LDS Definitions of Christian Terminology "Completely Different?"

[smac97]

See here:

Quote

An evangelical pastor who was raised in Salt Lake City, Utah, said that while The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shows itself as another Christian denomination and will speak about various Christian beliefs, "they all have totally different meanings." 

"Totally different meanings?"

Is there a static definition of terms that is consistent throughout all of Christendom except for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Color me a bit skeptical about that.

Quote

"Mormons, particularly in the last couple of decades, they use our language.

I don't think so.  I don't think we've picked up any new jargon/terminology in the last few decades.

Quote

They use all of our terms, biblical terms, but they have completely different definitions, forms, meanings," said Richard Hornock, the senior pastor of Fellowship Bible Church in Texarkana, Texas, on the podcast "The Table."

On some fundamental words and phrases, yes, there are some key differences.  "Godhead" v. "Trinity."  "Salvation" and "Exaltation."  Not too many of these, though.  And the concepts to which these terms are applied are hotly contested throughout Christendom.

Quote

Titled "Respectfully Engaging the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," the episode centered on Hornock's knowledge of Mormon theology and experiences growing up in the epicenter of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

One example Hornock cited was the nature of God, specifically how Mormons believe that human beings who are good enough can become deities.

"If we live our life right, we could become gods. Our God, the Father, he once was a man on some other planet, some other universe, and he was such a good guy, did what he was supposed to do so well, that his god made him a god, and gave him his own universe, his own solar system, and so he's doing that," explained Hornock.

"We've all been sent here to prove our worthiness, and the ones that really do well, will someday be granted deity, they'll become a god and get their own universe and solar system to do with as they please."

This seems to be a difference in doctrine.  Soteriology.  But I'm not seeing much difference in terminology.

Our approach to "exaltation" is, I readily concede, a bold idea.  But it's not entirely exclusive to us, as evidenced by terms such as "theosis" and "deification."

Quote

Hornock also talked about the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead, and how many of his childhood friends were often baptized several times in a service on behalf of deceased individuals.

"They would go to the temple, and they'd get baptized probably 100 times for dead relatives, and that'd take place in about 15 minutes," recalled Hornock.

"My friends were even taught that if you paid attention when you're under the water, that person might come back and thank you for baptizing them."

This seems to be a difference in practice, not terminology.  (Also, I've never heard of the "when you're under the water" thing - I'm skeptical of that, actually).

And the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:29 seems fairly difficult to falsify.

Quote

There has long been debate about whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian denomination. 

The North American Mission Board, which is part of the Southern Baptist Convention — the largest Protestant denomination in the country — argues that "Mormon teaching is not orthodox nor biblical."

"When taken as doctrine, there is no other way to describe the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) than as cultic," the NAMB states.

For its part, the LDS Church has stated on its official website that Mormons "unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christians," then quoted founder Joseph Smith.

"The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, 'that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;' and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion," read the Smith quote.

I appreciate that the Christian Post is giving us an opportunity to speak for ourselves.

Quote

Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, explained in an episode of his podcast "The Briefing" earlier this month that he believed the name change announcement showed they were making "a truth claim."

Mohler argued that by demanding that they be called by their full name and not a shorter term like "Mormons," the LDS Church is reaffirming its belief that "all other Christian churches are not real churches."

"The official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, popularly known as the Mormons, is that their Church is the restoration of the true Church, which had disappeared on earth between the time of the disciples, properly the Apostles, all the way until Joseph Smith in the United States in the 19th Century," said Mohler.

"Notice the definite article, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In that name, there is a clear claim to identity with Jesus Christ, but a clear claim of discontinuity and absolute distance from the church from the time of the Apostles until Joseph Smith."

Oh, the irony.

Quote

So what exactly attracts people to the Mormon faith?

Hornock believes it's the picture perfect-looking family.

"Take Mitt Romney, for example. Who doesn't want a family like him? I mean, beautiful wife, five incredible looking sons who all married well, lots of grandchildren, lots of money, no scandal. They all seem like they get together and enjoy one another," he noted in the podcast. 

Also, in more recent years, "they are really touting the fact that they provide peace, and security, and comfort."

I think the our emphasis on the family is indeed a key feature.  But that emphasis is not out of place.  To the contrary, our doctrines center on families.  Heavenly Father is our literal father.  Jesus Christ is our literal brother.  Salvation and eternal life is bound up in marriage and eternal increase.

Quote

When asked by Darrell Bock, executive director of Cultural Engagement and senior research professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, how to respectfully engage Mormons, Hornock responded, "If you engage a Mormon, you don't start talking about these wild and crazy things that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young taught because they want to forget them."

Instead, the best strategy is to simply challenge them to read the Bible.

That's how Micah Wilder, who was raised in a Mormon home and was a full-time missionary for the LDS Church, ended up giving his life to Christ. He now leads Adam's Road Ministry to reach out to Mormons with "the true Gospel of Jesus."

I am totally okay with this approach.  I very much appreciate the respect inherent in it.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See here:

"Totally different meanings?"

Is there a static definition of terms that is consistent throughout all of Christendom except for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Color me a bit skeptical about that.

I don't think so.  I don't think we've picked up any new jargon/terminology in the last few decades.

On some fundamental words and phrases, yes, there are some key differences.  "Godhead" v. "Trinity."  "Salvation" and "Exaltation."  Not too many of these, though.  And the concepts to which these terms are applied are hotly contested throughout Christendom.

This seems to be a difference in doctrine.  Soteriology.  But I'm not seeing much difference in terminology.

Our approach to "exaltation" is, I readily concede, a bold idea.  But it's not entirely exclusive to us, as evidenced by terms such as "theosis" and "deification."

This seems to be a difference in practice, not terminology.  (Also, I've never heard of the "when you're under the water" thing - I'm skeptical of that, actually).

And the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:29 seems fairly difficult to falsify.

I appreciate that the Christian Post is giving us an opportunity to speak for ourselves.

Oh, the irony.

I think the our emphasis on the family is indeed a key feature.  But that emphasis is not out of place.  To the contrary, our doctrines center on families.  Heavenly Father is our literal father.  Jesus Christ is our literal brother.  Salvation and eternal life is bound up in marriage and eternal increase.

I am totally okay with this approach.  I very much appreciate the respect inherent in it.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Why even bother with this kind of crap? You can pretty much predict the Evangelical response to any news coming out of the church. Engaging it seems to give it more attention than it merits. 

[bluebell]

He doesn’t know as much about our beliefs as he thinks he does (and I mean no disrespect by that). 

How can they hope to reach us when they are always highlighting how little they actually know us?  This wouldn’t matter if they were focusing on their own beliefs but they aren’t. They are trying to reach us using their ideas of our beliefs. 

And it’s really annoying. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Why even bother with this kind of crap?

I'm interested in how we are perceived by people of different faiths.

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You can pretty much predict the Evangelical response to any news coming out of the church. Engaging it seems to give it more attention than it merits. 

I'm not really "engaging" it.  I brought the story here for discussion.  I didn't make a comment in the comments section, nor share it on Facebook.  I shared it here, where I thought other people may, like me, be interested in reading it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm interested in how we are perceived by people of different faiths.

I'm not really "engaging" it.  I brought the story here for discussion.  I didn't make a comment in the comments section, nor share it on Facebook.  I shared it here, where I thought other people may, like me, be interested in reading it.

Thanks,

-Smac

These guys are like the Alan Colmes of critics: brought in as punching bags, as if they represent a serious critique of Mormonism. 

[carbon dioxide]

Of course LDS don't use the same terminology as other churches.  If we did, we would not be different.   This should not be a concern to us.  The problem with the good pastor is he believes that the terminology he uses is by default correct and anyone that does not prescribe to it is wrong.  We simply give a different perspective on things.  Nothing wrong with that.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

These guys are like the Alan Colmes of critics: brought in as punching bags, as if they represent a serious critique of Mormonism. 

Is there a reason we shouldn’t take them seriously?

[Jane_Doe]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm interested in how we are perceived by people of different faiths.

I'm not really "engaging" it.  I brought the story here for discussion.  I didn't make a comment in the comments section, nor share it on Facebook.  I shared it here, where I thought other people may, like me, be interested in reading it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm a HUGE fan of getting to know other faiths, genineinely listening and talking to people, and building understanding, even (or even especially) when believes are not identical.  However, this Evangelical Richard Hornock is... frankly not interested in conversation, rather just talking at folks.  The motivation of the article writer is to build wall because they fear using their identity by acknowledging our belief in Christ.  This person... this article isn't really about LDS folks at all, rather about this Evangelical's fears.  It's not a very productive thing to spend time on.  

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is there a reason we shouldn’t take them seriously?

As you noted, their ignorance is obvious, and the issues that are causing people to leave the church aren’t about whether the church is Christian or not. Why take people seriously when they are ignorant and aren’t a significant challenge?

Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t bother. 

[rongo]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am totally okay with this approach.  I very much appreciate the respect inherent in it.

The approach being " 'If you engage a Mormon, you don't start talking about these wild and crazy things that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young taught because they want to forget them.' Instead, the best strategy is to simply challenge them to read the Bible." I agree, it is much more agreeable. 

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He doesn’t know as much about our beliefs as he thinks he does (and I mean no disrespect by that). 

How can they hope to reach us when they are always highlighting how little they actually know us?  This wouldn’t matter if they were focusing on their own beliefs but they aren’t. They are trying to reach us using their ideas of our beliefs. 

And it’s really annoying. 

Brigham Young's response to an evangelical group that had purchased Bibles and were announcing a big blitz of Utah Territory to pass out Bibles to the Mormons: "Sending coal to Newcastle."  

You're right that the thought that benighted Mormons just needed Bibles to counteract the evils of Mormonism showed their ignorance of both Mormons and what makes Mormons tick. As you point out, groups today show that they completely don't understand or know us at all. 

I think that the reasonable and sensible outreach efforts people are going to find that this approach doesn't get donations, it doesn't get publicity, and it doesn't pull people away from Mormonism (neither does the strident approach, but it does get better donations and publicity). After we graciously thank them for their message and accept their challenge to read the Bible (I told the Jehovah's Witnesses a couple of weeks ago that I loved the Bible, and was in the Book of Job in my personal study. They seemed surprised), there is really little for them to say and do. Unless they want to get combative, and that is the inevitable temptation.

As for us, while being diplomatic and respectful, our message automatically draws a line and forces people to take sides. Angels, keys, gold plates, etc. We can do the reasonable and sensible outreach, and it will still "bring a sword," because inherently while asking people to read the Book of Mormon, it is either true or false, and the implications of both are stark. 

[Jane_Doe]

39 minutes ago, rongo said:

The approach being " 'If you engage a Mormon, you don't start talking about these wild and crazy things that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young taught because they want to forget them.' Instead, the best strategy is to simply challenge them to read the Bible." I agree, it is much more agreeable. 

Let's ignore the obvious pointed barbs of this preacher's statement, and the lies (the 'ignoring' part), and the heavy implication that LDS folks don't read the Bible.  

Ignoring all that, I do agree that it is better to talk with an LDS person about the Bible than all the above junk.  Now what happens when an Evangelical talks with an LDS person and discovers that the LDS person does indeed read and love the Bible, perhaps even being a more knowledgable studier than the Evangelical?  That's a very telling moment.  

39 minutes ago, rongo said:

As for us, while being diplomatic and respectful, our message automatically draws a line and forces people to take sides. Angels, keys, gold plates, etc. We can do the reasonable and sensible outreach, and it will still "bring a sword," because inherently while asking people to read the Book of Mormon, it is either true or false, and the implications of both are stark. 

Evangelicals believe the Evangelical interpretation is correct.  More than any other.  Us being LDS doesn't change that or make them pick a side -- they already choose their beliefs.  

[BonhoefferFan]

12 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Why even bother with this kind of crap? You can pretty much predict the Evangelical response to any news coming out of the church. Engaging it seems to give it more attention than it merits.  

Agreed.  This seems too silly to engage...

[Rajah Manchou]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  I don't think we've picked up any new jargon/terminology in the last few decades.

That's what I was telling the family that I minister. It's a lot like home teaching.

[Amulek]

Quote

"They use all of our terms, biblical terms, but they have completely different definitions, forms, meanings," said Richard Hornock, the senior pastor of Fellowship Bible Church in Texarkana, Texas, on the podcast "The Table."

Whenever I hear an evangelical say something like this I can't help but smile and wonder if Jews think the exact same things about mainstream Christians.

 

[Gray]

I would say the difference between the Trinity and the LDS godhead is mostly semantics. In regards to the mission of Jesus, I think Mormons are generally aligned with mainstream Christianity.

The biggest difference by far is the nature of God. For mainstream Christians, God is the prime mover, outside of space and time, the uncaused cause who brought about all creation by pure will. For Mormons God is an exalted human being, a product of creation in many ways. I can see why, based on that essential theological difference, most of them think of Mormonism as something totally "other", despite many similarities otherwise.

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As you noted, their ignorance is obvious, and the issues that are causing people to leave the church aren’t about whether the church is Christian or not. Why take people seriously when they are ignorant and aren’t a significant challenge?

Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t bother. 

Ignorance is always hard for me to ignore, no matter the subject.  

[snowflake]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ignorance is always hard for me to ignore, no matter the subject.  

Do you think the EV's are truly ignorant about the nuts and bolts of the LDS faith, or that they simply reject the doctrines as heresy?  

[HappyJackWagon]

I've run into this kind of thing quite a bit. It used to bother me a lot but then I realized that, yes, Mormons use words differently than other Christian denominations. Why would we expect anything different. Sure, we use a lot of the same words like grace, repentance, faith, works, Jesus, God the Father, The Son of God, The Holy Spirit, etc. in ways that are informed by the doctrines of the church. Other Christians use those same words used in ways that are informed by the doctrines of their church. In many ways there may actually be more agreement within Protestantism on how they feel words should be used so it's easy to build an us versus them mentality as if there is universal agreement on language. Of course there isn't. It seems kind of immature and naïve for us or them to think the meaning behind our language should be exactly the same.

Having said that, I can understand (in a way) why protestants would want to make sure their people understood that there is a difference in the way language is used and how the words, though sounding the same, can illustrate differences in theology. Wouldn't we want the same?

[jkwilliams]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ignorance is always hard for me to ignore, no matter the subject.  

I'm the same way. Sometime ask MorningStar how much I am annoyed by ignorant Evangelicals spouting garbage about the church online. Those were fun times. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

As for us, while being diplomatic and respectful, our message automatically draws a line and forces people to take sides. Angels, keys, gold plates, etc. We can do the reasonable and sensible outreach, and it will still "bring a sword," because inherently while asking people to read the Book of Mormon, it is either true or false, and the implications of both are stark. 

Well said.

I watched the video.  The interviewer, Dr. Bock, is quite clearly very unfamiliar with the subject matter.

The notable bits:

• Mr. Hornock claims that Christ visited the Nephites before he was resurrected, which is not correct. 
• Mr. Hornock claims that Mormon buried the plates, rather than Moroni. 
• Mr. Hornock makes a mildly snarky point about how Mormon, despite being in "Central America," he "somehow" ended up burying the plates in what became New York State.  
• Mr. Hornock claims Joseph Smith "got" the plates in 1830.
• Mr. Hornock includes the Journal of Discourses in our canon.
• Mr. Hornock claims that a mob killed Joseph Smith as he was attempting to escape from jail.
• Mr. Hornock seems to misrepresent the cessation of polygamy (the why).
• Mr. Hornock's "completely different definitions" thing (cited above).
• Mr. Hornock's summary of exaltation seems fairly disrespectful.
• Mr. Hornock claims that since 1980-1985, we have presented ourselves as "just another Christian denomination."  We don't talk about blood atonement.
• Mr. Hornock claims that members of the Church are not encouraged to study the Gospel.  We are encouraged to "not think," and instead just "have faith."
• Mr. Hornock references boys becoming "an Aaronic priest" and men becoming "a Mechizedek priest."
• Mr. Hornock says that temples are primarily for two things: sealings and baptisms.
• Mr. Hornock claims he did his master's thesis on baptism for the dead.
• Mr. Hornock claims that active members "are not really all that astute about their doctrine," and that "Mormonism does not encourage adherents to investigate their religion, to learn the ins and outs of their theology."
• Mr. Hornock claims that we believe that being born in proximity to the Salt Lake Temple means that this person was more righteous, whereas black people "born in deep, dark Africa, half a world away from the temple" must have "been a scoundrel up in heaven."  This, he says, is "what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught," but that we "don't believe that anymore" and have "brushed that under the rug."
• Mr. Hornock claims that the 1978 revelation about the Priesthood Ban was received "within days" of the Howard Hughes will was deemed fraudulent, and "the day that judgment came down was within days of when the prophet changed the news cycle and [announced the revelation ending the Ban]."  Mr. Hornock strongly implies that the revelation was intended to distract from news items about the Hughes will.  (FWIW, the jury verdict came out on June 8, 1978, while "the revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978.")
• Mr. Hornock claims that there have been massive shifts in LDS theology, comparable to the ending of the Ban, in "dozens of areas."

So Mr. Hornock clearly has more than a passing familiarity with the history and doctrines of the Church, but he makes several fairly serious misrepresentations (intentional or not, I'm not sure), and quite a few "slips" that indicate that his familiarity with our beliefs is more than "passing," but not by much.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As you noted, their ignorance is obvious, and the issues that are causing people to leave the church aren’t about whether the church is Christian or not. Why take people seriously when they are ignorant and aren’t a significant challenge?

Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t bother. 

Mr. Hornock, right after the interview, was leaving to teach a seminar about Mormonism.

I think it is helpful, for me anyway, to understand that Evangelical Christians are receiving instruction from Mr. Hornock, who positions himself as an "expert" on Mormonism, but who thinks that Mormon buried the plates, that the Savior's visit to the Nephites occurred prior to the resurrection, that the Journal of Discourses is canonized, that the Church encourages us not to think or study, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Do you think the EV's are truly ignorant about the nuts and bolts of the LDS faith, or that they simply reject the doctrines as heresy?  

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Mr. Hornock, right after the interview, was leaving to teach a seminar about Mormonism.

I think it is helpful, for me anyway, to understand that Evangelical Christians are receiving instruction from Mr. Hornock, who positions himself as an "expert" on Mormonism, but who thinks that Mormon buried the plates, that the Savior's visit to the Nephites occurred prior to the resurrection, that the Journal of Discourses is canonized, that the Church encourages us not to think or study, etc.

Like I said, I think this is low-hanging fruit and not worth the effort, but that's just me. Years ago, MorningStar was participating on an American Idol message board, and there was a pastor spouting a lot of nonsense about the church, so she asked me if I would engage him. I took a sort of perverse pleasure in turning the tables on that guy. He had been making the church and its members out to be deluded, ignorant cultists, etc., and it was easy to show that he was the ignorant one and that his opposition was based more on fear and hysteria than anything else. I also made some friends over there, and I never would have met them otherwise, not being particularly interested in American Idol. 

So, I suppose there's a time and a place where engaging this kind of nonsense is appropriate. I've just lost all patience with these folks. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I would say the difference between the Trinity and the LDS godhead is mostly semantics.

I think the Godhead (three numerically distinct persons perfectly unified in purpose, righteousness, etc.) is fairly distinguishable from the Trinity (which I won't even try to summarize, though I think Daniel Peterson's summary of the development of that concept is quite good).

Nevertheless, I think differentiating between the two is more about - as you put it - "semantics" and theory and argument, and has little practical application in everyday life.

Quote

In regards to the mission of Jesus, I think Mormons are generally aligned with mainstream Christianity.

Agreed.

Quote

The biggest difference by far is the nature of God. For mainstream Christians, God is the prime mover, outside of space and time, the uncaused cause who brought about all creation by pure will. For Mormons God is an exalted human being, a product of creation in many ways. I can see why, based on that essential theological difference, most of them think of Mormonism as something totally "other", despite many similarities otherwise.

I'm not sure this has to do with the "nature of God" as much as the eschatology (eternal destiny) of man.  It is the concept of exaltation, of our condition in the eternities, that I think "otherizes" us the most from the rest of Christianity.

It is interesting to read online articles of various pastors and such theorizing about "what will we do in heaven."  Our concept of exaltation seems to go considerably farther.

Similarly, various ideas about "what hell will be like" seems quite different from our concept of tripartite Kingdoms of Glory and Outer Darkness. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 24, 2018 by smac97

[pogi]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As you noted, their ignorance is obvious, and the issues that are causing people to leave the church aren’t about whether the church is Christian or not. Why take people seriously when they are ignorant and aren’t a significant challenge?

Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t bother. 

You are right that the issues causing people to leave the church are not about whether the church is Christian or not.  But that is a reason as to why more evangelicals are not joining the church.  I think we do need to be concerned about how we are perceived by outsiders and try to correct any misconceptions when possible.