7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[LoudmouthMormon]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Interesting article. 

Imma have to disagree with you there.  There wasn't a single word in that article I found interesting.  Or new.  Or fresh.  Or useful.  Or self-aware.  Or historically relevant.  Or in possession of a modicum of context. 

[manol]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yup.  They don't even capitalize it in this context.  "Worldwide" is another connotation for the way they use the term "catholic".

I spent many years attending a Presbyterian church, and actually the most recent church I spoke in was Presbyterian. 

[sheilauk]

Yes,it’s catholic with a small c, meaning universal.  It’s not the authority of the RCC but the authority of the early creeds and the fathers of the early church.  They are, like the RCC, churches whose authority rests with the original Apostles and they claim the same unbroken line from Peter as the RCC.  Protestant churches were, generally, about reforming practices and clarifying doctrines of the early RCC or Anglican Church and most claim the same early history as the RCC.  And if they are Anglican or Anglican offshoots, then really they can’t even claim to be part of a reformation, they exist because Henry VIII wanted a divorce and the Pope refused it!  And the bible isn’t the sole authority. In practice, the local minister has a great deal of authority in what is done and how and in the interpretation of the bible.  Plus most have bishops/archbishops or elders who determine, in councils, general doctrine and practice based on their interpretation of the bible and revelation.  As a member of one denomination of the Protestant church, I was able to move to other denominations and be accepted as a member there without further baptism or confirmation because they all accept the nicene creed and thus all those denominations are considered as “one church”.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.

I understand that.  Maybe I am not making my point clear.  My point is that it is the Catholic Church that created the term “one, holy, catholic apostolic church” and its parameters via the church creeds.   So, by accepting the authority and legitimacy of this so called “church” which includes all of Christianity (legitimate Christianity, I should say), then one is by default accepting the authority of the Catholic church in defining the parameters of who is in and who is out.  His argument is dependent on the authority of the Catholic Church in legitimizing this so called “church” as they are the ones who came up with the idea.   He even refers to the age of it being 2,000 years old.  I can assure you that the Presbyterians are not that old, therefore he is deferring to the more ancient authority of the Catholic Church in deciding who is Christian and who is not.  Just seems strange to me.

Edited June 7, 2023 by pogi

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I understand that.  Maybe I am not making my point clear.  My point is that it is the Catholic Church that created the term “one, holy, catholic apostolic church” and its parameters via the church creeds.   So, by accepting the authority and legitimacy of this so called “church” which includes all of Christianity (legitimate Christianity, I should say), then one is by default accepting the authority of the Catholic church in defining the parameters of who is in and who is out.  His argument is dependent on the authority of the Catholic Church in legitimizing this so called “church” as they are the ones who came up with the idea.   He even refers to the age of it being 2,000 years old.  I can assure you that the Presbyterians are not that old, therefore he is deferring to the more ancient authority of the Catholic Church.

It's a little weird from our perspective, but protestants don't seem to view it that way.   Many don't believe that the church of the councils is the same as the Roman Catholic church, for example.  They don't believe that those councils (and the creeds that came from them) stem from Roman Catholic authority.

[sheilauk]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

I understand that.  Maybe I am not making my point clear.  My point is that it is the Catholic Church that created the term “one, holy, catholic apostolic church” and its parameters via the church creeds.   So, by accepting the authority and legitimacy of this so called “church” which includes all of Christianity (legitimate Christianity, I should say), then one is by default accepting the authority of the Catholic church in defining the parameters of who is in and who is out.  His argument is dependent on the authority of the Catholic Church in legitimizing this so called “church” as they are the ones who came up with the idea.  

Ah, yes, I misunderstood your point before and yes, you could say that.  I think it depends on when one believes the RCC was formed.  I’m going from hazy memory here btw!  I was Protestant for 25 years but it’s been over 15 years since I left and I haven’t done any checking now!  That said, I think the belief is, or was, that the nicene creed was determined by the church fathers when the early church was still one, catholic, apostolic church and that what became the RCC was one branch of a split in that unified church and over time, that branch became corrupt and lost its authority but that didn’t diminish the authority of the creed. A distinction was always made between what is now the Roman Catholic Church and the original early catholic church.  So the RCC didn’t create the term, it was the catholic church that did and it’s that early unified church that has passed authority on to the Protestant denominations.  (Many years ago, Protestant and Catholic would rarely work together, in the last couple decades, that has changed and things are much more ecumenical, with each group being much more accepting of the other, also, I’m only speaking of my experience in the UK).  I don’t know if that’s where this gentleman is coming from or if he is happy to accept the authority of the RCC with regard to this.  Like I said, it’s been a while since I was Protestant and beliefs could well have changed substantially!

(what bluebell said!)

Edited June 7, 2023 by sheilauk

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's a little weird from our perspective, but protestants don't seem to view it that way.   Many don't believe that the church of the councils is the same as the Roman Catholic church, for example.  They don't believe that those councils (and the creeds that came from them) stem from Roman Catholic authority.

Do you have a reference about the “church of the counsels” being viewed as distinct from the Catholic Church?  There was no other Christian church at the time, so that doesn’t make much sense to me.

[Saint Bonaventure]

1 hour 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? 

 

The discussion we're having in this thread is enlightening for me. A few folks have put forward what I'm taking to be attempts at "least common denominator" descriptions of "Christian." I understand this approach, as it allows for "Christian" to be fundamental, to be a least common denominator. Thinking about "Christian" this way then allows any "numerator" differences to not disrupt the fundamental identity of "Christian."

In historical Christianity, many of the differences between the various groups are differences in the "numerator." A few are differences in denominator, but the denominations, as it were, all still share the least common denominator. Sorry about the math nerdiness.

Here's a vital passage from the Catechism:

Quote

 

185 Whoever says “I believe” says “I pledge myself to what we believe.” Communion in faith needs a common language of faith, normative for all and uniting all in the same confession of faith. (171, 949)

186 From the beginning, the apostolic Church expressed and handed on her faith in brief formulae for all. But already early on, the Church also wanted to gather the essential elements of its faith into organic and articulated summaries, intended especially for candidates for Baptism:

  This synthesis of faith was not made to accord with human opinions, but rather what was of the greatest importance was gathered from all the Scriptures, to present the one teaching of the faith in its entirety. And just as the mustard seed contains a great number of branches in a tiny grain, so too this summary of faith encompassed in a few words the whole knowledge of the true religion contained in the Old and New Testaments.

187 Such syntheses are called “professions of faith” since they summarize the faith that Christians profess. They are called “creeds” on account of what is usually their first word in Latin: credo (“I believe”). They are also called “symbols of faith.”

188 The Greek word symbolon meant half of a broken object, for example, a seal presented as a token of recognition. The broken parts were placed together to verify the bearer’s identity. The symbol of faith, then, is a sign of recognition and communion between believers. Symbolon also means a gathering, collection, or summary. A symbol of faith is a summary of the principal truths of the faith and therefore serves as the first and fundamental point of reference for catechesis.

189 The first “profession of faith” is made during Baptism. The symbol of faith is first and foremost the baptismal creed. Since Baptism is given “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” the truths of faith professed during Baptism are articulated in terms of their reference to the three persons of the Holy Trinity. (1237, 232)

190 And so the Creed is divided into three parts: “the first part speaks of the first divine Person and the wonderful work of creation; the next speaks of the second divine Person and the mystery of his redemption of men; the final part speaks of the third divine Person, the origin and source of our sanctification.” These are “the three chapters of our [baptismal] seal.”5

191 “These three parts are distinct although connected with one another. According to a comparison often used by the Fathers, we call them articles. Indeed, just as in our bodily members there are certain articulations which distinguish and separate them, so too in this profession of faith, the name articles has justly and rightly been given to the truths we must believe particularly and distinctly.” In accordance with an ancient tradition, already attested to by St. Ambrose, it is also customary to reckon the articles of the Creed as twelve, thus symbolizing the fullness of the apostolic faith by the number of the apostles.

192 Through the centuries many professions or symbols of faith have been articulated in response to the needs of the different eras: the creeds of the different apostolic and ancient Churches, e.g., the Quicumque, also called the Athanasian Creed; the professions of faith of certain Councils, such as Toledo, Lateran, Lyons, Trent;10 or the symbols of certain popes, e.g., the Fides Damasi or the Credo of the People of God of Paul VI.

193 None of the creeds from the different stages in the Church’s life can be considered superseded or irrelevant. They help us today to attain and deepen the faith of all times by means of the different summaries made of it.

Among all the creeds, two occupy a special place in the Church’s life:

194 The Apostles’ Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles’ faith. It is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. Its great authority arises from this fact: it is “the Creed of the Roman Church, the See of Peter, the first of the apostles, to which he brought the common faith.”

195 The Niceno-Constantinopolitan or Nicene Creed draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from the first two ecumenical Councils (in 325 and 381). It remains common to all the great Churches of both East and West to this day. (242, 245, 465)

196 Our presentation of the faith will follow the Apostles’ Creed, which constitutes, as it were, “the oldest Roman catechism.” The presentation will be completed however by constant references to the Nicene Creed which is often more explicit and more detailed.

197 As on the day of our Baptism, when our whole life was entrusted to the “standard of teaching,” let us embrace the Creed of our life-giving faith. To say the Credo with faith is to enter into communion with God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and also with the whole Church which transmits the faith to us and in whose midst we believe: (1064; 1274)

  This Creed is the spiritual seal, our hearts’s meditation and an ever-present guardian; it is, unquestionably, the treasure of our soul.

Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 51–54.

 

 

I can say more here, but these paragraphs should be enough to indicate why Matt. 28:19 was a vital area of investigation for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as it considered LDS Baptism. That body determined that while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the correct form for Baptism, the institutional meaning attached to that form is divergent. I'm not trying to pick a fight; I'm just trying to accurately relay the findings. 

While the Catholic Church does not categorically accept Latter-day Saint baptisms, it does allow for the possibility that both the performer and the recipient of LDS baptisms could have orthodox intent. It's just that that intent, while presented in a proper Matt. 28:19 form, would not be consistent with authoritative LDS teaching (i.e., it would probably be tritheistic but not Trinitarian).

That's another way of saying that a least common denominator isn't being shared at the institutional level between Catholics and Latter-day Saints. 

 

 

 

 

[Anakin7]

From My LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Archives - http://www.evangelicalsandmormonsforjesus.com

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you have a reference about the “church of the counsels” being viewed as distinct from the Catholic Church?  There was no other Christian church at the time, so that doesn’t make much sense to me.

The Catholic church obviously doesn't view it as distinct, but the fact that the council was convened by Constantine (an emperor of Rome) and not the church itself, and that the pope didn't attend in person but sent a legate to represent him (if I'm understanding that correctly) is used by some as evidence that the Nicene creed was not created by the authority of the Roman Catholic church.

[Calm]

I found these interesting for different views…

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/when-did-the-roman-catholic-church-begin#:~:text=GODFREY%3A Luther and Melanchthon said,of slow and subtle changes.

https://www.learnreligions.com/roman-catholic-church-history-700528

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

There was no other Christian church at the time, so that doesn’t make much sense to me.

What do you mean there was no other Christian church at the time?  Are you thinking in terms of organized power, beliefs, or what?

Apostasies (as interpreted by the LDS faith) started even while the apostles were alive, which means there were likely quite a few sects out there quickly, even ones we don’t know about.  Some survived, probably most didn’t, but new ones were always popping up iirc.

I have no idea how accurate this image is, but since most visual aids only have the major ones (Arianism, Nestorian, and the Coptic/Ethiopian are the ones I am seeing most often), I found this more useful to show possible variety of denominations.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/UsefulCharts/comments/w36qe2/family_tree_of_gnosticism_and_heterodox_christian/

It has been awhile since I read his book Lost Christianities, so I am depending on wiki here for Ehrman’s main divisions:

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Calm

[Saint Bonaventure]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

The Catholic church obviously doesn't view it as distinct, but the fact that the council was convened by Constantine (an emperor of Rome) and not the church itself, and that the pope didn't attend in person but sent a legate to represent him (if I'm understanding that correctly) is used by some as evidence that the Nicene creed was not created by the authority of the Roman Catholic church.

I've heard this perspective, and similar perspectives, many times. The difficulty around the Council of Nicaea is that there is plenty that we don't know, and that some historical sources contradict one another. I am unaware of any evidence that Constantine exercised any ecclesiastical authority, and I've spent serious time in the original sources and commentaries.

Here's what I take to be a fair, but brief, description of Constantine's convocation of the Council:

Quote

 

SEC. 24. The Convocation by the Emperor

The letters of invitation sent by the Emperor Constantine the Great to the bishops, to ask them to repair to Nicæa, do not unfortunately now exist, and we must content ourselves with what Eusebius says on the subject.2 “By very respectful letters (τιμητικοῖς γράμμασι) the Emperor begged the bishops of every country (ἁπανταχόθεν) to go as quickly as possible to Nicæa.” Rufinus says that the Emperor also asked Arius. It is not known whether invitations were sent to foreign bishops (not belonging to the Roman Empire). Eusebius says that the Emperor assembled an œcumenical council (σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν); but it is not at all easy to determine the value of the word οἰκουμένη. However it may be, Eusebius and Gelasius affirm that some foreign bishops took part in this great Council. The former says: “A bishop even from Persia was present at the Council, and Scythia itself was represented among the bishops.”5 Gelasius does not mention a Scythian bishop—that is to say, a Goth; but he begins his work with these words: “Not only bishops from every province of the Roman Empire were present at the Council, but even some from Persia.” The signatures of the members of the Council which still remain (it is true they are not of incontestable authenticity) agree with Eusebius and Gelasius; for we there find one John Bishop of Persia, and Theophilus the Gothic metropolitan. Socrates also mentions the latter, who, he says, was the predecessor of Ulphilas.3

It is impossible to determine whether the Emperor Constantine acted only in his own name, or in concert with the Pope, in assembling the bishops. Eusebius and the most ancient documents speak only of the Emperor’s part in the Council, without, however, a positive denial of the participation of the Pope. The sixth Œcumenical Synod, which took place in 680, says, on the contrary: “Arius arose as an adversary to the doctrine of the Trinity, and Constantine and Silvester immediately assembled (συνέλεγον) the great Synod at Nicæa.” The Pontifical of Damasus affirms the same fact. From that time, the opinion that the Emperor and the Pope had agreed together to assemble the Council became more and more general; and with whatever vivacity certain Protestant authors may have arrayed themselves against this supposition,6 it certainly seems probable that in such an important measure the Emperor would have thought it necessary not to act without the consent and co-operation of him who was recognised as the first bishop of Christendom. Let us add that Rufinus had already expressly said that the Emperor assembled the Synod ex sacerdotum sententia. If he consulted several bishops upon the measure which he had in view, he certainly would have taken the advice of the first among them; and the part of the latter in the convocation of the Council must certainly have been more considerable than that of the other bishops, or the sixth Council would doubtless have expressed itself in another way. The testimony of this Council is here of real importance. If it had been held in the West, or even at Rome, what it says might appear suspicious to some critics; but it took place at Constantinople, at a period when the bishops of this city were beginning to be rivals to those of Rome. The Greeks formed greatly the majority of the members of the Council, and consequently their testimony in favour of Rome, more especially in favour of the co-operation of Silvester, is very important.

In order to make the journey to Nicæa possible to some, and at least easier to others, the Emperor placed the public conveyances and the beasts of burden belonging to the Government at the disposal of the bishops; and while the Council lasted, he provided abundantly for the entertainment of its members. The choice of the town of Nicæa was also very favourable for a large concourse of bishops. Situated upon one of the rivers flowing into the Propontis on the borders of Lake Ascanius, Nicæa was very easy to reach by water for the bishops of almost all the provinces, especially for those of Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace: it was a much frequented commercial city, in relation with every country, not far distant from the imperial residence in Nicomedia, and after the latter the most considerable city in Bithynia. After the lapse of so many centuries, and under the oppressive Turkish rule, it is so fallen from its ancient splendour, that under the name of Isnik it numbers now scarcely 1500 inhabitants. This is fewer than the number of guests it contained at the time when our Synod was held.

Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, trans. William R. Clark, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1871), 268–270.

 

 

[Teancum]

19 hours 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. 

Most traditional Christians I have discussed this with, when I have pointed out differences amongst the varying denominations state they mostly agree on the essentials and differ on non essentials.  Mormonism, they say, differs significantly on the essentials, especially on the godhead, and thus cannot be considered Christian.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

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.

Is this view accepted by the bulk of Christianity or simply your opinion?  Keep in mind no other Christian sect I am aware of accepts an LDS baptism.  But many sects do accept baptisms of other sects.  And the LDS Church will not accept anyone else's baptism.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

 

But most Christian sects do not accept Mormonism as a valid representation of Christianity. 

[Teancum]

19 hours 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.

I agree.  But most Orthodox/Historical Christian authorities don't.

[Navidad]

17 hours 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.   

He would make a distinction between Catholic and Roman Catholic, and probably including Orthodox in the latter.

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, jonah747 said:

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

He would not.

[Navidad]

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Is this view accepted by the bulk of Christianity or simply your opinion?  Keep in mind no other Christian sect I am aware of accepts an LDS baptism.  But many sects do accept baptisms of other sects.  And the LDS Church will not accept anyone else's baptism.

Can you explain what you mean by "accepts?" For example, I don't accept any baptism as salvific from any church of any Christian or non-Christian group or denomination that claims it to be such. Nothing specifically and only aimed at the LDS in that regard.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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.

Yea I don't think so.  But your position is actually the one Mormonism used to cling to and leaders used to speak pretty strongly about when it came to apostate Christianity.  Now Mormonism tries to play nice. But hey what do I know. I don't think any Orthodox Christian sect is any more "true" than Mormonism.  They all are just man made religions IMO.

[Navidad]

Hi all: I don't have much time to respond, but let me just add a couple of things to the conversation. The author of this piece and his group represents a conservative reformed perspective on theology and Christianity. That is what and who he represents. He doesn't represent all non-LDS Christians, all Protestants, all Evangelicals, or all Presbyterians, or all PCA Presbyterians.

Once again, by this article we are reminded of the great diversity in non-LDS Christianity. We are reminded of the limited value of stating that Protestants, or Evangelicals, or Christians believe this or that. Even I know he erred in some of his statements about the beliefs of the LDS. His biases sneak through his words. As is true whenever any of us write or speak anything.

The PCA, to which he and his church belong are one of the most conservative Presbyterian groups in the United States. Some of their churches are Fundamentalists in some areas and Evangelical in others. It is always best to identify folks as individuals not as members of a group. I have learned that same thing, for example with LDS bishops. There are significant differences between individuals in any group.

When I was a superintendent of schools a trainer once told me that he believed there are most often more differences within a group than between groups. I have found great wisdom in that and have never forgotten it. So, the fellow who wrote the article speaks for himself, not for any other groups or organization to which he might belong. Who do I speak for? I speak for all Evangelicals living on the east side of the street, next to a river, on the north end of town, in a small village, in one municipality, in one state, in Mexico. Except for my wife of course. She speaks for herself! 😀

 

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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.

Like it or not, you demonstrate the great and wide diversity within the LDS Church. While I can't admire your certainty, I do admire your diversity. Oh, and the official sect of the theological school of Navidad does accept that members of the LDS church may be Christians, just like the members of any other group, or of no group who Christ will judge as able to come unto the Father for eternity. Take care.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't think any Orthodox Christian sect is any more "true" than Mormonism.

I agree, but I would also add this to what you said. "I don't think any Orthodox Christian sect is any  less "true" than Mormonism." Are you ok with that?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I've heard this perspective, and similar perspectives, many times. The difficulty around the Council of Nicaea is that there is plenty that we don't know, and that some historical sources contradict one another. I am unaware of any evidence that Constantine exercised any ecclesiastical authority, and I've spent serious time in the original sources and commentaries.

Here's what I take to be a fair, but brief, description of Constantine's convocation of the Council:

 

It's all the same to me really, since I don't believe anyone at the council had authority to do anything (no disrespect intended of course), but I can see valid reasons for how different groups engage with the history and it's definitely an interesting period in time.