7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[MustardSeed]

I agree that it’s hard to separate “my way is the only way” from “I’m superior”.  That said, somehow in practice, I honestly don’t “feel” that way.  If I do, I don’t recognize it. 

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

If I do, I don’t recognize it. 

You nailed it. None of us recognize it in ourselves, but give us an "other", however we might define that person and we can spot it a mile away!

Edited June 13, 2023 by Navidad

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I believe Christ knows the graduation requirements, but has not seen fit to disclose them with exactitude to us in this dispensation. That is why I value trust and faith above doctrine, principles, ordinances, and beliefs. All those things change over time. My provisional certitude in my ultimate graduation is based on trust and faith in the mercy and righteousness of Christ (something that never changes). I have no course list, no graduations requirements, no GPA requirements, and no final exam requirements.

My guess is that most Chistians do have at least one requirement - to, in some form, have a belief in Christ. 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I do have a code of conduct - the attributes of a Christian as in the fruits of the spirit, etc. That code is how He wants me to live while in school. I have no knowledge of what is an offense worthy of expulsion besides the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Take care and best wishes.

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

Actions speak louder than words.  Whatever our doctrine might be, whether as it is described and documented by myself or Calm or Teancum or Navidad, it leads the LDS people towards some powerful interfaith efforts.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interfaith

To me, the photos and linked articles on this page cannot be the product of a siloed faith that thinks itself superior to other Christians, or even to non-Christians.  

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[MustardSeed]

42 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You nailed it. None of us recognize it in ourselves, but give us an "other"however we might define that person and we can spot it a mile away!

Well then for what it’s worth if I have given you the impression that I believe I’m better than you , I’d like to know that.  If my membership in the church alone leaves you the impression that I think I’m better than you I wonder how we can work that out. 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That’s fine, when you are speaking for yourself. It’s when you proclaim what I believe or what the church requires members to believe that you’ll get pushback.

 

Back at ya.  What you outline is not Church doctrine.  Not at all.Like I said you speak out of both sides of your mouth and you do not reflect what the church has taught on this. Don' agree?  Let's start a thread on this and back our positions with LDS scripture and teachings by LDS leaders, manuals and so on.b Your let's play nice approach is not what Mormonism teaches.

[Stormin' Mormon]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Back at ya.  What you outline is not Church doctrine.  Not at all.Like I said you speak out of both sides of your mouth and you do not reflect what the church has taught on this. Don' agree?  Let's start a thread on this and back our positions with LDS scripture and teachings by LDS leaders, manuals and so on.b Your let's play nice approach is not what Mormonism teaches.

I would be interested in such a discussion because the Let's Play Nice approach is the only one I've seen in my scriptures, manuals, and church meetings. I would be eager to learn what church I've actually been attending since I was 15 if it wasn't in fact a Mormon one.

[Stormin' Mormon]

Just drove home from the gym with my 15yo daughter and asked her, as neutrally as possible: what does our church teach about other Christians?

Her answer: it's more important to help people find peace in Christ, wherever their comfort zone may be, than to push them outside of their comfort zone into our church. 

It's a sample size of one, so take it for what it's worth.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Back at ya.  What you outline is not Church doctrine.  Not at all.Like I said you speak out of both sides of your mouth and you do not reflect what the church has taught on this. Don' agree?  Let's start a thread on this and back our positions with LDS scripture and teachings by LDS leaders, manuals and so on.b Your let's play nice approach is not what Mormonism teaches.

It is what the church teaches though. I even provided references to support it.

You can start a new thread if you’d like, but you’d need to stick to what the church has taught in the last couple of decades, with an emphasis on what it is teaching now. What it taught a hundred years ago but doesn’t teach anymore, isn’t relevant.

Edited June 13, 2023 by bluebell

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

The authority is Christ-Holy Spirit-Person not Christ-Institution-Person. Can you provide a Biblical reference to your point of view? Where in the New Testament was any individual church granted any authority? It was always to invidiuals, was it not? Why would it be different today, especially when Hebrews clearly states He is High Priest and we are all the priests.

We consider the individual churches that are mentioned in the New Testament to be similar to our wards and stakes.  So, yes, a stake isn't granted any authority separately from another stake.  But we also believe that the authority always had to be given to a man by another man.  For example, when the 10 apostles met after Christ's death, they chose a new apostle and would have given him the authority.  Christ gave the authority to Peter.  So, to say "I have God's authority", we would ask, "What is your priesthood lineage?"  We are kind of similar to the Catholic church in that regard.  They can show an unbroken line of authority back to Christ.  Christ gave it to Peter, who gave it to Linus, etc.  We show an unbroken line back to Christ except we skip a bunch of years because we believe Peter (along with James and John) visited Joseph Smith as a resurrected being and gave it to Joseph Smith.

Our definition of authority might also be different from your definition.  To us, authority is extremely important when talking about ordinances.  The authority that Christ gave to Peter is the authority needed.  This same power had been given in ancient times.  We believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, etc all had it.  And any ordinance performed by men with this authority is valid.  Since we can point to an unbroken chain back to Peter, we believe we have that authority.

You might wonder why we don't accept the Catholic church's authority since they can show an unbroken line.  That's because we believe a "Great Apostasy" occurred at some point and the authority was lost, taken away, etc.  There's a lot of theories on how it happened, when it happened, why it happened, and how it happened.  But at some point, the authority that Christ gave to Peter and the early Christian church was lost.  That doesn't mean they stopped being Christians.  They still believed in Him and still followed His teachings.  Only that His authority was lost.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Well then for what it’s worth if I have given you the impression that I believe I’m better than you , I’d like to know that.  If my membership in the church alone leaves you the impression that I think I’m better than you I wonder how we can work that out. 

I do not think that you believe you're better than me. I think you believe I am an "other" and as such am not the same as you, especially in God's eyes. I don't want to be considered either better or lesser than you. I want you to consider me your peer, your colleague, your equal in Christ and the Holy Spirit positionally and as a believer striving to be all that Christ wants me to be in my own spiritual life via the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells me, as I am sure you do as well. In that way we have a potential for great unity because that is how I think of you.

I am unsure that you accept me as your equal in Christ and the Holy Spirit because of the doctrine of your church. You have no basis other than six years on this forum and what your church's doctrine informs you about "others" outside of the church to reach a conclusion about me. If you think less of me because of what you have observed about me in the six years on the forum, that is on me. I own that. If you think less of me because of what you church's doctrine informs you about those who are non-LDS, then that is on your church's doctrine. Take care.  

Edited June 13, 2023 by Navidad

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Back at ya.  What you outline is not Church doctrine.  Not at all.Like I said you speak out of both sides of your mouth and you do not reflect what the church has taught on this. Don' agree?  Let's start a thread on this and back our positions with LDS scripture and teachings by LDS leaders, manuals and so on.b Your let's play nice approach is not what Mormonism teaches.

Aren't you forgetting, the current prophet and teachings trump the last.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I do not think that you believe you're better than me. I think you believe I am an "other" and as such am not the same as you, especially in God's eyes. I don't want to be considered either better or lesser than you. I want you to consider me your peer, your colleague, your equal in Christ and the Holy Spirit positionally and as a believer striving to be all that Christ wants me to be in my own spiritual life via the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells me, as I am sure you do as well. In that way we have a potential for great unity.

I am unsure that you accept me as your equal in Christ and the Holy Spirit because of the doctrine of your church. You have no basis other than six years on this forum and what your church's doctrine informs you about "others" outside of the church to reach a conclusion about me. If you think less of me because of what you have observed about me in the six years on the forum, that is on me. I own that. If you think less of me because of what you church's doctrine informs you about those who are non-LDS, then that is on your church's doctrine. Take care.  

I am pretty sure MustardSeed doesn't think less of you Navidad. You should know that, but I think in the LDS church they believe in exaltation and becoming Gods but having a God that is superior to them still. But just like a father has a son, his son can also be a father and have a son and so on. That's my understanding. So I'm not sure in your beliefs this can happen. And also the exaltation part and so on. So maybe she's sorting it out that way. And thinks everyone will be where their faith believes they'll be or I think that at least. Maybe God will allow you to be where you want to be? 

 

[Navidad]

36 minutes ago, webbles said:

We consider the individual churches that are mentioned in the New Testament to be similar to our wards and stakes.  So, yes, a stake isn't granted any authority separately from another stake.  But we also believe that the authority always had to be given to a man by another man.  For example, when the 10 apostles met after Christ's death, they chose a new apostle and would have given him the authority.  Christ gave the authority to Peter.  So, to say "I have God's authority", we would ask, "What is your priesthood lineage?"  We are kind of similar to the Catholic church in that regard.  They can show an unbroken line of authority back to Christ.  Christ gave it to Peter, who gave it to Linus, etc.  We show an unbroken line back to Christ except we skip a bunch of years because we believe Peter (along with James and John) visited Joseph Smith as a resurrected being and gave it to Joseph Smith.

Our definition of authority might also be different from your definition.  To us, authority is extremely important when talking about ordinances.  The authority that Christ gave to Peter is the authority needed.  This same power had been given in ancient times.  We believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, etc all had it.  And any ordinance performed by men with this authority is valid.  Since we can point to an unbroken chain back to Peter, we believe we have that authority.

You might wonder why we don't accept the Catholic church's authority since they can show an unbroken line.  That's because we believe a "Great Apostasy" occurred at some point and the authority was lost, taken away, etc.  There's a lot of theories on how it happened, when it happened, why it happened, and how it happened.  But at some point, the authority that Christ gave to Peter and the early Christian church was lost.  That doesn't mean they stopped being Christians.  They still believed in Him and still followed His teachings.  Only that His authority was lost.

I believe the authority to conduct ordinances is lent by God through Christ via the Holy Spirit directly to a person, one at a time over and over again. Christ, on every occasion maintains all authority and power, but lends it to individuals as long as they prove worthy. In that sense it is different from salvation. In this dispensation it seems as if it is then practiced by that person on behalf of the organization to which they belong. I think you might agree with that. No LDS authorized authority-carrier may minister in the ordinances of any other church. Ditto for me in an LDS church. I do not believe that is how it was intended in the New Testament, but that is the way it has progressed and the way it is. It is one of the great distancing mechanisms to unity in the Christian community. Take care.

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I am pretty sure MustardSeed doesn't think less of you Navidad. You should know that, but I think in the LDS church they believe in exaltation and becoming Gods but having a God that is superior to them still. But just like a father has a son, his son can also be a father and have a son and so on. That's my understanding. So I'm not sure in your beliefs this can happen. And also the exaltation part and so on. So maybe she's sorting it out that way. And thinks everyone will be where their faith believes they'll be or I think that at least. Maybe God will allow you to be where you want to be? 

 

Ok, thanks for that. But I don't want God to allow me to be where I want to be. God has made a covenant with me and I with Him. He has promised me everlasting life with Him. It is as simple as John 3:16 claims it to be. I trust in His fidelity to His word. No strings attached! Thanks for your support of me, expressed in your own way. I really do appreciate it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

They still believed in Him and still followed His teachings.  Only that His authority was lost.

Most of his teachings….some that were not written down, but were shared only in person were likely lost.  Possibly some teachings written down were lost as well or misunderstood when it came time to write them down.

I believe some early leaders and maybe even later ones speculated that all that had been revealed to previous prophets has already been revealed in this dispensation, but given there is a sealed book still and the vision of Moses wasn’t detailed that much and some other stuff I can’t remember now (just remember my list was longer in the past), seems highly unlikely to me.

 Remembered one…quite a few books of scripture are spoken of that are lost.  Unless none of them contain revelation, there is a chance there is revealed knowledge in them that we lack.

Iow, there are more teachings to come that once man had and lost, imo, some from Jesus when he was on earth, some of God’s word revealed over time.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

But I don't want God to allow me to be where I want to be. God has made a covenant with me and I with Him. He has promised me everlasting life with Him.

Isn’t that where you want to be on a global self level if you made a covenant with him?  Even if parts of you might not want it yet?  (What Saints would typically refer to as the “natural man” if I understand you correctly?).

Edited June 13, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Ok, thanks for that. But I don't want God to allow me to be where I want to be. God has made a covenant with me and I with Him. He has promised me everlasting life with Him. It is as simple as John 3:16 claims it to be. I trust in His fidelity to His word. No strings attached! Thanks for your support of me, expressed in your own way. I really do appreciate it.

We believe that God has also promised us certain things, and by retaining our beliefs we are trusting in the fidelity of His word.  Why is your belief not a sign of your superiority, but our belief is?

[Navidad]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn’t that where you want to be on a global self level if you made a covenant with him?  Even if parts of you might not want it yet?  (What Saints would typically refer to as the “natural man” if I understand you correctly?).

Hi my friend. I am not sure I follow your comment. I am tired, so It is probably my  fault. I am a covenant guy. I believe God and I have a covenant with each other. If I . . . He will. It is not what I want, it is what He and I have covenanted through the shed blood of His Son. It is a II Chron: 7:14 kind of a thing  - "If my people . . . . then I will." That is one reason I just stare in amazement when my LDS friends assure me I can't possible have any covenants that I renew at the sacrament table. I also have covenants with my wife I renew there. I don't know if all that helps or not. It is early but I started early this morning prepping for a conference with a group from Canterbury, England. Amazing world, Chihuahua to Canterbury via internet! Thanks and very best wishes.

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I believe the authority to conduct ordinances is lent by God through Christ via the Holy Spirit directly to a person, one at a time over and over again. Christ, on every occasion maintains all authority and power, but lends it to individuals as long as they prove worthy. In that sense it is different from salvation. In this dispensation it seems as if it is then practiced by that person on behalf of the organization to which they belong. I think you might agree with that. No LDS authorized authority-carrier may minister in the ordinances of any other church. Ditto for me in an LDS church. I do not believe that is how it was intended in the New Testament, but that is the way it has progressed and the way it is. It is one of the great distancing mechanisms to unity in the Christian community. Take care.

"In this dispensation it seems as if it is then practiced by that person on behalf of the organization to which they belong.  I think you might agree with that."  I wouldn't agree with that.  And it comes down to our belief in how someone receives the authority.  You believe that it "is lent by God through Christ via the Holy Spirit directly to a person".  We believe it requires a physical "laying on hands" process from someone with the authority.  I can not walk into an LDS ward and say that I have the authority.  I have to prove it.  If I wanted to help out with the sacrament, I would not be allowed to until I've shown proof that I have the priesthood.  I have a card that shows my priesthood lineage all the way back to Christ (though we usually use a temple recommend as equivalent since a man can't get a temple recommend unless they have the authority).  In addition to that, I can't go around giving the authority to anyone I want.  It has to be authorized by someone with another authority (we call this Priesthood keys) and that person also needs to be able to show that they have the Priesthood keys.  We are pretty strict on ensuring that.  Ordinances have been redone because the proof was missing.  It was really common, back during the pioneer days, to rebaptize everyone who entered the Salt Lake valley just to ensure that they were baptized with the correct authority.

It also means that you don't have to be LDS to have the authority.  As long as you can show that you have received the authority by "laying on hands" from someone who has the authority and that it was done under direction of someone with the Priesthood key and that those people also have an unbroken lineage back to Christ, then you have the authority.  There are at least 4 people we believe that are still on this earth who have the authority and wouldn't be considered LDS.  They are John the Beloved and the 3 Nephites.  All 4 of them have never died and they received the authority long before the LDS church was organized.  Yet, we would accept their authority as long as they can prove who they are.

[Navidad]

Just now, bluebell said:

We believe that God has also promised us certain things, and by retaining our beliefs we are trusting in the fidelity of His word.  Why is your belief not a sign of your superiority, but our belief is?

Because of the way we rank the priority and necessity of certain beliefs and hold to those beliefs differently. My beliefs, other than in the atonement rank way down on my list of values and priorities in my Christian life. It is far more important for me to have faith and trust in Christ and to manifest that by manifesting the fruits of the Spirit, than it is to have correct beliefs or certainty about them. Methinks Christ will never judge me for the correctness of my doctrine or belief, but for how I manifest His love, and the attributes of a Christian in my life.

I have said a hundred times on this forum I believe what I believe with provisional certainty. Beliefs change, doctrines change, I change, the Mennonite church changes, along with its doctrine, as has the LDS church since 10 years past its founding. So I don't hold your salvation hostage to either my beliefs or to those of my group, or to what the leaders of my church teach.

I 100% believe God accepts you just as you are as a believer in Him, which I know you to be. I think I have said that since my first week on the forum in 2017. Oh, and I never said I think you, bluebell believe yourself to be superior to me or anyone else. I believe you believe your church and its doctrine is superior to all other Christian churches in this dispensation. I think that is why your church does not, even now prioritize real and genuine unity with fellow Christians regardless of affiliation. I don't say that as a judgment. I believe it to be a fact. Interfaith events are not expressions of unity or oneness. I want to get into all this on another thread, but I am too tired to do so tonight. Thanks and best to you.

[MustardSeed]

If I se myself as better than you, but I don’t realize that I see it that way, we reach an impasse.  I’m sorry. 
 

I have interacted with folks of other religions who seem to believe they are going to heaven and I’m not.  I’ve interacted with people of my own religion who think they are going to be exalted and I am not, and also those who think I am and they are not.  None of those relationships are any fun.  
 

Regardless of what my membership has you believing about what I think about you, I’ll tell you that I don’t know where you’re bound.  I have suspicions of my fate.  I’m pretty sure you’re safe with me. 

[Navidad]

21 minutes ago, webbles said:

"In this dispensation it seems as if it is then practiced by that person on behalf of the organization to which they belong.  I think you might agree with that."  I wouldn't agree with that.  And it comes down to our belief in how someone receives the authority.  You believe that it "is lent by God through Christ via the Holy Spirit directly to a person".  We believe it requires a physical "laying on hands" process from someone with the authority.  I can not walk into an LDS ward and say that I have the authority.  I have to prove it.  If I wanted to help out with the sacrament, I would not be allowed to until I've shown proof that I have the priesthood.  I have a card that shows my priesthood lineage all the way back to Christ (though we usually use a temple recommend as equivalent since a man can't get a temple recommend unless they have the authority).  In addition to that, I can't go around giving the authority to anyone I want.  It has to be authorized by someone with another authority (we call this Priesthood keys) and that person also needs to be able to show that they have the Priesthood keys.  We are pretty strict on ensuring that.  Ordinances have been redone because the proof was missing.  It was really common, back during the pioneer days, to rebaptize everyone who entered the Salt Lake valley just to ensure that they were baptized with the correct authority.

It also means that you don't have to be LDS to have the authority.  As long as you can show that you have received the authority by "laying on hands" from someone who has the authority and that it was done under direction of someone with the Priesthood key and that those people also have an unbroken lineage back to Christ, then you have the authority.  There are at least 4 people we believe that are still on this earth who have the authority and wouldn't be considered LDS.  They are John the Beloved and the 3 Nephites.  All 4 of them have never died and they received the authority long before the LDS church was organized.  Yet, we would accept their authority as long as they can prove who they are.

How many fellow believers in Christ who are not or never were members of the LDS church do you know who have the correct priesthood authority? I am asking because I am making the assumption you don't know John the Beloved or the 3 living Nephites. But if you do, then how many besides them do you know? From which non-LDS Christian group do they come? How were they able to prove to you "who they are" regarding their claims to the priesthood? How would I prove my own ministerial priesthood to you? What kind of proof would suffice? Sorry for all the questions. Best wishes.
 

[MustardSeed]

I am curious. I wonder if you had a specific experience or your wife had a specific experience that left you feeling particularly ousted? 
 

I once had a bishop give what could only be called a pulpit pounding sermon about wayward children and the responsibility of parents to ensure that it never happened, and it almost broke me. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I 100% believe God accepts you just as you are as a believer in Him, which I know you to be. I think I have said that since my first week on the forum in 2017. Oh, and I never said I think you, bluebell believe yourself to be superior to me or anyone else. I believe you believe your church and its doctrine is superior to all other Christian churches in this dispensation. I think that is why your church does not, even now prioritize real and genuine unity with fellow Christians regardless of affiliation. I don't say that as a judgment. I believe it to be a fact. Interfaith events are not expressions of unity or oneness. I want to get into all this on another thread, but I am too tired to do so tonight. Thanks and best to you.

In regards to the bolded above, do you believe it (the bolded) is the superior way to believe?  That it's better a way to view Christ and the gospel than the way that I view it?