7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

It doesn't expressly say that nonmembers cannot speak in sacrament meeting, but I believe that's what is intended. I take this to mean that the pool of people to select from includes members of the ward (most common scenario) and occasionally members from other wards in the stake who are serving in leadership positions. 

I don't think "most often...members" means 'but occasionally nonmembers' (even though I personally wouldn't be bothered by that under certain circumstances).

Great example of a statement that needs interpretation. And I certainly acknowledge that a local bishop has the right to make that interpretation. But interpretations vary, don't they? That is why they are deemed "interpretations."

[MustardSeed]

4 years ago I sang in a trio at church. Since one of our singers was not a ward member, the bishop requested info to be  reassured that she was a member of the church. I thought it was odd.  

[Navidad]

On 6/13/2023 at 4:24 PM, BlueDreams said:

That said, I hold a few conflicting thoughts with what you've mentioned. I know that only-isms (beliefs that claim some form of distinction or group uniqueness) goes quite against your own beliefs and assertions. You associate it (not incorrectly, IMHO) to othering, a sense of superiority, etc. I've seen that behavior, both in and out of the church. But I don't think that's the full story. I'm definitely not one who shies fully away from certainty, I do believe in certain truth claims (i usually stay around 90-95% as opposed to 100% certain  ), my nature leans towards judging...and I strongly believe that is a divine trait first, a messy world-influenced one second. It's because of my judging nature that I know these traits can become imbalanced and lead to negative consequences. But I also know it's not the only possible outcome in either a group or individual basis. If it's balanced by other values, beliefs and practices it doesn't usually have those fall outs. For example I judge quite often for my job. Like a ton. It makes me a good therapist. I believe strongly in certain things and traits being essential for human health and relational strength. That judgment and certainty is grounded in love, a belief in people's innate goodness and capacties, desire to help them find a healing path, and a strong belief in agency/my limitations. This usually balances out the problems that can come from judgment and working with absolutes. 

Thanks for the long and insightful reply. I had the privilege of serving as a Director of Counseling Services at two denominational colleges. There is much insight to be gained from such work. I have been very much impacted by marriage and family systems theory. Later in life that helped me to be a more effective superintendent of schools. As I have said on here before, I think othering, normalizing, generalizing, dehumanizing, and ranking are five of the most serious causational forces in human conflict. Virtually all the symptoms - the isms come from one or more of those five. Of course, they are often present in religious groups. Such groups have not allowed the gospel to vaccinate them from these five causal agents of human conflict. I regret that. Thanks for your always insightful and healing comments.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Navidad

[Amulek]

40 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If I may be so bold:

Latter-day Saints seem to want to be considered Christians by the Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant world because LDS want to feel accepted. I could be wrong, but I sense intense emotionality on the board whenever this topic comes up.

I don't care whether or not the broader Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant world accepts me as being a Christian in the same way that they consider themselves to be Christians.

If they want to believe Latter-day Saints are mistaken / heretical Christians, non-Trinitarian Christians, divergent Christians, unsaved Christians, or some other variant I would be fine with that.

The problem I have is that they don't go around saying we are certain (objectionable) kind of Christian; they say we are not Christians. At all. And that just belies the normative meaning of the word.

They are trying to subtly inject a theological premise into the definition of the word Christian that the majority of the world simply doesn't recognize or even care about.

 

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

4 years ago I sang in a trio at church. Since one of our singers was not a ward member, the bishop requested info to be  reassured that she was a member of the church. I thought it was odd.  

That is interesting. I love to sing. I have sung solos duets, trios, and in quartets in a number of wards. I also sang solos, duets, and in the Mormon Community Christmas Choir and Orchestra concert over several years. The first time I asked to sing in the Christmas concert, I was turned down (back around 2010) because I was not a member. Then the director apologized to me and I have sung in it ever since. Maybe he realized he needed some more basses! 😃

Several years ago I sang a solo in the Christmas concert in German in honor of all the Mennonites in attendance. The mass choir backed me up. It was fun teaching all our Spanish speaking community choir members the words in German! For months afterwards whenever I would see one of them in the grocery store or at a restaurant, they would smile and sing the words to me in German! I am unaware, but after that first encounter, I don't believe anyone ever had a concern that I was not a member. Of course Anglos are rare here, and the way we dress, most folks assume we are Mormons because all the Mennonites dress plain here. The LDS community here is certainly quite diverse. Add in the Fundamentalists and it gets really complicated. The Anglo fundamentalists however tend to be a bit more "cowboy" and a bit more politically engaged. Oh, and they dominate the pecan industry!

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yes, you are correct. As did many of our (perhaps yours and mine) ancestors whose covenants cost them their mortal lives. I have never faced that and most likely never will.

So does my response to this comment of yours make more sense now?

you:

Quote

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.

me:

Quote

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?).

I am simply saying you want God to take you where he wants to, you too want to be there.  So God is allowing you to be exactly where you want to be, with him.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

They are trying to subtly inject a theological premise into the definition of the word Christian that the majority of the world simply doesn't recognize or even care about.

 

And it’s a theological premise that didn’t exist when the word was created, and would make the word not even applicable to those who first used it.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

The guidance regarding teaching is found in 30.1.3:

The bishop is also supposed to review the membership record of the individual for any annotations which may preclude the person from serving (e.g., with youth). That simply cannot be done if someone isn't a member. 

Speaking in sacrament meeting is mentioned in 29.2.1.4 (citations omitted):

It doesn't expressly say that nonmembers cannot speak in sacrament meeting, but I believe that's what is intended. I take this to mean that the pool of people to select from includes members of the ward (most common scenario) and occasionally members from other wards in the stake who are serving in leadership positions. 

I don't think "most often...members" means 'but occasionally nonmembers' (even though I personally wouldn't be bothered by that under certain circumstances).

P.S. On the tablet today, so forgive anything that doesn't come out properly formatted/readable.  

 

Yes, I found those quotes too; another mentioned that nonmembers could not be put into church systems showing them as sustained to a calling. No membership numbers.  For men, no priesthood records.

The problem of course is they might teach wrong doctrine.

Another article said that the purpose of even attending sacrament meeting is to renew baptismal Covenants, so though a nonmember taking the sacrament is not "wrong" ( no lightning bolts ) but just without purpose, so there is no reason for a non-member to attend, except curiosity, but that is fine as an "investigator"

We don't go to church to hear wonderful talks from the smart guy next door.  

The absence of more clear evidence, to me, indicates that it's just a strange possibility that such a thing has never been seriously considered 

Why would one want to teach Doctrine that one doesn't accept?

 

[Navidad]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, I found those quotes too; another mentioned that nonmembers could not be put into church systems showing them as sustained to a calling. No membership numbers.  For men, no priesthood records.

The problem of course is they might teach wrong doctrine.

Another article said that the purpose of even attending sacrament meeting is to renew baptismal Covenants, so though a nonmember taking the sacrament is not "wrong" ( no lightning bolts ) but just without purpose, so there is no reason for a non-member to attend, except curiosity, but that is fine as an "investigator"

We don't go to church to hear wonderful talks from the smart guy next door.  

The absence of more clear evidence, to me, indicates that it's just a strange possibility that such a thing has never been seriously considered 

Why would one want to teach Doctrine that one doesn't accept?

 

I have bolded the statements that seem more indicative of hypotheticals than of anything that ever actually happened.

The problem of course is they might teach wrong doctrine - I don't remember ever teaching anything that was in any way contrary to LDS doctrine. Nor would I - therefore that is a problem that didn't exist. I would never speak about something that I didn't know we had in common. There are such a wealth of topics, there was never any thought or need to do so. I have preached in hundreds of churches from scores of denominations. I know how to do that.

But just without purpose, so there is no reason for a non-member to attend, except curiosity - That never happened either, at least not past the first visit -which wasn't a sacrament service. I renewed my covenants at every sacrament service, just like I have at every sacrament service I have ever attended in any church for sixty-some years. If you believe that non-LDS Christians don't or can't have covenants, that reflects on you, not on them. The reason a non-member would attend??????   How about to worship, fellowship, and minister. I hope you don't think that non-members are not accustomed to doing all three in whatever setting the Lord puts them.  And yes I believe the Lord put us in that ward. Many many many of the members confirmed that to us. Was I curious? Sure. I stipulate to that. Is that why we went? Maybe the first time - but certainly not the two hundred-fiftieth time!

We don't go to church to hear wonderful talks - Ok, but in part that is why I go. And that is why I watch Conference talks, and certain pastors on youtube. Often times in our ward, they were given by a smart guy, who lived, if not next door, down the street, or over the hill. Of course to hear the wonderful talks, sometimes you have to sit through the duds as well, as does everyone else who attends! I enjoyed the wonderful talks and endured the duds. Just like most everyone else on this forum has done.

Why would one want to teach Doctrine that one doesn't accept? - I never taught doctrine I don't accept. Not once. We have such a vast world of beliefs, doctrines, and needs in common, that never entered my mind. I taught about the Kings of Israel and Judah, carefully following the manual. I talked about God's faithfulness, seeking His guidance and direction via prayer, I talked about the importance of being faithful, the value of sacred places, the important of faith when times are tough and you just buried your four year old on your ranch because he died of an infectious disease, lost your husband to a wagon wreck, and lived as best you could to support your children in the harsh desert. Maybe that was one of those wonderful talks you don't want to hear. I spoke about the power of the incarnation at Christmas. I talked about God's provision when foes were attacking, when sickness was descending, and when it seemed that all the world was against you, using Zion's Camp as an example. Maybe that wouldn't interest you either?

I would suggest that perhaps you need to develop some new premises about a non-member teaching in an LDS ward. Those don't seem to relevant. One last thing, we told all three bishops we were putting ourselves under their authority as faithful attendees of the church of which they were the pastor. We never strayed from that, not once. I respect and absolutely believe in ministerial (priesthood) authority of leaders, especially in a local church. It would not have been either right or fair for us to have attended outside of the authority of the pastor/shepherd/bishop. So we didn't. I don't believe we ever went outside of, around, or challenged any of the direction, counsel, or advice that any of the three gave us. Take care.

[Stargazer]

On 6/6/2023 at 11:07 AM, pogi said:

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.

I don't care what he says. I'm a Christian. If he wants to invent a definition to shut me out, I can do the same. It's easy!  But I won't. It's not like being a Christian is a certification issued by a universally-recognized body.

Kind of reminds me of ancient popes excommunicating each other.

[Saint Bonaventure]

So, is the decision to not use Mormon anymore contributing to angst over the definition of Christian?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

So, is the decision to not use Mormon anymore contributing to angst over the definition of Christian?

I wouldn’t think so. I can’t see how the two are connected. There’s been “angst” over the definition of Christian between us and some other Christians for decades. I first became aware of it when I was in high school in the 90s. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

The problem of course is they might teach wrong doctrine - I don't remember ever teaching anything that was in any way contrary to LDS doctrine.

Virtually every post you make, including this one contains erroneous LDS doctrine.

You ask questions for clarification in every post.

It's great you renew your Covenants, but that proves you cannot be renewing OUR Covenants at the same time.  Words in one context don't mean the same thing as in another context.

For us, these words mean that we are taking on membership in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

""Taking upon Us the Name of Jesus Christ

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1985/04/taking-upon-us-the-name-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

"As a second obvious meaning, we take upon us our Savior’s name when we become members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. By his commandment, this church bears his name. (See D&C 115:4; 3 Ne. 27:7–8.) Every member, young and old, is a member of the “household of God.” (Eph. 2:19.) As true believers in Christ, as Christians, we have gladly taken his name upon us. (See Alma 46:15.) As King Benjamin taught his people, “Because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you.” (Mosiah 5:7; see also Alma 5:14; Alma 36:23–26.)"

Edited June 15, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

So, is the decision to not use Mormon anymore contributing to angst over the definition of Christian?

Well, I haven't felt any angst over it. In any case, I never particularly cared for the term Mormon as applied to either the Church or me, anyway. There's the Book of Mormon. There's Christ. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ. In the end, I am a Christian of the Latter-day Saint variety.

Want to know my definition of Christian as applied to a person? It is someone who professes a belief in Jesus Christ, who earnestly strives to live according to Christ's teachings. One might say that I have crafted a definition of Christian specifically to include me, but why not? And note that this is a very open definition, unlike those definitions which are used to exclude. The term Christian was not given by the Lord anyway. It grew from the desire of the saints at Antioch to have a way of identifying themselves as believers (Acts 11:26). 

 

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I haven't felt any angst over it. In any case, I never particularly cared for the term Mormon as applied to either the Church or me, anyway. There's the Book of Mormon. There's Christ. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ. In the end, I am a Christian of the Latter-day Saint variety.

Want to know my definition of Christian as applied to a person? It is someone who professes a belief in Jesus Christ, who earnestly strives to live according to Christ's teachings. One might say that I have crafted a definition of Christian specifically to include me, but why not? And note that this is a very open definition, unlike those definitions which are used to exclude. The term Christian was not given by the Lord anyway. It grew from the desire of the saints at Antioch to have a way of identifying themselves as believers (Acts 11:26). 

 

This is my personal definition as well, and I can’t verify this but I believe (IMO) this is what most people think about when they state their Christianity.  So much of this thread is wayyyy over the heads of most human understanding of Christianity IMO. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

So much of this thread is wayyyy over the heads of most human understanding of Christianity IMO. 

Many of the protestants that I've spoken to about it, who profess a belief in the trinity for example but might not be very active in any denomination, don't know the difference between trinitarianism and modalism.  This was especially true when I was in high school and having lots of these kinds of conversations with other kids who had heard from their parents and pastors how horrible mormons were after The Godmakers made the rounds.

(Most high schoolers don't know that much about the specifics of their doctrinal beliefs in general so it was to be expected and I'm sure I told them some stuff that wasn't exactly accurate about my beliefs too).

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's great you renew your Covenants, but that proves you cannot be renewing OUR Covenants at the same time.  Words in one context don't mean the same thing as in another contex

Ok. I surrender. I didn't say I was renewing your covenants. I said I was renewing my own. I listen to the prayer offered by the appropriate person. I then bow my head and pray. In that prayer to the Savior I renew the commitments I have made to him as I remember what He did for me. I also quietly renew my covenants to my wife that I made when I married her. What in those two things bothers you so very much?

Let me clarify again, I am renewing my covenants. If you would like, I can explicitly state them for you although I have done so on several different occasions on this forum. I can pray to the Savior wherever I am. He will hear me, will He not? Or don't you believe God hears the prayers of non-LDS Christians? There is added meaning to me in praying that prayer when I am at a sacrament service, obeying the command of the Lord to do this "as often as I do it in remembrance of Him," wherever that might be. It is between me and God. I am not sure what you are saying?  That I have no covenants? That my covenants have no meaning to God? That He doesn't hear my prayers? Because they aren't recommitments to LDS covenants, He won't hear me in an LDS sacrament service? Help me understand.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Navidad

[Vanguard]

20 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Ok. I surrender. I didn't say I was renewing your covenants. I said I was renewing my own. I listen to the prayer offered by the appropriate person. I then bow my head and pray. In that prayer to the Savior I renew the commitments I have made to him as I remember what He did for me. I also quietly renew my covenants to my wife that I made when I married her. What in those two things bothers you so very much?

Let me clarify again, I am renewing my covenants. If you would like, I can explicitly state them for you although I have done so on several different occasions on this forum. I can pray to the Savior wherever I am. He will hear me, will He not? Or don't you believe God hears the prayers of non-LDS Christians. There is added meaning to me in praying that prayer when I am at a sacrament service, obeying the command of the Lord to do this "as often as I do it in remembrance of Him," wherever that might be. It is between me and God. I am not sure what you are saying?  That I have no covenants? That my covenants have no meaning to God? That He doesn't hear my prayers? Because they aren't recommitments to LDS covenants, He won't hear me in an LDS sacrament service? Help me understand.

I say have at it. The Sacrament is a wonderful time for everyone to recommit themselves to the Savior with or without taking the bread & water. : )

[Calm]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

taking the sacrament is not "wrong" ( no lightning bolts ) but just without purpose

As far as the Church is concerned, not the individual 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

there is no reason for a non-member to attend, except curiosity, but that is fine as an "investigator"

The Sacrament is not the sole purpose, but the primary purpose. Otherwise there would be no need for talks, sustainings, or hymns. 
 

We are also instructed to gather together often to support and edify each other.  Something nonmembers can easily participate in, imo. 
 

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The Sacrament is not the sole purpose, but the primary purpose. Otherwise there would be no need for talks, sustainings, or hymns. 
 

We are also instructed to gather together often to support and edify each other.  Something nonmembers can easily participate in, imo. 
 

 

Yes, anyone is welcome to come to the birthday party anytime, but it is FOR the Birthday girls and boys.

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Error

Edited June 16, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

As far as the Church is concerned, not the individual 

Of course.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok. I surrender. I didn't say I was renewing your covenants. I said I was renewing my own. I listen to the prayer offered by the appropriate person. I then bow my head and pray. In that prayer to the Savior I renew the commitments I have made to him as I remember what He did for me. I also quietly renew my covenants to my wife that I made when I married her. What in those two things bothers you so very much?

Let me clarify again, I am renewing my covenants. If you would like, I can explicitly state them for you although I have done so on several different occasions on this forum. I can pray to the Savior wherever I am. He will hear me, will He not? Or don't you believe God hears the prayers of non-LDS Christians? There is added meaning to me in praying that prayer when I am at a sacrament service, obeying the command of the Lord to do this "as often as I do it in remembrance of Him," wherever that might be. It is between me and God. I am not sure what you are saying?  That I have no covenants? That my covenants have no meaning to God? That He doesn't hear my prayers? Because they aren't recommitments to LDS covenants, He won't hear me in an LDS sacrament service? Help me understand.

Ok. I am not saying something understandable I guess.

Language is my passion, and yours is a different conversation.

Words are funny.

Imagine discussing what is the most dangerous game.

Your reply is "Rugby" and my reply is "elephants".

Who is right and who is wrong?

Neither.

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Latter-day Saints seem to want to be considered Christians by the Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant world because LDS want to feel accepted. I could be wrong, but I sense intense emotionality on the board whenever this topic comes up. I'm trying to be sensitive, and also trying to explain where I'm coming from. 

I've run out of time today to answer more fully the rest of your post, but I did want to answer this even though I've seen a couple answers I already agree. I want people to know that I'm a disciple of Christ, because my walk has brought me to Him and helped me to deeply know Him. Some of my most sacred and beautiful meetings with my savior have come from excruciating journeys that changed me enough to be able to know* my Savior. I was on one recently that I now reference as my holy week: filled with pain, uncertainty, and inevitably the loss of 2 of my 3 daughters. And it wasn't inspite of my institutional affiliation. It was entrenched in it and illuminated through it. From the many priesthood blessings I received where my Holy Family were palpably beside me and the Holy Spirit guided the words my husband said and my own understanding. To the studies that included accounts of Joseph Smith along with the Apostles. To the context of the promptings that helped me to say "not my will" in earnest repetitive prayer that brought to mind passages in the BoM. To the LDS steeped sacrament we had the evening our girls' died. So yes, from me, standing for Jesus who I found in my religious home will always be intensely emotional.  

I don't want to be orthodox/catholic/protestant. I don't need to feel accepted into faith practices/doctrines that are not really fully mine. But I do want people to see Christ in my practice as a Latter-day Saint. Who knows, maybe there is a lesson to be had by seeing Jesus in me. Jesus was often found in the unexpected and uncomfortable places in jewish society. Maybe there are  mysteries to be understood when one realizes the christianity in a latter-day saint space. I certain have by seeing it in others who don't worship as I do.  . Either way, we've been asked to be witnesses of Christ...being known by His name seems like a fairly straightforward start to that. 

 

 

*I wish english were like spanish and there was a distinction between practical knowledge and relational... because if I could express that it would be the latter.

 

 With luv,

BD 

Edited June 16, 2023 by BlueDreams