7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

. They are identical to the fundamental principles of my religion. I am sure we disagree on the appendages, but then there are appendages in addition to fundamental principles in every faith.

Same words,as different meanings as rugby and elephants.

There went the potatoes.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

as much as lieth in you..

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am not exactly sure what that means, but you won't get a lemon tree if it isn't nurtured, watered, and fed.

Exactly 

[mfbukowski]

Edit:

1.Too cryptic a post to jkwilliams.

2. Navidad: for the umpteenth time, I just need to ignore you. Sorry and thanks for the memories

Edited June 18, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess it was from reading from critics and the reason Fair had to answer these questions in this link:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_Christianity/Did_early_LDS_leaders_denounce_Christianity

To make sure I understand - you are saying you don't have a reference, but assumed there must be since FAIR spent a lot of time showing there actually wasn't one?  Or do you mean something else?

[manol]

On 6/13/2023 at 8:35 AM, Stormin' Mormon said:

The LDS may claim exclusive priesthood authority, it is true, but we also open up the definition of "scripture" such that anybody anywhere at any time may be inspired to write scripture.  [emphasis manol's]

The bolded part is something I don't remember seeing before, at least not explicitly stated in so many words.  VERY open-minded and open-canon of you to arrive at that conclusion!!

One implication seems to be that "scripture", and in particular "modern scripture", could come from outside the LDS Church.  Do you think that's possible?

How would someone who is LDS recognize "scripture" from outside the Church?

Are you aware of any "scripture" from outside the LDS Church?   If not, how would you expect to become aware of it? 

Do you think that Latter-day Saints in general, and/or you personally, stand to benefit from scripture from outside the LDS Church, whether such be existent or merely theoretical at this point? 

(My signature below includes several quotes which I consider to be "scripture", only one of which has a connection to the LDS Church.)

Edited June 18, 2023 by manol

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, manol said:

The bolded part is something I don't remember seeing before, at least not explicitly stated in so many words.  VERY open-minded and open-canon of you to arrive at that conclusion!!

One implication seems to be that "scripture", and in particular "modern scripture", could come from outside the LDS Church.  Do you think that's possible?

How would someone who is LDS recognize "scripture" from outside the Church?

Are you aware of any "scripture" from outside the LDS Church?   If not, how would you expect to become aware of it? 

Do you think that Latter-day Saints in general, and/or you personally, stand to benefit from scripture from outside the LDS Church, whether such be existent or merely theoretical at this point? 

Not sure if this fits your requirement but there is the teaching that the "lost tribes" have scriptures that will join with what we currently have at some point - 2 Nephi 29:13

Quote

13 And it shall come to pass that the ^aJews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the ^blost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

 

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, manol said:

The bolded part is something I don't remember seeing before, at least not explicitly stated in so many words.  VERY open-minded and open-canon of you to arrive at that conclusion!!

One implication seems to be that "scripture", and in particular "modern scripture", could come from outside the LDS Church.  Do you think that's possible?

How would someone who is LDS recognize "scripture" from outside the Church?

Are you aware of any "scripture" from outside the LDS Church?   If not, how would you expect to become aware of it? 

Do you think that Latter-day Saints in general, and/or you personally, stand to benefit from scripture from outside the LDS Church, whether such be existent or merely theoretical at this point? 

(My signature below includes several quotes which I consider to be "scripture", only one of which has a connection to the LDS Church.)

I think this idea is a reflection of D&C 68:1-4, which I take to be fairly specific to the apostles.

However, many writings can lead to spiritual growth. Whether we define or label it as "scripture" is a matter of personal opinion. For example, I attribute my nascent spirituality to Aesop's Fables, Just So Stories and even Pinocchio. Nothing wrong with any written wisdom, in my book; to the pure all things are pure. Hopefully we recognize the light of Christ wherever we come across it (and I believe we all come across it, somehow, somewhere) through any medium by which it reaches us, and if we use it well, we can build upon it unto a fulness.

As a community of common faith, the Church offers a unifying, covenantal canon which we call scripture (or vice-versa).

 

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Not sure if this fits your requirement but there is the teaching that the "lost tribes" have scriptures that will join with what we currently have at some point - 2 Nephi 29:13

 

Not only that, but in the verse immediately preceding, the Lord identifies four groups to whom He will speak, and who will then write down His teachings (ie-they will produce scripture): the Jews, the Nephites, the Lost Tribes, and all nations. The first three groups pretty much covers the entire House of Israel, so that means that the fourth scripture-producing group is NOT from Israel at all. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, manol said:

The bolded part is something I don't remember seeing before, at least not explicitly stated in so many words.  VERY open-minded and open-canon of you to arrive at that conclusion!!

One implication seems to be that "scripture", and in particular "modern scripture", could come from outside the LDS Church.  Do you think that's possible?

How would someone who is LDS recognize "scripture" from outside the Church?

Are you aware of any "scripture" from outside the LDS Church?   If not, how would you expect to become aware of it? 

Do you think that Latter-day Saints in general, and/or you personally, stand to benefit from scripture from outside the LDS Church, whether such be existent or merely theoretical at this point? 

(My signature below includes several quotes which I consider to be "scripture", only one of which has a connection to the LDS Church.)

In many Christian faith traditions, there is no difference between canon and scripture. The canon is the Bible is the scriptures. Nothing lies outside the definition of canon, while remaining inside the definition of scripture.

Not so in the LDS paradigm. Any number of inspired writings that have brought me closer to the Savior or helped me to feel His love are scripture. Maybe not to the entire church, but to me in my life. 

We become aware of such non-LDS scripture by seeking learning "out of the best books" the world has to offer (D&C 88:118). We are commanded to not cloister ourselves within our LDS libraries and our LDS canon.

[Calm]

Journals were spoken of as potential scripture for our descendants if written with inspiration. Makes sense this extends to any journals written with the Spirit whether done by members or not. 

There have been fictional books that have given me insights into interpreting scripture as well as insights into doctrinal ideas. For me, I have no problem calling them scripture. They may not strike others in the same way so I wouldn’t call it scripture in general. 

Conference talks have also been called modern scripture, parallels to letters written to the early Christian churches in the New Testament. If we see them that way, why wouldn’t that portion of what nonLDS have said and been quoted in those talks be seen as scripture if spoken of as providing insight?

Perhaps the entire essay or whatever the original text is might not qualify, but that is not that unusual for how we treat other sources of scripture as we haven’t canonized or even bother to reference some of Joseph Smith’s well known writings or what was saved of them, such as the King Follett discourse. Some of it has been repeated enough across the pulpit I consider it as accepted doctrine, other parts have pretty much never been taught since (if it was an accurate portrayal of his comments).

[manol]

44 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

In many Christian faith traditions, there is no difference between canon and scripture. The canon is the Bible is the scriptures. Nothing lies outside the definition of canon, while remaining inside the definition of scripture.

Not so in the LDS paradigm. Any number of inspired writings that have brought me closer to the Savior or helped me to feel His love are scripture. Maybe not to the entire church, but to me in my life.

We become aware of such non-LDS scripture by seeking learning "out of the best books" the world has to offer (D&C 88:118). We are commanded to not cloister ourselves within our LDS libraries and our LDS canon.

Thanks for replying.  I hadn't thought about the difference between "canon" and "scripture" in the LDS paradigm; I like the LDS openness to the idea of teachings or writings which qualify as "scripture" even if they are outside of the official "canon".

If you don't mind sharing, what are some of the "best book" (or other sources) which you have found to be "scripture" (for you personally at least), but which are not within the LDS "canon"? 

Edited June 18, 2023 by manol

[Stormin' Mormon]

17 minutes ago, manol said:

Thanks for replying.  I hadn't thought about the difference between "canon" and "scripture" in the LDS paradigm; I like the LDS openness to the idea of teachings or writings which qualify as "scripture" even if they are outside of the official "canon".

If you don't mind sharing, what are some of the "best book" (or other sources) which you have found to be "scripture", but are not within the LDS "canon"? 

First: from an LDS writer. No other work has shaped my understanding of the Atonement of Christ like Stephen E. Robinson's duology "Believing Christ," and "Following Christ." I stumbled across those books as a young man passing through some emotional difficulties, finding it difficult to love myself and forgive myself. Dr. Robinson taught my why the Atonement makes both of those things possible. I can't imagine what kind of basket case I'd be today, if those books hadn't pointed me in a more merciful direction.

Second: a clichéd answer from a non-LDS author. I've read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis more often than I've read some books in the Bible (I'm looking at you, First Chronicles). Which probably says more about my weak spiritual health than it does about Lewis' scripture-writing prowess.

Finally: a dark horse candidate. Every time I read "Watership Down," by Richard Adams, I'm enthralled by its message about the importance of heeding the prophetic voice. It's a rip-roaring fun adventure story about a band of bunnies, but gosh darn it all, if I don't see spiritual themes throughout its length and breadth. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Sara H]

20 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Fair question. My simple response, which may not be sufficient would be to offer a metaphor.  If I came into your kitchen and said all of this food is bad. You need some thing healthy.. And I then gave you fruits, vegetables and lean meat- your family comes in and says hey where is the casserole? Where’s my bread? Where’s my peanut butter? Where’s my cheezy lasagna?  
Then I said, I have given you new fuel.  Then your family said but this isn’t food and it’s not good.

It is all food.  It’s all good.  We are the annoying nutritionist who comes in and says this is what’s best. 

When God said, things were corrupt, he was talking about religious practice (which infused fats and preservatives)  not Christianity (food

In today's culture, it makes sense for Latter-day Saints to want to project an image that is more Christian than LDS. Because anyone can now learn about a church's history by simply using Google, the church is having a difficult time regulating information and how the church is depicted in the public eye. All religions are enduring hardships and their membership numbers are declining. However, according to our teachings, the restored gospel was not sent back to earth so that it might conceal itself somewhere in between the teachings of Baptists and Methodists, where it would no longer be subject to scrutiny and criticism. It was not brought back to earth to hide under Presbyterianism until both the coast was clear and the hostilities between religious groups had subsided. I'm sorry to say this, but it seems as though the brethren are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it in order to avoid direct attacks from opponents. When we make more of an effort to assimilate into Christian culture, the significance of the restored gospel decreases. If you don't believe me, simply have a look at what the Community of Christ teaches in their doctrine. We are figuratively following in their footsteps, and for some inexplicable reason, we continue to lag behind them by between 40 and 50 years in terms of changes to our doctrine. Within the next two decades, the distinctiveness of the LDS way of life will no longer exist at all. 

 

[Sara H]

20 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

In my experience, I can’t speak for anybody elses ward experience, historically there has been woefully minimal focus on the Savior in church, talks, lessons, and interpersonal conversation compared to other religions. I think we were wrong. I think the prophet recognizes that. I think he has course corrected beautifully.The superficial explanation becomes “the prophet is just trying to make us fit in with everybody else.” I disagree. I think he saw a fundamental problem with how we operate, and I think that he was correct.Maybe if I had been less focused on the length of my shorts and more focused on Jesus in the 1980s my life would look completely different today

What you went through as a young girl in the LDS ward sounds pretty typical to me. But how ready are you to give up the things that set the LDS way of life apart? The For The Strength of Youth standards seem to have been revised during the previous few months, with the prohibition on passionate kissing and the visibility of tattoos and more piercings seemingly removed. Due to these kind of shifts,  Pres. Nelson's request that we stop using the word "Mormon" was, in my opinion, a mistake. The things that set the LDS way of life apart are dwindling away, and I guess I'm not one of those individuals who can just accept it without question. Neither is my husband. So, if it's okay with you, could you tell me what you'd be most worried about if you woke up one day to find that the current Prophet of the church has taken away something you hold dear? Or perhaps he did away with a rule that you believed distinguished the LDS way of life. Would you be disappointed if, after five years, an update to the WOW removed the prohibition on coffee consumption? Because I'm done with the WOW if it's ever changed to appease the critics. If it happens, I'm done witg the church for good. But I can see that the WOW will be upgraded at some point, and the constraints will be loosened.

 

 

 

[Sara H]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't have the reference right now, but at one time in the early church, Christian was not a good thing to be. Christian was a label for the Christian churches or followers that Joseph was told were abominable. So it is interesting that now the church is heavily concentrated on Jesus and being called Christian. Sure the church has always had Christ as it's head, but current living prophet was right up there as well. I guess the church evolves, and is living. 

It seems to me that we are trying to take refuge behind the Christians until the religion is no longer under siege. I was taught that the restored gospel should stand firm in times of turbulence, not dilute our distinctiveness in an effort to make us more socially acceptable. 

[Sara H]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

(inaccurate) position you started out with (that Christianity was condemned in the First Vision),

In the first vision, Christianity and all other religions are explicitly rejected. According to our doctrine, the original gospel was hidden from the world after Jesus' death so that the faith wouldn't be corrupted. That is fundamental teaching. Would you agree that it was brought back to Earth to scream loudly that TRUE CHRISTIANITY has returned to Earth? 

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Edit:

1.Too cryptic a post to jkwilliams.

2. Navidad: for the umpteenth time, I just need to ignore you. Sorry and thanks for the memories

Ditto!

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Journals were spoken of as potential scripture for our descendants if written with inspiration. Makes sense this extends to any journals written with the Spirit whether done by members or not. 

There have been fictional books that have given me insights into interpreting scripture as well as insights into doctrinal ideas. For me, I have no problem calling them scripture. They may not strike others in the same way so I wouldn’t call it scripture in general. 

Conference talks have also been called modern scripture, parallels to letters written to the early Christian churches in the New Testament. If we see them that way, why wouldn’t that portion of what nonLDS have said and been quoted in those talks be seen as scripture if spoken of as providing insight?

Perhaps the entire essay or whatever the original text is might not qualify, but that is not that unusual for how we treat other sources of scripture as we haven’t canonized or even bother to reference some of Joseph Smith’s well known writings or what was saved of them, such as the King Follett discourse. Some of it has been repeated enough across the pulpit I consider it as accepted doctrine, other parts have pretty much never been taught since (if it was an accurate portrayal of his comments).

How about Sidney Rigdon's Salt Sermon or his 4th July sermon? They certainly were important talks in the history of the LDS in Missouri?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

In the first vision, Christianity and all other religions are explicitly rejected. According to our doctrine, the original gospel was hidden from the world after Jesus' death so that the faith wouldn't be corrupted. That is fundamental teaching. Would you agree that it was brought back to Earth to scream loudly that TRUE CHRISTIANITY has returned to Earth? 

Can you quote the specific part of the first vision where Christianity is rejected so we know what you are referring to?

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

First: from an LDS writer. No other work has shaped my understanding of the Atonement of Christ like Stephen E. Robinson's duology "Believing Christ," and "Following Christ." I stumbled across those books as a young man passing through some emotional difficulties, finding it difficult to love myself and forgive myself. Dr. Robinson taught my why the Atonement makes both of those things possible. I can't imagine what kind of basket case I'd be today, if those books hadn't pointed me in a more merciful direction.

Second: a clichéd answer from a non-LDS author. I've read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis more often than I've read some books in the Bible (I'm looking at you, First Chronicles). Which probably says more about my weak spiritual health than it does about Lewis' scripture-writing prowess.

Finally: a dark horse candidate. Every time I read "Watership Down," by Richard Adams, I'm enthralled by its message about the importance of heeding the prophetic voice. It's a rip-roaring fun adventure story about a band of bunnies, but gosh darn it all, if I don't see spiritual themes throughout its length and breadth. 

Wow! I am ordering "Watership Down" today! Sounds amazing! Thanks.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

In today's culture, it makes sense for Latter-day Saints to want to project an image that is more Christian than LDS. Because anyone can now learn about a church's history by simply using Google, the church is having a difficult time regulating information and how the church is depicted in the public eye. All religions are enduring hardships and their membership numbers are declining. However, according to our teachings, the restored gospel was not sent back to earth so that it might conceal itself somewhere in between the teachings of Baptists and Methodists, where it would no longer be subject to scrutiny and criticism. It was not brought back to earth to hide under Presbyterianism until both the coast was clear and the hostilities between religious groups had subsided. I'm sorry to say this, but it seems as though the brethren are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it in order to avoid direct attacks from opponents. When we make more of an effort to assimilate into Christian culture, the significance of the restored gospel decreases. If you don't believe me, simply have a look at what the Community of Christ teaches in their doctrine. We are figuratively following in their footsteps, and for some inexplicable reason, we continue to lag behind them by between 40 and 50 years in terms of changes to our doctrine. Within the next two decades, the distinctiveness of the LDS way of life will no longer exist at all. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

What you went through as a young girl in the LDS ward sounds pretty typical to me. But how ready are you to give up the things that set the LDS way of life apart? The For The Strength of Youth standards seem to have been revised during the previous few months, with the prohibition on passionate kissing and the visibility of tattoos and more piercings seemingly removed. Due to these kind of shifts,  Pres. Nelson's request that we stop using the word "Mormon" was, in my opinion, a mistake. The things that set the LDS way of life apart are dwindling away, and I guess I'm not one of those individuals who can just accept it without question. Neither is my husband. So, if it's okay with you, could you tell me what you'd be most worried about if you woke up one day to find that the current Prophet of the church has taken away something you hold dear? Or perhaps he did away with a rule that you believed distinguished the LDS way of life. Would you be disappointed if, after five years, an update to the WOW removed the prohibition on coffee consumption? Because I'm done with the WOW if it's ever changed to appease the critics. If it happens, I'm done witg the church for good. But I can see that the WOW will be upgraded at some point, and the constraints will be loosened.

 

 

 

It is interesting how everyone sees different things in the same thing.  I don't believe we are giving up our distinctiveness.  We still very much focus on that we have the restored gospel, that we have the actual priesthood, that we have modern revelation, that we have eternal families, etc.

For the Strength of Youth has changed quite a lot over the years.  In 1965 (I believe that's the original pamphlet), it told women to never wear dresses and men to never wear shorts (except in sports).  I don't know when that was removed but it was definitely gone by the 1990 version.  And since you mentioned passionate kissing, the 1965 pamphlet doesn't mention it.  It just says "Necking, petting, intimacies, and improprieties of every kind should not be indulged in at any time in dating or in courtship. Love an affection are precious, and virtue must never be placed in jeopardy."  What's wrong with it being updated to focus on what the youth of today need?

And why should the WOW be set in stone?  The entire Jewish food law was reversed by God, so why can't God change the WOW?  Considering that we believe in continuing revelation, why do we keep telling God that he can't continue to give new revelations?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

In today's culture, it makes sense for Latter-day Saints to want to project an image that is more Christian than LDS. Because anyone can now learn about a church's history by simply using Google, the church is having a difficult time regulating information and how the church is depicted in the public eye. All religions are enduring hardships and their membership numbers are declining. However, according to our teachings, the restored gospel was not sent back to earth so that it might conceal itself somewhere in between the teachings of Baptists and Methodists, where it would no longer be subject to scrutiny and criticism. It was not brought back to earth to hide under Presbyterianism until both the coast was clear and the hostilities between religious groups had subsided. I'm sorry to say this, but it seems as though the brethren are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it in order to avoid direct attacks from opponents. When we make more of an effort to assimilate into Christian culture, the significance of the restored gospel decreases. If you don't believe me, simply have a look at what the Community of Christ teaches in their doctrine. We are figuratively following in their footsteps, and for some inexplicable reason, we continue to lag behind them by between 40 and 50 years in terms of changes to our doctrine. Within the next two decades, the distinctiveness of the LDS way of life will no longer exist at all. 

 

In your thinking and experience, what is the distinctiveness of the LDS way of life? What does the Community of Christ teach in their doctrine that you find objectionable? Many Mennonites have been threatened by the loss of the distinctiveness of our way of life, but I don't know a single Mennonite today who doesn't have a cell phone and a powerful tractor. I am trying to relate the distinctiveness of the LDS way of life to that of the Mennonite, which involves culture, doctrine, and an identity of persecution. Thanks.

[Sara H]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you quote the specific part of the first vision where Christianity is rejected so we know what you are referring to?

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/primary-accounts-of-first-vision

They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church in kingdom. Other key phrases include "there was no society or denomination that was built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ" and "Behold the world lieth in sin at this time, and NONE DOETH GOOD, NO, NOT ONE.""And I was especially comanded not to go after them." 

Doesn't this article condemn Christianity?

 

Was Joseph not trying to figure out which branch of Christianity he should join? Why has God stopped feeling this way in the last 200 years of Christianity? According to me, he is still disappointed with the state of Christianity. Is that an accurate assessment, taking into account what the first vision reveals about many faiths?

 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

According to our doctrine, the original gospel was hidden from the world after Jesus' death so that the faith wouldn't be corrupted.

This is a fascinating statement. It implies that the gospel was consciously hidden (by God?), perhaps like some kind of invisibility cloak,  instead of lost or faded away over time. Is this mainline LDS teaching? If so, I think it is a very important distinction that I have never heard before (or at least am unaware of having heard). If this is true, how can it be seen as an apostasy, which implies (to me at least) a moving away from? Really interesting stuff.