's Jesus Christ. Muslims are not considered Christian, they venerate Jesus of the Bible but don't believe he is divine nor a literal "son" of God. Muslims don't claim to be Christians. Latter-day Saints always claimed to be Christians. The academic rule is to take people as Christian if that is how they describe themselves. As a general academic term, it is polite to include heretics (even extinct Gnostic groups as Gnostic Christians as opposed to Gnostic Jews) and exclude those who accept the Christ is real and inspired yet do not identify as Christian (Muslims).   

But many Christians won’t allow such a loose definition, denominations have outright invented new criteria for deciding who is a genuine Christian, though they often disagree on the criteria.  According to many of its proponents, a denomination only counts as Christian if those certain conditions are met.

Firstly, no matter how ill-informed, inconsistent or intentionally incomprehensible your personal beliefs about God are, always, always, always... Insist on your commitment to "monotheism", even though there are three fully divine Personages, and you can't fully explain it. Ask any Jew or Muslim, they'll say Trinitarian Christians are not monotheists at all. Trinitarians think Monotheism is secured by a Triunity, the three having a certain relation (e.g. familial relations, dependence relations, or compositional relations) creating an ‘indivisible unity’ such that it is impossible for anyone Trinitarian person to function as a God without the other two (e.g. Jesus must mediate between us and God). For the Creedal Trinity, God is undivided by "substance" or "essence", or "being" to justify believing in plural distinctions.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers itself monotheistic, because God the Father is The God of the Universe and is worshipped by Jesus Christ as well. Latter-Day Saints believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are each individual divine beings, each with roles in administering God's plan. Together, they are our (single) "Godhead" that works and acts together, a oneness in purpose, an alignment of will. No creeds are needed.

Creedal Trinitarian Christians generally insist we are not Christian. Usually, what they mean is we don't adhere to the Creeds, or reject the necessary vocabulary. Christians are all so wildly different, but in theory, they just have to claim they believe in the "Trinity" and they are Christians.

A second reason is for believing extra-biblical (or pseudepigraphal) narratives about the biblical Jesus in the Book of Mormon. It somehow voids our belief in the Biblical Jesus. These things get rhetorically dangerous because it confuses misunderstanding God, something all humans do to some degree, with worshipping a different being. i.e. equating it to actual "idolatry", a sin worthy of hate and death. Those who think we are serving a different entity all together by not knowing the true characteristics of God (a figure fundamentally different from the Nicene God of historical orthodoxy) or believing extra-biblical details about God, and we are literally, not figuratively, are worshipping a "false god" and they exclude members of the LDS Church from the category of Christian. While knowing the true characteristics of God is important, it doesn't change the object of worship, rather the quality of that worship. We would never say your faith in a Greek Triune Jesus invalidates your faith.

Paul’s warning about those preaching "another Jesus" (2 Cor 11:4) wasn’t about an imperfect understanding of the same Jesus, it was about imposters among them, a deliberate replacement of the true Christ with a false one.

Edited January 10 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Christians are all so wildly different, but in theory, they just have claim they believe in the "Trinity" and they are Christians.

Not really just that though.  Many of the same people who deny LDS the right to call ourselves Christians treat Catholics the same because they aren’t sola scriptura…even though such a requirement isn’t really in the Bible (one verse—Deu 4:6 iirc— interpreted as talking against adding to the Bible would eliminate much of the Bible itself as written later, for example).

A Catholic answer to the charge:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-do-some-protestant-denominations-not-consider-catholics-to-be-christians-and-how-do-you

Edited January 9 by Calm

[Calm]

Jay, I believe it’s fine if a particular faith has its own definitions or terms for religious concepts, even when the actual words are commonly used by others if they limit the use of those definitions to inside their own group since all understand the words in the same way.  LDS certainly have multiple definitions for salvation and damnation, which can cause great confusion when we are talking to those not familiar with our way of speaking.  The problem arises when a group or individual insist their particular definition applies globally, iow they interpret everything everyone says using their individual definition or reject any other definition as invalid, wrong, etc.

If LDS insisted that every use of the word “damnation” has to mean only one thing and that is everything besides the state of exaltation as one of its usages, even if one has repented and is baptized, even our own theology would be a mess (exaltation is only one of the many mansions God promises us) with those living in Heaven still being described as damned (that this example is probably more confusing to you than illuminating is evidence that using unique definitions with those who don’t understand the words in the same way isn’t helpful in creating understanding).

From the LDS pov, explaining why we don’t see the limiting of Christian to only those who believe sola scriptura, the creeds, or traditional Christian faiths:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/christians?lang=eng

 

[teddyaware]

On 1/9/2026 at 11:29 AM, Jay 4 Christ said:

I have a question and hope it is okay to ask it here. My family, they always tell me that Mormons are not Christians. They say this very strongly, ike it is not a discussion subject. Because of this I started to research why Mormons say they are Christians and now I am confused more than before. I see Jesus Christ everywhere in the Mormon language, then I see people saying no that does not count, so I am trying to understand who is deciding this and based on the rules, there a checklist? I am not asking this to attack anyone I am honestly trying to learn and also to survive family dinners. 

So, why do Mormons consider themselves Christian? Thank you for your patience with a learner.

 

 

The strange irony with regard to your family’s belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is non-Christian is the fact that if the original Apostolic Church of the Bible could be miraculously transported to the year 2026 your family would likely also consider them to be non-Christian as well. I’m confident when I say this because the New Testament Church was presided over by leaders who testified that they had seen the resurrected Jesus Christ standing at the right hand of God, just like the Prophet Joseph Smith; that they also experienced very real visitations from holy ministering angels from heaven, just like the Prophet Joseph Smith; that standing at the head of the New Testament Church were living apostles and prophets, men who possessed the keys of the kingdom of God on earth and enjoyed the gift of prophecy that empowered them to receive new revelation from God, just like the Latter-Day Saints; that the New Testament Church also didn’t believe that the canon of scripture is full, which is why they were comfortable when they added new books of scripture to the then existing Bible, just like Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; that the New Testament Church of Christ also administered a dynamic worldwide missionary program to spread the gospel of Christ throughout the world, in faithful obedience to the great commission of the Lord to preach the gospel to every creature, just like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; that the New Testament Church of Christ also believed the gospel is preached to the dead that they might be judge according to men in the flesh while living according to the will of God in the realm of the departed spirits of the dead, just like the Latter-Day Saints; and the New Testament Church also believed God ordains his faithful followers to become eternal kings and priests in heaven as enthroned sons of God, just as it is with the Latter-Day Saints.

If your family were to attend church services with the members of the time transported New Testament Church of Christ, they would very likely experience cognitive dissonance and extreme culture shock when they would wake up to the realization that the Church was being led by living apostles and prophets of God, not by people who believe that living apostles and prophets are no longer needed.

 

11 And he gave some,apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 TILL we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Ephesians 4)

Edited January 11 by teddyaware

[manol]

On 1/9/2026 at 10:29 AM, Jay 4 Christ said:

So, why do Mormons consider themselves Christian? Thank you for your patience with a learner.

Good for you, for doing your own investigation, and for including actual Mormons in it!

For context, I am no longer LDS.  In response to your question, and in addition to @SeekingUnderstanding's excellent response, I'd like to add this: 

Every week the most sacred part of the LDS church service is "the Sacrament", commonly called the Lord's Supper by other Christian religions.  If you read the Sacrament prayers, you'll see that those who participate witness unto God the following:  They are willing to take upon themselves the name of Christ, and to always remember Him, and to keep His commandments; and then they witness that they do (in fact) always remember Him. 

Links:  Blessing on the Bread (churchofjesuschrist.org); Blessing on the Water (churchofjesuschrist.or

And further, just about everything the Mormons do in a religious setting is done "in the name of Jesus Christ".  Despite no longer being a member, I still find many profound teachings from and about Christ within the LDS church. 

As you know, Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a net which was cast into the sea and gathered of every kind.  I fully believe the Mormons are one of those kinds.

Jesus also taught that "by their fruits you may know them".  So you might want to check out what the Mormon missionaries have to say.  At some point, instead of saying "take our word for it for this and this and this reason", they will probably tell you to ask God directly.  That's a lot of boldness and a lot of honesty and a lot of faith on their part.  Whatever God does or does not tell you, you will come away from the experience understanding the Mormons pretty well. 

[Tacenda]

On 1/9/2026 at 9:43 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Hi Jay. Exmormon atheist here. Mormons (Latter-day Saints as they prefer) consider themselves Christians because they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior. He is a being solely responsible for their redemption. Mainstream evangelical Christians reject them as Christians because they want to gate-keep the word. Latter-day Saints do not believe in the Nicene creeds and explicitly reject core post biblical doctrines like the Trinity.

I personally think that anyone leveraging a definition to discriminate and look down on a minority is stupid. I think it's fine to say that Latter-day Saints are not "mainline" Christians. Or that they reject many doctrines that most "Christians" accept as fact. But to say they are not Christian is just asinine. 

So glad I didn't post an answer. Yours fits to a T!

[Jay 4 Christ]

On 1/9/2026 at 11:43 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

He is a being solely responsible for their redemption.

Thanks! I did research on this sentence. Feel free to critique.

LDS believe Christ absolutely saves from physical death. Resurrection is unconditional. Christ is 100% responsible.

But spiritual salvation works differently in Mormonism? That part Christ isn't responsible for, the individual is responsible for actually achieving it through obedience and ordinances. That's how a cousin explained it to me.

That's why idea like "after all we can do" matter so much in LDS. I'm understanding LDS not just trusting in Christ alone, you actively are responsible for your own spiritual salvation. Am I understanding salvation according to LDS? 

Christianity believes Christ carries the final responsibility. LDS believe complete salvation is a shared responsibility. This is how my family explained it.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

That part Christ isn't responsible for, the individual is responsible for actually achieving it through obedience and ordinances. That's how a cousin explained it to me.

Your cousin is wrong, though the mistake is understandable and common.

If your parent gives you the gift of a car for college (a gift he has had ready and waiting for you since before you were born), but requires you to learn how to drive and get a driver’s license beforehand, is it any less of a gift?  Your parent pays for any fees, taxes, insurance, gas in the future while also teaching you how to drive.   You just need to show up and pay attention and then use it well to fulfill their purpose of gifting you it and everything else.

Did you pay for any of the car or what came with it just because you had to agree to prepare yourself to be able to receive it?

You also have the choice not to learn or go get a license, but then the car will just sit in the driveway since you don’t know how to use it and you can’t go off to college with it.

Salvation is a gift from God, he asks us to prepare ourselves to receive his gifts that he prepares for us…and then on top of that, he is the one who prepares us through the work of his spirit with repentance and faith and obedience. 

Edited January 11 by Calm

[JVW]

21 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Thanks! I did research on this sentence. Feel free to critique.

LDS believe Christ absolutely saves from physical death. Resurrection is unconditional. Christ is 100% responsible.

But spiritual salvation works differently in Mormonism? That part Christ isn't responsible for, the individual is responsible for actually achieving it through obedience and ordinances. That's how a cousin explained it to me.

That's why idea like "after all we can do" matter so much in LDS. I'm understanding LDS not just trusting in Christ alone, you actively are responsible for your own spiritual salvation. Am I understanding salvation according to LDS? 

Christianity believes Christ carries the final responsibility. LDS believe complete salvation is a shared responsibility. This is how my family explained it.

 

Calm's analogy was really good. I'd like to add one thing here.

In the church we believe that all except for sons of perdition will receive a degree of God's glory and dwell in the presence of at least one member of the Godhead for all eternity. If salvation is defined as this, then all will be saved, regardless of whether they accept Jesus or not. One caveat here is that those who were wicked will suffer for their own sins in hell for a thousand years before being saved, since they didn't accept Jesus' mercy. This doctrine is not biblically supported, it relies almost entirely on Doctrine and Covenants 76 and a few other sections. See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76?lang=eng&id=p64#p64 , the whole section is great, but from verse 81 on is the relevant part to this paragraph.

If salvation is defined as dwelling with Christ forever, then those who confess Christ and keep God's commandments are the only ones who will be saved. This is because a true disciple of Christ follow Him and keeps His commandments. It is evidence of their faith and discipleship. See: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James 2:14-26&version=NKJV and https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 25%3A34-46&version=KJV

If salvation is becoming joint-heirs with Christ then baptism by one with God's authority is required. This depends on how one interprets the Bible. see here https://biblehub.com/john/3-5.htm . We interpret the verse according to this commentary from the Book of Mormon, which actually presents a really beautiful concept. 2 Nephi 31:5-10 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/31?lang=eng&id=p5#p5 These verses indicate that the gate by which we enter into the strait and narrow path is baptism, and that to be baptized is to follow Jesus. These verses also reinforce the interpretation that unless one is born of water and of the spirit they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Quote

5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?

So there are a few different ways to define salvation and look at it. How do you define salvation and what do you believe is necessary in order to receive it?

[bluebell]

23 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Thanks! I did research on this sentence. Feel free to critique.

LDS believe Christ absolutely saves from physical death. Resurrection is unconditional. Christ is 100% responsible.

But spiritual salvation works differently in Mormonism? That part Christ isn't responsible for, the individual is responsible for actually achieving it through obedience and ordinances. That's how a cousin explained it to me.

That's why idea like "after all we can do" matter so much in LDS. I'm understanding LDS not just trusting in Christ alone, you actively are responsible for your own spiritual salvation. Am I understanding salvation according to LDS? 

Christianity believes Christ carries the final responsibility. LDS believe complete salvation is a shared responsibility. This is how my family explained it.

 

One good way to look at the "after all we can do" aspect is to remember that for most of us, all we can do is have faith in Christ, repent of our sins, try to follow Him, and then keep doing those things over and over for our whole lives.

Christianity as you've described it also believes in a shared responsibility, otherwise everyone would be saved automatically, right?  

(Welcome to the board.   )

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Thanks! I did research on this sentence. Feel free to critique.

😬😁

23 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

LDS believe Christ absolutely saves from physical death. Resurrection is unconditional. Christ is 100% responsible.

Yep.

23 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

But spiritual salvation works differently in Mormonism? That part Christ isn't responsible for, the individual is responsible for actually achieving it through obedience and ordinances. That's how a cousin explained it to me.

That's why idea like "after all we can do" matter so much in LDS. I'm understanding LDS not just trusting in Christ alone, you actively are responsible for your own spiritual salvation. Am I understanding salvation according to LDS? 

Latter-day Saints as a tradition (from my perpective) very much focuses on good works in this life. I was taught that no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God and the only way to be clean was to follow God's commandments and repent when you fall short. As with everything there is a spectrum of belief here among members. Some in the tradition say we misunderstand "after all we can do" and that in Joseph Smith's day the phrase would have been understood better as "despite all we can do". How much an individual in the tradition focuses on works varies, but it does differ than protestants who teach that accepting Christ's atonement is sufficient.

I'd like to point out a couple things though.

• Accepting Christ's atonement seems very much like an "action" just like paying a full tithe. I've never understood the difference.
• Every latter-day saint will tell you that it's Christ's grace that saves them from sins - not works. They just differ on what qualifies one for grace. For you perhaps, accepting Jesus in your heart is sufficient. For Latter-day Saints it is different. But neither of believe for instance Christ's grace is going to save an unrepentant unbelieving sinner like me. 

23 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Christianity believes

Here you lose the plot. Do you really purport to speak for all of Christianity? What of Catholics whose view on the matter is closer to Latter-day Saints? 

23 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Christ carries the final responsibility. LDS believe complete salvation is a shared responsibility. This is how my family explained it.

 

Latter-day Saints would say that Christ carries all the responsibility. You believe that there is only one requirement to access salvaiton - belief (sorry if I am misrepresenting you with my assumption). Latter-day Saints (and most Christians - i.e. Catholics and Orthodox) believe there is more than one.

 

Edited January 12 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Tacenda]

Hope this isn't too far off the subject. 

Yesterday and last Sunday my husband and I were on a drive.  We turned on the radio to local stations that play Sunday music. Or gospel music. In the past I would always play Sounds of Sunday, and it's base was LDS music. Well, in 2026, that station is playing more Jesus music, somewhat like the KLove station in Utah does, IMO.  Funnily this is what I started listening to during my crisis of faith years ago and I was searching for other faiths. One day years ago I was cleaning our camper and listening to the KLove station, evangelical music I think. And my husband walks in, a fully believing staunch LDS and was upset that I was listening to it. But now it seems to be on LDS owned stations, 100.3 on FM, or the style is similar.

Do any of you think it's more like Evangelical style music vs. before? Or is it all in my head? I'd love to know how long this has been happening, because in the last 5 years or so I've not been playing it on Sundays. But yesterday on the drive, I really enjoyed it. 

There was a talk given years ago by Bruce R. McConkie that explains my post a little better about not having a special relationship particularly with Jesus. Here's a blogspot below about it and here's the discussion about it on MDDB. Has the LDS changed a lot from when this talk was given? It seems there is much more Jesus talk than before. Therefore are we going more Evangelical or non LDS Christian than before?

https://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2009/04/bruce-r-mcconkie-and-our-relationship.html

Edited January 12 by Tacenda

[let’s roll]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

One good way to look at the "after all we can do" aspect is to remember that for most of us, all we can do is have faith in Christ, repent of our sins, try to follow Him, and then keep doing those things over and over for our whole lives.

AFTER ALL

What does it mean that His grace will save after all that I can do.

Does He stand aside and watch me try til I ultimately fail 

And once I’m spent I stand aside to watch His strength prevail?

 

Or will He lift me from the very start

Do we strive, labor, and weep together, and not apart  

Perhaps after all, all that I can do is ask in faith that He abide with me

To hasten my conversion from who I am to who I want to be

 

Edited January 13 by let’s roll

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

AFTER ALL

What does it mean that His grace will save after all that I can do.

Does He stand aside and watch me try til I ultimately fail 

And once I’m spent I stand aside to watch His strength prevail?

 

Or will He lift me from the very start

Do we strive, labor, and weep together, and not apart  

Perhaps after all, all that I can do is ask in faith that He abide with me

To hasten my conversion from who I am to who I want to be

 

I love Brad Wilcox's explanation of Christ's "part" in our salvation that he shared in his book "His Grace is Sufficient" (the title is a quote of a verse in the Book of Mormon, @Jay 4 Christ).

Quote

 

Christ’s Grace Is Sufficient to Cover Us

A BYU student once came to me and asked if we could talk. I said, “Of course. How can I help you?”

She said, “I just don’t get grace.”

I responded, “What is it that you don’t understand?”

She said, “I know I need to do my best and then Jesus does the rest, but I can’t even do my best.”

She then went on to tell me all the things she should be doing because she’s a Mormon that she wasn’t doing.

She continued, “I know that I have to do my part and then Jesus makes up the difference and fills the gap that stands between my part and perfection. But who fills the gap that stands between where I am now and my part?”

She then went on to tell me all the things that she shouldn’t be doing because she’s a Mormon, but she was doing them anyway.

Finally I said, “Jesus doesn’t make up the difference. Jesus makes all the difference. Grace is not about filling gaps. It is about filling us.”

Seeing that she was still confused, I took a piece of paper and drew two dots—one at the top representing God and one at the bottom representing us. I then said, “Go ahead. Draw the line. How much is our part? How much is Christ’s part?”

She went right to the center of the page and began to draw a line. Then, considering what we had been speaking about, she went to the bottom of the page and drew a line just above the bottom dot.

I said, “Wrong.”

She said, “I knew it was higher. I should have just drawn it, because I knew it.”

I said, “No. The truth is, there is no line. Jesus filled the whole space. He paid our debt in full. He didn’t pay it all except for a few coins. He paid it all. It is finished.”

She said, “Right! Like I don’t have to do anything?”

“Oh no,” I said, “you have plenty to do, but it is not to fill that gap. We will all be resurrected. We will all go back to God’s presence. What is left to be determined by our obedience is what kind of body we plan on being resurrected with and how comfortable we plan to be in God’s presence and how long we plan to stay there.”

Christ asks us to show faith in Him, repent, make and keep covenants, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. By complying, we are not paying the demands of justice—not even the smallest part. Instead, we are showing appreciation for what Jesus Christ did by using it to live a life like His. Justice requires immediate perfection or a punishment when we fall short. Because Jesus took that punishment, He can offer us the chance for ultimate perfection (see Matthew 5:48, 3 Nephi 12:48) and help us reach that goal. He can forgive what justice never could, and He can turn to us now with His own set of requirements (see 2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20).

“So what’s the difference?” the girl asked. “Whether our efforts are required by justice or by Jesus, they are still required.”

“True,” I said, “but they are required for a different purpose.

 

 

Edited January 13 by bluebell

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Has the LDS changed a lot from when this talk was given?

Yes, imo, in certain areas.  Speaking of personal relationships with Christ is one of them.  I think people are more relaxed about it now than after Elder McConkie raised his concerns.

Quote

Jesus called His followers by many names: Disciples. Sons and daughters. Children of the prophets. Sheep. Friends.The light of the world. Saints. Each carries eternal significance and underscores a personal relationship with the Savior.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/10/52cuvelier?lang=eng

But remember not everyone saw things the same way even back then or maybe it was the inferences Elder McConkie drew from the phrase that were the problem, a certain way of seeing one’s relationship to Christ that led to some extreme behaviour due to a popular book taken too far imo rather than any type of personal relationships with Christ.  Mentioned in your link….

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1976/11/a-personal-relationship-with-the-savior?lang=eng

Quote

Recently in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked, “What is the greatest need in the world?” One wisely responded: “Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with the Savior?” Having such a relationship can unchain the divinity within us, and nothing can make a greater difference in our lives as we come to know and understand our divine relationship with God.

 

 

Edited January 13 by Calm

[Jay 4 Christ]

On 1/9/2026 at 4:52 PM, Calm said:

The problem arises when a group or individual insist their particular definition applies globally, iow they interpret everything everyone says using their individual definition or reject any other definition as invalid, wrong, etc.

I understand your concern, I want to push back a little. 

You're saying it's ok for a faith community to have it's own inside definitions and not applied globally. I actually agree with that. Happens in every religion. Problem is that Mormonism doesn't keep it's "definitions" inside the group.

LDS explicitly believe the gospel is universally binding. That's a foundational belief isn't it?

Same with salvation. LDS theology doesn't merely say "we define salvation differently for ourselves." Doesn't it teach no onee can return to God's presence without accepting the restored gospel, whether it is in this life or in spirit world? This is a global claim that applies to Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhist, Atheist s, really everyone.

LDS interpret the fate of all humanity through uniquely LDS categories and in my opinion not Christian categories.

I'm not saying this makes Mormonism uniquely evil or dishonest because many religions make universal truth claims. But shouldn't we at least be honest about what is happening? You cannot say "your definitions are internal" and insist that everyone everywhere ultimately must conform to those definitions to reach God.

[The Nehor]

The “personal relationship with Jesus/Christ” concept is a very modern concept that seeped into the Church from Protestant faiths, mostly American Evangelicalism.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

I'm not saying this makes Mormonism uniquely evil or dishonest because many religions make universal truth claims. But shouldn't we at least be honest about what is happening? You cannot say "your definitions are internal" and insist that everyone everywhere ultimately must conform to those definitions to reach God.

But that’s not what I mean.  I think everyone pretty much assumes their faith belief applies to everyone in the world.  Don’t you?  You don’t believe there are actually a different beings who is God for Hindus like you believe there is God the Father and Christ, correct?  Don’t you believe if anyone in the world is saved in the hereafter, they must accept Christ as their savior (whatever that means to you)?  A Buddhist won’t achieve Nirvana just because they believe in that and a Hindu will be reincarnated until liberation and uniting with Brahman?

But that is a very different topic than what I was talking about.

I am only talking about how we communicate with each other, not our world views.

To avoid communication misunderstandings, we should try and use a common language, which means avoid less universal definitions.

I am essentially saying if you speak English at home, that’s no big deal even if you are living Spain or China.  Your family who all speak English understand you, no one is being left out or confused by it.  But if you leave the house and go to work and refuse to talk anything but English there with your coworkers who only know a little English, but speak the country’s common language fluently and the company is Spanish or Chinese, people would think you were troublesome or odd to refuse to even try and speak the language everyone else around them is speaking.  You might luck out and find someone who speaks English to work with you short term , but in the long run, your work day will go much smoother with much less mistakes and obstacles if you have taken the time to learn and use the language everyone else is using.

By accepting that it makes sense to speak Spanish in Spain with the Spanish and Chinese in China with the Chinese while speaking English at home with your American? Canadian? English speaking family, I am not saying that in the end everyone will have to speak English because it’s the only correct language.

Iow, what I am saying in respect to our different faiths, is when we are with those who speak our own faith language, it doesn’t matter what definitions we use because everyone will use the same in our group.  But when we interact with other faith groups we need to use the words that are most universal to explain our more individual beliefs.  I shouldn’t use “salvation” and just assume a Protestant or Catholic will understand which version I am talking about by the context as I likely can with fellow Saints.  I need to use more common terms or go into detail until I am certain someone understands what I mean.  For example, if I tell someone they need to be baptized as a sign of faith and obedience to Christ, I can’t just stop there because they may assume any form of baptism would be accepted by LDS.  I need to state instead something like ‘we believe the Restored Gospel—one of the correct and preferred names of our faith—teaches that baptism by immersion by someone who has been given authority by God, namely a priesthood holder in our LDS faith, is required by God ‘.  Hopefully that communicates to anyone (though they need to be familiar with what priesthood and immersion are) what we mean when we say among ourselves “baptism is one of the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel”.

I am not saying be dishonest by claiming to believe something we don’t by accepting others’ definitions, I am saying explain our own beliefs by using common, universal definitions so everyone is more likely to understand our beliefs like we understand them so they can then decide what they think about our beliefs and talk about them with us effectively.

It can get very frustrating when people think we believe something we don’t.  This can occur not only because someone else has misrepresented our beliefs, but because we weren’t careful enough in what ways we chose to explain our beliefs or even just assumed people understood.

Edited January 15 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

I understand your concern, I want to push back a little. 

You're saying it's ok for a faith community to have it's own inside definitions and not applied globally. I actually agree with that. Happens in every religion. Problem is that Mormonism doesn't keep it's "definitions" inside the group.

LDS explicitly believe the gospel is universally binding. That's a foundational belief isn't it?

Same with salvation. LDS theology doesn't merely say "we define salvation differently for ourselves." Doesn't it teach no onee can return to God's presence without accepting the restored gospel, whether it is in this life or in spirit world? This is a global claim that applies to Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhist, Atheist s, really everyone.

LDS interpret the fate of all humanity through uniquely LDS categories and in my opinion not Christian categories.

I'm not saying this makes Mormonism uniquely evil or dishonest because many religions make universal truth claims. But shouldn't we at least be honest about what is happening? You cannot say "your definitions are internal" and insist that everyone everywhere ultimately must conform to those definitions to reach God.

I think Calm's point is that some Christian denominations (such as Trinitarians) don't keep their definitions inside the group.  They want to apply them globally.  It's fine if Trinitarians want to define a Christian as only being Trinitarians, for example.  But their definition applies only to them.  They aren't the gatekeepers of who is a Christian or not.  

But really, I think the difficulty with this conversation is that you seem to be coming at it from a perspective of 'theology determines salvation' while latter-day saint teaching focuses more on 'being a sincere follow Christ determines salvation because all sincere followers of Christ will eventually get where He wants them to go." 

I think you've set your sights too small, pitting one denomination's theology against other with the winner being the one that gets to go to Heaven.  That is a uniquely protestant perspective that doesn't translate to latter-day saint theology very well.

In our belief system, every person who is honestly and sincerely seeking to follow Christ will be saved because they will sincerely try to do all things that He commands them to do, both in this life and in the next.  

For example, if Christ told me that I needed to be a Trinitarian to be saved, and I was a sincere follower of Him, then of course I would do that without a second thought.  Does that mean that I'm only going to be saved because I finally conformed to evangelical theology?  Heck no. It just means that I can continue on the path that I was already on, but now with more truth to help me walk it.

If evangelicals have a truth that I need to also hold in order to follow Christ better, then I will embrace that truth because it is true, not because I have to agree with evangelicals to follow Christ.  And I will be saved because I embraced Christ's truth, not because I finally conformed to EV theology.

Likewise, if Latter-day saints have truth that sincere evangelical followers of Christ need to also hold in order to follow Christ better, then we believe they will embrace that truth as well, for the same reasons that we would happily embrace all the truth that they have.  It's another step on the path that they are already on. 

It's not about conforming to your theology or you conforming to mine, it's about both of us sincerely working to conform to Christ, wherever we find Him or wherever He leads us.  If we do that, then we are saved.  Full stop.   

 

 

[Pyreaux]

On 1/14/2026 at 2:09 PM, Jay 4 Christ said:

I understand your concern, I want to push back a little. 

You're saying it's ok for a faith community to have it's own inside definitions and not applied globally. I actually agree with that. Happens in every religion. Problem is that Mormonism doesn't keep it's "definitions" inside the group.

LDS explicitly believe the gospel is universally binding. That's a foundational belief isn't it?

Same with salvation. LDS theology doesn't merely say "we define salvation differently for ourselves." Doesn't it teach no onee can return to God's presence without accepting the restored gospel, whether it is in this life or in spirit world? This is a global claim that applies to Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhist, Atheist s, really everyone.

LDS interpret the fate of all humanity through uniquely LDS categories and in my opinion not Christian categories.

I'm not saying this makes Mormonism uniquely evil or dishonest because many religions make universal truth claims. But shouldn't we at least be honest about what is happening? You cannot say "your definitions are internal" and insist that everyone everywhere ultimately must conform to those definitions to reach God.

When a Latter-day Saint says, "our definitions are internal," they are referring to the vocabulary and taxonomy. For example here, LDS use the word "Salvation", may contextually mean "Resurrection" (universal) and "Exaltation" to mean "Living with God" (conditional).

To suggest because these definitions describe a fate that applies to everyone (universal scope), the definitions themselves are no longer "internal" is incoherent. A physicist's internal definition of gravity in "general relativity" applies to all humans regardless of their belief in physics, but the definition itself still remains a specialized, internal tool used by the scientific community to describe reality.

The assertion that LDS categories are "not Christian categories" is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy. By setting up "Christian categories" as a fixed, external standard that excludes LDS thought, is doing exactly what you accuse the LDS of doing: using a specific, internal definition (likely Creedal-Nicene) and insisting it must be the "global" standard for what counts as truly "Christian".

"You cannot say 'your definitions are internal' and insist that everyone everywhere ultimately must conform to those definitions."

This is a False Dilemma. One can absolutely have a unique internal framework for understanding a universal reality. Every truth claim ever made (scientific, legal, or religious) is formulated using 'internal definitions' but are intended to describe a 'universal reality.' By your logic, no one could ever claim to have found a universal truth unless they used someone else's vocabulary to describe it.

Edit:

Excuse my ASD bottom-up logic. It just occurred to me I may have got lost in the smaller details to realize this all could have been a big Whataboutism (Tu Quoque) defending the right of "Mainstream Christians" to exclude LDS people from the "Christian" label.

"If LDS have the right to define 'Salvation' internally even though it affects me, then Mainstream Christians have the right to define 'Christian' internally even though it affects you." The classic, "If you can do the first, I can do the second."

It equates two different types of definitions. The LDS definitions are ontological. We are describing what we believe the afterlife looks like. It is a claim about the nature of reality. The Anti-LDS definitions are taxonomical. They are describing who gets to use a social/historical label. It is a claim about the ownership of a word.

Believing that a Muslim may eventually need the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ (technically it could be the regular Gospel in a Spirit World devoid of denominations) to reach the highest heaven is a religious revelation. Saying "Mormons aren't Christians" is a non-revelatory sociolinguistic gatekeeping tactic.

This relies on making the LDS position sound more aggressive than it is. In reality the LDS theology uses "internal definitions" to be pluralistic (under the Three Degrees of Glory, virtually everyone will ultimately receive a type of "salvation" they themselves desire). Using phrases like "must conform" and "fate of all humanity," the Jay frames LDS theology as a form of linguistic imperialism, perhaps in order to justify linguistic exclusion.

Edited January 16 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

A physicist's internal definition of gravity in "general relativity" applies to all humans regardless of their belief in physics, but the definition itself still remains a specialized, internal tool used by the scientific community to describe reality.

I actually completely formulated in my mind another analogy using physicists and their jargon, but never got around to writing it.  And now I don’t have to.