7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[jkwilliams]

Interesting article. 

Quote

Christians can be thankful for Mormon friends and family members who are good neighbors and share many of the same ethical standards and moral commitments. But Mormonism and Christianity are not the same. Far from it. Though the language sounds similar at times, the beliefs are quite distinct. Mormons do not understand history, God, man, salvation, heaven, hell, the cross, Jesus, or the Trinity as the canonical Scriptures teach, nor do they agree with the conciliar doctrine taught by the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church over the last two thousand years.

https://clearlyreformed.org/7-reasons-why-mormonism-and-christianity-are-not-the-same/

[pogi]

At least he portrays our beliefs accurately for the most part.  

My beef is that he seems to pretend that Christianity is somehow monolithic in belief about God, the afterlife, etc.  If other Christians can differ in their views and still be Christians, why can't we?  There are social trinitarians who view the Godhead as three distinct beings, for example.   My other problem is that this fellow seems to be operating from a position of an inerrant Bible which only has one correct interpretation - his interpretation, apparently.   

He sounds like a cross between a fundamentalist and a Catholic.

Edited June 6, 2023 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

Just now, pogi said:

At least he portrays us accurately for the most part.  

My beef is that he seems to pretend that Christianity is somehow monolithic in belief about God, the afterlife, etc.  If other Christians can differ in their views and still be Christians, why can't we?  There are social trinitarians who view the Godhead as three distinct beings, for example.  

It would be more accurate to say he's presenting "orthodox/mainstream Christianity" instead of some unified Christianity that doesn't really exist. 

[Pyreaux]

Classification of Christian does not require an understanding of history, God, man, salvation, heaven, hell, the cross, Jesus, or the Trinity as the canonical Scriptures teach. If it were not so, an atheist trapped on an island with a Bible through which he obtains a belief in Christ without anyone telling him any approved theology is not saved by faith, but only if he has the correct understanding? He needs a Hierophant to obtain salvific knowledge? Gnosis?

Those are requirements of very specific strains of Christianity but not all Christianity. Heretical and Apostate Christians are still Christians. The largest group of Christians have an understanding of priests and require baptism. Fortunately, Christians are classified as any self-proclaimed follower of the teachings of Christ, therefore; All Roman Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Roman Catholic. All Protestants are Christian, but not all Christians are Protestants. All Latter-Day Saints are Christian, but not all Christians are Latter-Day Saints.

This definition is a Totum Pro Parte Fallacy ("the whole for a part"); abusing language where the meaning of something is named after something of which it is only a part of it (or only a limited characteristic, not necessarily representative for the whole). Like trying to define the word "American" to only mean a citizen of the United States, but never other people who live on the American Continents.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Pyreaux

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It would be more accurate to say he's presenting "orthodox/mainstream Christianity" instead of some unified Christianity that doesn't really exist. 

My point is that most orthodox/mainstream Christians still accept other sects or groups as Christian, even if they don't believe in an inerrant Bible or even if they don't hold traditional trinitarian beliefs and instead hold ideas much closer to Mormonism like the social trinity, etc.  These are all arguments he uses to prove that we are "not the same" as Christianity.   So, this cripples his arguments unless he imagines that Christianity is a monolith of belief somehow.  It isn't.  So his arguments are poop.  

What would be accurate is to say that Mormonism is one representation of Christianity among a vast array of different Christian beliefs and perspectives about God, the after-life, revelation, and the inerrancy of the Bible, etc. 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by pogi

[Stormin' Mormon]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It would be more accurate to say he's presenting "orthodox/mainstream Christianity" instead of some unified Christianity that doesn't really exist. 

I'd be fine with these types of articles if the conclusion were that Mormons are "unorthodox Christians," or "heterodox Christians."  Heck, in some situations, I'd even settle for a "heretical Christian" label.  

But to cast us out of the Christian family entirely is just silly.

[sheilauk]

The author is a Presbyterian pastor, presumably believing in an inerrant bible and a form of Calvinism.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

11 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Christians are classified as any self-proclaimed follower of the teachings of Christ.  

I always liked the definition proposed by either Daniel Peterson or Stephen Robinson (I forget which one).  A Christian is one who sees Jesus Christ as uniquely normative.  That is, he is a teacher of what we SHOULD be doing (normative), but his status as such a teacher is unique and singular in some way; in the entire history of mankind, there was no other normative teacher like Him. Thus, Christians can believe him to be the literal only begotten Son of God, or alternatively, a Son of God through an adoptive process that has never been repeated before or since.  Neither belief should endanger the believer's membership in the Christian Family.   

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Interesting article. 

https://clearlyreformed.org/7-reasons-why-mormonism-and-christianity-are-not-the-same/

It's interesting how the bible people in the bible managed to follow Christ without having to believe all the things this guy believes.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I'd be fine with these types of articles if the conclusion were that Mormons are "unorthodox Christians," or "heterodox Christians."  Heck, in some situations, I'd even settle for a "heretical Christian" label.  

But to cast us out of the Christian family entirely is just silly.

Especially since it casts out the followers of Christ in the bible in the same breath.

[Duncan]

it reminds me of a BYU article years from Truman Madsen, "Are Christians Mormon?"

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1689&context=byusq

[Kenngo1969]

If I were smarter or more perceptive, perhaps I would be completely blown over by this gentleman's take.  However, since I'm not very smart and not very perceptive, really, to me, his take seems to indicate simply that "there is no new thing under the sun."  Ecclesiastes 1:9.

https://www.amazon.com/Offenders-Word-Daniel-C-Peterson/dp/0934893357

[Kevin Christensen]

49 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it reminds me of a BYU article years from Truman Madsen, "Are Christians Mormon?"

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1689&context=byusq

David Paulson did an update on Madsen in 2006, for the Bicentennial,  "Are Christians Mormon?: Reassessing Joseph Smith's Theology in His Bicentennial",

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol45/iss1/3/

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Amulek]

From the article:

Quote

View of the Atonement. Mormons believe Jesus died for sins and rose again from the dead. The atonement is the central event in history and essential to their theology. And yet, Mormons do not have a precise doctrine of the atonement. They do not emphasize Christ as a wrath-bearing substitute, but emphasize simply that Christ somehow mysteriously remits our sins through his suffering.

How does not having a "precise doctrine of the atonement" make us any different from the rest of Christianity? A cursory perusal of the topic yields multiple thoughts on the subject throughout history [see, e.g., here]:

• Ransom Theory
• Satisfaction Theory
• Penal Substitution Theory
• Moral Influence Theory
• Christus Victor Theories
• Participation Theories
• etc., etc., etc. (yes, I know that's redundant)

Which "precise doctrine" are we obligated to believe (emphasize?) in order to sit at the cool-kids table?

 

[cujo22]

I heard something new recently that relates to this topic. I was listening to Catholic Answers on the radio. And a member in Utah called to ask for an explanation of why LDS baptisms are not accepted by Catholic. The host cited some not-so-distant-past declaration from the pope on this topic. I think it listed 2 things. One of them was something very familiar, that understandings of God and so different (3 individuals, perhaps God once a man, etc). But the 1st thing listed in this declaration was something I've never heard before and something the host didn't elaborate on.

1. That our baptism is the baptism of Adam, not the baptism of Jesus.

Something like that. Is anyone here familiar with this and what is meant by this? I suppose I should google. I know there are some Catholics on the board. Thanks! 

[jonah747]

Do you regard Jehovah's Witnesses, who teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel, as Christian?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, sheilauk said:

The author is a Presbyterian pastor, presumably believing in an inerrant bible and a form of Calvinism.  

I would not have guessed that from reading this comment: 

Quote

nor do they agree with the conciliar doctrine taught by the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church over the last two thousand years.

It seems that he is acknowledging the singular authority of the Catholic Church. 

Is that strange, or is it just me?  I recognize that protestants have adopted many of the concilar doctrines/creeds of the Catholic church, but I thought they viewed the Bible, and not the church, as the authority.  I didn't think concilar Catholic doctrines were viewed by protestants as a requirement to be accepted as a Christian.   

[cujo22]

13 minutes ago, cujo22 said:

I heard something new recently that relates to this topic. I was listening to Catholic Answers on the radio. And a member in Utah called to ask for an explanation of why LDS baptisms are not accepted by Catholic. The host cited some not-so-distant-past declaration from the pope on this topic. I think it listed 2 things. One of them was something very familiar, that understandings of God and so different (3 individuals, perhaps God once a man, etc). But the 1st thing listed in this declaration was something I've never heard before and something the host didn't elaborate on.

1. That our baptism is the baptism of Adam, not the baptism of Jesus.

Something like that. Is anyone here familiar with this and what is meant by this? I suppose I should google. I know there are some Catholics on the board. Thanks! 

I googled and found an answer. Interesting stuff.  Basically because we believe it's the same rite as Adam and others before Christ participated in (including everyone John was baptizing I guess).

It is clear that the intention of the Church (Catholic) in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).

Here's a summary quote from a Deseret News article of the Vatican newspaper that I found through google: "The Mormon baptism, which would have its origins not in Christ but at the start of creation, is not a Christian baptism," the Osservatore wrote.

 

Sorry I beat everyone to it. But maybe it's good that the question was the impetus for me to sign up and make a 1st post. Here's what I found on 'vatican.va' through google:

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, cujo22 said:

I heard something new recently that relates to this topic. I was listening to Catholic Answers on the radio. And a member in Utah called to ask for an explanation of why LDS baptisms are not accepted by Catholic. The host cited some not-so-distant-past declaration from the pope on this topic.

I believe you are looking for this: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html

It was approved by Pope John Paul II, and it was authored by (then) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - who would, only a few years later, become elected to lead the Holy Catholic Church as Pope Benedict XVI.

 

Quote

I think it listed 2 things. One of them was something very familiar, that understandings of God and so different (3 individuals, perhaps God once a man, etc).

Read the sections in the article linked above regarding "The Form" and "The Intention of the Celebrating Minister." They lay out the reasoning for the differences. 

As you can imagine, I don't personally agree with the conclusion reached by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but I understand their position. And given its recent provenance, I expect there's basically a zero percent chance of it being changed within my lifetime - not that that really bothers me though.

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Amulek

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Interesting article. 

https://clearlyreformed.org/7-reasons-why-mormonism-and-christianity-are-not-the-same/

I read it and found it, at best, mildly interesting.  It's basically an extended exercise in using the No True Scotsman fallacy.  

He was fairly accurate in his description and depiction of our beliefs, but didn't have much in the way of thoughtful or incisive commentary about them.  He covers no new ground.  And Offenders for a Word came out in 1992.  He is re-plowing pretty old ground. 

Quote

Let me highlight seven areas of Mormon doctrine. I won’t try to refute the Mormon position, but I hope you will see the explicit (and often intentional) deviation from historic Christianity.

1. View of history. In Mormon thinking, the rise of Mormonism was not merely a reformation or renewal of the church. It was a complete restoration. Following the death of Christ’s apostles, the church fell into complete apostasy. The church lost divine authority and true doctrine. There is no unbroken continuity from the early church to the present. Christianity, for almost all of its history, was false and without the truth—until Joseph Smith and his revelation. Mormonism not only rejects historic orthodox Christianity, the entire religion is based on the need for such repudiation.

It's always a bit odd to see a Protestant criticize the Church's non-contiguous relationship with "historic orthodox Christianity."

I also notice a wee sleight-of-hand here.  The title of the article is "7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same," but then he critiques the Church's "deviation from historic orthodox Christianity" (emphasis added).  

Quote

2. View of revelation. Mormons believe the Bible (the KJV version), but do not consider it inerrant. Neither do they consider the Bible complete.  What makes Mormonism unique is their belief in continuing revelation sustained through prophets, seers, and revelators. So while Mormons affirm the Bible, they also affirm the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Through an elaborate hierarchy of President, First Presidency, Twelve Apostles, First Quorum of the Seventy, and Second Quorum of the Seventy, Mormons can receive authoritative interpretations and new authoritative revelations.

Correct on all counts.  This implicitly presumes that all "Christians" believe that A) the Bible is inerrant and B) complete.  I don't think that's quite correct.  This issue was addressed in detail and in some length (a lot of length, in fact) in Peterson's/Ricks' Offenders back in 1992:

Quote

Claim 11. Mormons are not Christians because they do not accept the Bible as their sole authority in faith and doctrine, but claim other sources.397 “To the Mormons,” says J. O. Sanders, speaking for them, “the Bible is not the sole and infallible Word of God but only a convenient tool to forward their subtle and misleading teaching.”398 “Dr.” Walter Martin helpfully points out that “the Bible is only a convenient tool by which they attract attention to their subtle and ever-misleading dogmas of deception.”399 Orthodox Christianity teaches that “the Bible is the inspired, authoritative, inerrant Word of God.”400 But Mormons believe the Bible contains errors. Therefore, they are not Christians.401 “Mormons rely on the ‘revelations’ of the authorities,” complains Robert McKay. “Christians rely on the revelation of God in His written Word.”402

Response. But what is the Bible, if it is not the writings and revelations of “authorities” from an earlier day? Is being ancient and dead really the chief requirement for true prophethood or apostleship? “Woe unto you,” declared Jesus to the critics of his day, “scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets” (Matthew 23:29—30). “Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them” (Luke 11:47).

Apart from Robert McKay’s rather frivolous complaint, there seem to be two fundamental points at issue here. First, the Latter-day Saints accept a scriptural canon that is larger than the canon accepted by Protestant Christians. Second, Latter-day Saints are uncommitted to the notion of biblical infallibility. We shall examine these two issues in turn.

It is true that Mormons irritate their critics by accepting other books of scripture not included in the traditional canon. But is this enough to exclude them from Christendom? It seems odd to take such drastic action on so imsy and uncertain a basis. The Hebrew canon had not yet been xed in the time of Jesus. Josephus (d. ca. A.D. 100) was among the rst to identify an authoritative collection of Hebrew scriptural texts. But the collection of which Josephus spoke consisted merely of the Pentateuch, thirteen prophetic books, and four books of “writings”—for a grand total of twenty-two, seventeen short of the canon insisted upon by fundamentalist anti-Mormons. Even today, there are some uncertainties as to the extent of the Old Testament canon. Do those who accept Psalm 151, found in the Greek Septuagint but not in most other versions of the Bible, commit self-excommunication? Roman Catholics and the Orthodox churches tend to accept the Apocrypha as canonical. Indeed, the conciliar decree De canonicis scripturis, issued on 8 April 1546 by Session IV of the Catholic Council of Trent, declares all who do not accept the Apocrypha as Christian scripture—in other words, the Protestants—to be anathema or accursed.403 The Greek Orthodox churches add 2 Esdras and 3 Maccabees to the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books, placing 4 Maccabees in an appendix. The Russian Orthodox add 3 Esdras and omit 4 Maccabees. The Ethiopian biblical canon, which claims links back to the fourth century, contains eighty-one books—as opposed to the traditional Protestant Bible, which contains only sixty-six. Indeed, as Loraine Boettner notes, Eastern Orthodoxy has never really settled the question of the canon—which is, of course, rather odd if that question is allimportant.404 Have the Catholics and the Orthodox excluded themselves from Christendom? Are they heathens? The illustrious Athanasius of Alexandria omitted Esther from his Old Testament canon, but accepted both Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Was he a pagan cultist?

The question of the New Testament canon is very nearly as difficult as that pertaining to the Old. It is quite difficult, in fact, to see a distinction being made between canonical and non-canonical writings in earliest Christianity. Ancient evidence shows, however, that many Christian communities may not have accepted 2 Peter.

More dramatic still is the case of the Revelation of John, which was rejected by such eastern writers as Cyril of Jerusalem (d. A.D. 386), John Chrysostom (d. A.D. 407), Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. A.D. 428), and Theodoret (d. ca. A.D. 466), as well as by the mid-fourth century Council of Laodicea, and which the Armenian version of the New Testament originally failed to include. The extremely important Syriac version of the New Testament known as the Peshitta not only excluded 2 Peter and the Revelation of John, but 2 and 3 John and Jude as well.405 More interesting for our purposes, though, are the many Christians, ancient and modern, who have regarded as sacred or authoritative books that are not included in the Western Protestant version of the New Testament.

More dramatic still is the case of the Revelation of John, which was rejected by such eastern writers as Cyril of Jerusalem (d. A.D. 386), John Chrysostom (d. A.D. 407), Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. A.D. 428), and Theodoret (d. ca. A.D. 466), as well as by the mid-fourth century Council of Laodicea, and which the Armenian version of the New Testament originally failed to include. The extremely important Syriac version of the New Testament known as the Peshitta not only excluded 2 Peter and the Revelation of John, but 2 and 3 John and Jude as well.405 More interesting for our purposes, though, are the many Christians, ancient and modern, who have regarded as sacred or authoritative books that are not included in the Western Protestant version of the New Testament.

The Latter-day Saints are hardly unique among Christians in accepting an expanded canon. The so-called Muratorian Fragment, for instance, which dates from somewhere between the late second century and the middle of the fourth century A.D., shows that at least some Christians of the period accepted the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. Clement of Alexandria, writing around 200 A.D., seems to have admitted a New Testament canon of some thirty books, including the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement—both of which he called “scripture”— and the Preaching of Peter. Origen called 1 Clement a “catholic epistle,” and recognized Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas as authoritative. The fifth or sixth century Codex Claramontanus includes the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Apocalypse of Peter. On the other hand, it omits Hebrews. Codex Alexandrinus, dating from the fth century, includes both 1 and 2 Clement. So does the eleventh century Codex Constantinopolitanus, which also contains the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and certain texts of Ignatius. The vastly important fourth century manuscript of the New Testament known as the Codex Sinaiticus includes Barnabas.

Are we to conclude that the devoted monks who copied the codices Alexandrinus and Constantinopolitanus and Claramontanus and Sinaiticus were pagans? Certainly not. Such a conclusion would be absurd. Yet, like today’s Latter-day Saints, they do seem to have accepted a larger canon than that tolerated by today’s anti-Mormons. And what of Ephraem of Edessa (d. A.D. 373)? He accepted as scripture an apocryphal exchange of letters between Paul and the Corinthians, taken from the Acts of Paul, which is now generally regarded as spurious. Was he merely mistaken, or was he non-Christian? (Anti-Mormons should think long and hard before they start dismissing canonized Christian saints as “non-Christian.” It will make neutral observers suspicious. No clearer illustration could possibly be furnished of the fact that the denial of Mormon Christianity involves a massive, if surreptitious, redenition of the word “Christian.”) It was not until A.D. 367 that Bishop Athanasius—he of the enlarged Old Testament—identied the present twenty-seven-book New Testament as comprising the exclusive Christian canon.406 And even then, as the various codices cited above clearly demonstrate, not everybody seems to have accepted the limits set by Athanasius.

Given anti-Mormon standards, it is not even clear that the New Testament itself will survive as a “Christian” document. The Epistle of Jude, for instance, draws heavily on non-canonical books such as 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Indeed, as an eminent contemporary scholar says of 1 Enoch, “it inuenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, Jude (which quotes it directly), and Revelation (with numerous points of contact). There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was inuential in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, the nal judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism.”407 When Matthew the evangelist says (at 2:23) that Jesus “came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fullled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene,” he is citing a prophetic text unknown to the Bible as we have it. When, at Acts 20:35, the apostle Paul exhorts the elders of the Ephesian branch “to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive,” he is pointing their minds toward a famous statement that does not occur in the New Testament books that we possess today. To put it bluntly, both Matthew and Paul seem to accept a canon of scriptural materials broader than that accepted today by the critics of the Latter-day Saints. This hardly bothers the Mormons, but it should give real pause to our detractors. How can they denounce us for receiving scriptures beyond their limited canon without simultaneously condemning Jude, Matthew, and Paul? Did devious non-Christian cultists manage to creep into the New Testament?408 Was primitive Christianity Christian?

To summarize our argument thus far: If acceptance of extrabiblical scriptures bars the Latter-day Saints from consideration as Christians, it must also bar the Catholics, the Orthodox, and a great many of the early believers in Jesus, including the authors of more than half the books of the New Testament.

This goes on for quite a while.  It is perhaps the most succinct and potent Latter-day Saint rebuttal of the "Mormons aren't Christian because they don't believe the Bible is inerrant and complete"-line of argument, and it has been in published form for over thirty years.  

Quote

3. View of man. According to Mormon theology, men and women are the spirit sons and daughters of God.  We lived in a premortal spirit existence before birth. In this first estate we grew and developed in preparation for the second estate. In this second estate we walk by faith. A veil of forgetfulness has been placed over our minds so we don’t remember what we did and who we used to be in our premortal existence. Our purpose in this life is to grow and mature in a physical body to prepare us for our final eternal state.

Mormons do not believe in human depravity. We are not implicated in Adam’s fall. We are basically good in our eternal nature, but prone to error in our mortal nature. The human is a being in conflict, but also a being with infinite potential.

This makes the Christianity espoused by the Latter-day Saints to be . . . rather nice.

Quote

4. View of God. In Mormon thought, God has a physical body. According to Doctrine and Covenants, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also;” but “The Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.”

Whether God the Father is self-existent is unclear. There was a long procession of gods and fathers leading up to our Heavenly Father. Brigham Young once remarked, “How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds.” What is clearer is that the Mormon God is not a higher order or a different species than man. God is a man with a body of flesh and bones like us.

Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. They affirm the unity of three personages, but the unity is a relational unity in purpose and mind, not a unity of essence. The three separate beings of the Godhead are three distinct Gods.

This is also extensively addressed in Offenders (Claim 2).

Quote

5. View of Christ. Mormons believe Jesus is Redeemer, God, and Savior. He is endless and eternal, the only begotten son of the Father. Through Jesus, the Heavenly Father has provided a way for people to be like him and to live with him forever.

But this familiar language does not mean the same thing to Mormons as it does to Christians. Jesus was born of the Father just like all spirit children. God is his Father in the same way he is Father to all. Whatever immortality or Godhood Jesus possesses, they are inherited attributes and powers. He does not share the same eternal nature as the Father. Jesus may be divine, but his is a derivative divinity. Mormon theology teaches, in the words of Joseph Smith, that Jesus Christ is “God the Second, the Redeemer.”

I'm not sure what this means, but it comes across as the least accurate of his depictions of us.

Quote

6. View of the Atonement. Mormons believe Jesus died for sins and rose again from the dead. The atonement is the central event in history and essential to their theology. And yet, Mormons do not have a precise doctrine of the atonement. They do not emphasize Christ as a wrath-bearing substitute, but emphasize simply that Christ somehow mysteriously remits our sins through his suffering.

While the atonement itself is not overly defined, the way in which the atonement is made efficacious is much more carefully delineated. Salvation is available because of the atoning blood of Christ, but this salvation is only received upon four conditions: faith, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end by keeping the commandments of God (which include various Mormon rituals).

Finally, it should be noted Mormon theology stresses the suffering in the garden rather than the suffering on the cross. Atonement may have been completed on Golgotha, but it was made efficacious in Gethsemane.

The first paragraph seems to be substantially off.  The last bit about veneration of the Cross is also addressed in Offenders (Claim 13).

Quote

7. View of salvation. The goal of Mormon salvation is not about escaping wrath as much as it is about maximizing our growth and ensuring our happiness. Salvation is finding our way back to God the Father and recalling our forgotten first estate as his premortal spirit children.

This part is good.  The next part, not so much:

Quote

Mormon theology teaches that we cannot receive an eternal reward by our own unaided efforts.  In some respects, salvation is based on what we have earned, but what we earn is by grace. How this plays out in Mormon life may differ from person to person, but they stress that the gift of the Holy Ghost is conditional upon continued obedience. Mormons must keep the First Principles and Ordinances, which consist of the Ten Commandments, tithing, chastity, and the “Word of Wisdom” which prohibits tobacco, coffee, tea, alcohol, and illegal narcotics.

Nope.  This is, I think, quite off.

Quote

Temples are also important in Mormon doctrine and practice. Couples must be married in a Mormon temple to have an eternal marriage, and every Mormon must be baptized in one of their 135 (and counting) authorized Temples.

Actually, nobody is "baptized in ... authorized Temples."  Quite a gaffe, this one.

Quote

Because of the importance of baptism in the Temple, baptisms for the dead are extremely common. Mormons keep detailed genealogical records so that their ancestors can be properly baptized. By one estimate more than 100 million deceased persons have been baptized by proxy baptism in Mormon temples. Those who received this baptism are free in the afterlife to reject or accept what has been done on their behalf.

Death in Mormon thinking is seen as another beginning, complete with opportunities to respond to postmortem preaching in the world to come. We will live in the spirit world, and at some point our spirit and body will be reunited forever.

There are four divisions in the afterlife. The Lake of Fire is reserved for the Devil, his demons, and those who commit the unpardonable sin. The Telestial Kingdom is where the wicked go. It is a place of suffering but not like the Lake of Fire. Most people go to the Telestial Kingdom where they are offered salvation again. The lukewarm-not quite good, not quite evil-go to the Terrestrial Kingdom when they die. This Kingdom is located on a distant planet in the universe. The Celestial Kingdom is for the righteous. Here God’s people live forever in God’s presence. We will live as gods and live with our spouses and continue to procreate. This is the aim and the end of Mormon salvation.

Pretty good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[sheilauk]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I would not have guessed that from reading this comment: 

It seems that he is acknowledging the singular authority of the Catholic Church. 

Is that strange, or is it just me?  I recognize that protestants have adopted many of the concilar doctrines/creeds of the Catholic church, but I thought they viewed the Bible, and not the church, as the authority.  I didn't think concilar Catholic doctrines were viewed by protestants as a requirement to be accepted as a Christian.   

The term one holy catholic apostolic church comes from the Nicene Creed.  It doesn’t refer to the Holy Roman Catholic Church exclusively, though it includes that church.  It refers to one united global Church that follows Christ.  In effect, Christianity.  If you’re not part of that church, you’re not Christian.  In the past, I’ve recited the phrase often as it’s part of the communion service of Methodists, it’s part of the creed recited during the service.  I think it’s part of the confirmation service of the Methodists, baptists and congregationists, but it’s been a few years now since I took part in those services and my memory is hazy so that may be incorrect.

In effect, this pastor is saying that we are not creedal Christians which, I believe, is correct.  One reason I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!  

Edited June 6, 2023 by sheilauk

[teddyaware]

In light of the fact fact that the sects of non-LDS Christianity are in a state of apostasy, why should any Latter-Day Saint be concerned if these apostate sects declare the Latter-Day Saints to be out of alignment with their teachings? God forbid that the day should ever come when these sects proclaim that we do satisfy their criteria for being numbered among the “true” Christians because then we’d also be in a state of apostasy and condemnation.  

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Joseph Smith History)

Just because the members of these sects call themselves Christian doesn’t mean their version of Christianity is correct and divinely authorized.

14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall. (Doctrine and Covenants 1) 

Like it or not, the day is going to come when even those who are going to get bent out of joint after reading what I’ve said are going to admit the above quoted words are from Jesus Christ and that he speaks the truth, for they will eventually become keenly aware that only way anyone can be saved in any kingdom of glory is by coming unto the true Christian God of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

… the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people; (Doctrine and Covenants 1)

 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by teddyaware

[Vanguard]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Interesting article. 

https://clearlyreformed.org/7-reasons-why-mormonism-and-christianity-are-not-the-same/

Aside from some of the issues smac raised in his review of the list, I can understand why traditional Christianity might view the LDS as too different. I do believe though that we could all avoid this ongoing debate if we could just agree that a Christian is someone who believes in the salvific mission of Jesus Christ (i.e., atonement). That's it. It shouldn't be based on whether or not one likes his humanitarian message (though this would make a pretty good guy). Given that, we all have our differences regards to the nature of the Godhead and how Christ expresses himself to mankind though none of these differences should make any difference - we're all Christian.

Similarly, a Christian who does not take seriously in his own life the message of Christ, is simply a 'not-so-healthy' Christian but a Christian nonetheless.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Vanguard

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, sheilauk said:

The term one holy catholic apostolic church comes from the Nicene Creed.  It doesn’t refer to the Holy Roman Catholic Church exclusively, though it includes that church.  It refers to one united global Church that follows Christ.  In effect, Christianity.  If you’re not part of that church, you’re not Christian.  In the past, I’ve recited the phrase often as it’s part of the communion service of Methodists, it’s part of the creed recited during the service.  I think it’s part of the confirmation service of the Methodists, baptists and congregationists, but it’s been a few years now since I took part in those services and my memory is hazy so that may be incorrect.

In effect, this pastor is saying that we are not creedal Christians which, I believe, is correct.  One reason I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!  

Thanks for the explanation!  That is ringing a bell. 

It still seems like they are acknowledging the singular authority of the Catholic Church in accepting their creeds as the only authentic or official Christian beliefs.  He seems to be deferring to the Catholic authority and definitions of who/what officially qualifies as being part of the "one holy catholic apostolic church".   The Catholics reject us from that group, I am pretty sure, which is their justification for rejecting our baptism (and Catholics feel free to correct me). 

It just seems so weird to me how they defer to Catholic authority in creating such a "church" in the first place and defining the terms of membership, and why that should or shouldn't qualify one as "Christian".  

I will note however, that most Catholics don't reject us from the family of Christianity despite not viewing us as a part of the "one holy catholic apostolic church".     So, what's this guy's deal? 

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thanks for the explanation!  That is ringing a bell. 

It still seems like they are acknowledging the singular authority of the Catholic Church in accepting their creeds as the only authentic or official Christian beliefs.  He seems to be deferring to the Catholic authority and definitions of who/what officially qualifies as being part of the "one holy catholic apostolic church".   The Catholics reject us from that group, I am pretty sure, which is their justification for rejecting our baptism (and Catholics feel free to correct me). 

It just seems so weird to me how they defer to Catholic authority in creating such a "church" in the first place and defining the terms of membership, and why that should or shouldn't qualify one as "Christian".  

I will note however, that most Catholics don't reject us from the family of Christianity despite not viewing us as a part of the "one holy catholic apostolic church".     So, what's this guy's deal? 

 

They don't use the word Catholic to refer to the Catholic church (or it's authority).  It means "universal" or whole.  They are referring to the original Greek definition of the word, before it was co-opted by the Catholic Church.