7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[Navidad]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Including the Holy Spirit? Was the Holy Spirit present in the council? If so, did He have authority to superintend the results and revelation to the attendees? Didn't someone on this forum just say a few days ago that one did not need authority to receive revelation? (In the discussion about Joseph Smith and the revelations prior to the granting of the priesthood) Just asking for a friend.

[Teancum]

15 hours 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 in deciding who is Christian and who is not.  Just seems strange to me.

One of our Catholic friends should speak up. I don't think you are really understanding this correctly.  In spite of the reformation movement there are a lot of commonalities among historic Christianity.  Sure there are differences as well but on key and essential issues there is a majority of agreement. And historic.orhtodox Christianity has all this in common especially today. The Roman Catholic Church accepts a Presbyterian baptism and visa versa.  But sects like Mormonism and the Jehovah Witnesses and others deviat far to much from the orthodox and historic norm and this is why they are not considered Christian.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

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.

If a member of the Anglican Church converted to the Roman Catholic Church they would not need to he baptized again as the Catholic Church accepts the Anglican baptism.

[Teancum]

54 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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?

For you sure.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Including the Holy Spirit? Was the Holy Spirit present in the council? If so, did He have authority to superintend the results and revelation to the attendees? Didn't someone on this forum just say a few days ago that one did not need authority to receive revelation? (In the discussion about Joseph Smith and the revelations prior to the granting of the priesthood) Just asking for a friend.

I have no idea if He was present. 

[Navidad]

56 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If a member of the Anglican Church converted to the Roman Catholic Church they would not need to he baptized again as the Catholic Church accepts the Anglican baptism.

Ok. So you are talking about accepting baptism for membership. Thanks, that helps. If I converted to Roman Catholicism, I would not need to be baptized again either. Take care.

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Including the Holy Spirit? Was the Holy Spirit present in the council? If so, did He have authority to superintend the results and revelation to the attendees? Didn't someone on this forum just say a few days ago that one did not need authority to receive revelation? (In the discussion about Joseph Smith and the revelations prior to the granting of the priesthood) Just asking for a friend.

For me to remain consistent in my belief, I would have to say that indeed the Holy Spirit was present. My belief tells me that any approximation to the Savior has to be attended to by the Holy Spirit. My own LDS perspective has me believing that all of these earlier events were necessary for the eventual introduction of the Gospel with its authority to officiate in the ordinances that are required and that all will receive at some point. 

[Navidad]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have no idea if He was present. 

Me either . . . but I somehow think it is an important question. We know St. Jerome translated both Old and New Testaments. I wonder if the Holy Spirit supervised, inspired, and shed light on his work? Ditto for Wycliffe and Luther? I don't know, but I think it is a very important question. Thanks. Take care.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Navidad

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Me either . . . but I somehow think it is an important question. Thanks. Take care.

For those who believe that the Nicene creed represents true doctrine, knowing that the Spirit was there is probably imperative.   For me, someone who doesn't believe it represents doctrine, I still believe the Spirit could have been present, but not to dictate the doctrine of the Trinity.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

For me to remain consistent in my belief, I would have to say that indeed the Holy Spirit was present. My belief tells me that any approximation to the Savior has to be attended to by the Holy Spirit. My own LDS perspective has me believing that all of these earlier events were necessary for the eventual introduction of the Gospel with its authority to officiate in the ordinances that are required and that all will receive at some point. 

I feel similarly.

[Sara H]

23 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Interesting article. 

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

Something quite strange has occurred over the past 15 years in regard to how members of the LDS faith want to be perceived by the rest of the world. In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took pride in being unique and unconventional. They were not afraid to assert that the gospel preached by their church, the LDS gospel, and not the gospel preached by Christians was the only genuine and active gospel in existence. However, it appears that our current focus is on attempting to persuade everyone else that we are just as Christian as they are. This is despite the fact that we previously had no such preoccupation. 

 

My entire life, I have been under the impression that the reason Joseph re-established the gospel was due to the fact that all religions, including Christianity, were corrupt, but Christianity in particular. Was it just taught from the pulpit at the building that houses my ward, since it no longer appears that church members are at ease with that doctrine. Between Christianity and the restored gospel, there are literally hundreds of points of contention. But in my view, the most significant distinction is that our religion tells Christians that they cannot return to God without first accepting the gospel of the Latter-day Saints. The majority of Christians I know are of the opinion that even Latter-day Saints can return to God as long as they have a new birth. 

 

 

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

One of our Catholic friends should speak up. I don't think you are really understanding this correctly.  In spite of the reformation movement there are a lot of commonalities among historic Christianity.  Sure there are differences as well but on key and essential issues there is a majority of agreement. And historic.orhtodox Christianity has all this in common especially today. The Roman Catholic Church accepts a Presbyterian baptism and visa versa.  But sects like Mormonism and the Jehovah Witnesses and others deviat far to much from the orthodox and historic norm and this is why they are not considered Christian.

I would strongly doubt that many Presbyterian groups, if any would accept a Roman Catholic baptism for membership. Having said that, as I did earlier I will reiterate that they (Presbyterians) would, to my knowledge, not accept any baptism as salvific. Whose baptism would they accept as valid for membership in their church? I really don't know. I think the key question is, would the Presbyterians accept it as valid for what a Presbyterian group believes about baptism? That is a while different question. In my case what baptism would I accept as a valid testimony to a previously decided relationship with Christ? That is what baptism means to me - a witness and testimony - nothing more. My baptism is not accepted as valid for what my LDS friends believe about baptism. For me, the LDS baptism is acceptable to me for what I believe baptism signifies.The question about accepting for membership is a whole other issue. I know some groups that require that a person be baptized three times in a forward position for that baptism to be considered valid for membership. Would they, at the same time accept my baptism as valid before God? Yes, but not valid for membership in their church. The LDS church does not accept my baptism as either valid before God, or valid for membership in their church. Those are indeed two different questions. 

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

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:

 

Thanks for this interesting graph.

I am aware that there were some schisms in the early church at the time of the counsels, but I never considered these schisms "churches" per se (I am open to be corrected on that).  These were considered heretical beliefs or groups. They certainly were not what the Church had in mind when speaking of the "one, holy, catholic, apostolic church" which concept the protestants were later adopted into.  By accepting the adoption, my point is that they are thus deferring to the Catholic authority and parameters of this "church" here.

My point is that the Roman Catholic church created this concept of the "one, holy, catholic, apostolic church" and set the parameters, and the rest of Christianity (of which it is argued we are not included because we don't accept the idea/concept, or creeds of this one, holy, catholic, apostolic church) seems to have willingly adopted it.  My point, which doesn't seem to be very clear, is why should these parameters which the Roman Catholic Church created in defining the "one, holy, catholic, apostolic church" be the parameters that defines who is or who is not a Christian?   By accepting their creation of this church and its doctrines and creeds, we are relenting authority to them.  The LDS church obviously would never do that. 

My other point is that there are other Christian sects which don't adopt the creeds of the "one, holy, catholic, apostolic church", and yet they seem more likely to be accepted as "Christian".  What gives?  

Edited June 7, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

I don't believe that is accurate.  It is my understanding that most Catholics consider us Christian.  Most Evangelicals do too (despite not being part of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church).  It is mostly the extremely conservative or fundamentalists (which are a minority of Christian sects) who reject us from the Christian family. 

Would you concur @Navidad?

[Vanguard]

38 minutes ago, Sara H said:

But in my view, the most significant distinction is that our religion tells Christians that they cannot return to God without first accepting the gospel of the Latter-day Saints. The majority of Christians I know are of the opinion that even Latter-day Saints can return to God as long as they have a new birth. 

I suspect this belief will also have to go the way of the dinosaurs. My thinking is that it is not about the LDS Church per se but rather the Godhead's authority for effecting ordinances whether here or in the afterlife. I doubt there is some announcement in the afterlife to the effect, "Ok, now you have to tell us if you want to be in the LDS Church or not before you enter the gates". My belief is that the ordinance will be made available and that all will recognize it is our Father's and elder Brother's will. I also believe everything that was accomplished in this mortality for the glory of Christ will be celebrated. : )

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

One of our Catholic friends should speak up. I don't think you are really understanding this correctly.  In spite of the reformation movement there are a lot of commonalities among historic Christianity.  Sure there are differences as well but on key and essential issues there is a majority of agreement. And historic.orhtodox Christianity has all this in common especially today. The Roman Catholic Church accepts a Presbyterian baptism and visa versa.  But sects like Mormonism and the Jehovah Witnesses and others deviat far to much from the orthodox and historic norm and this is why they are not considered Christian.

I understand all of this. 

The Catholic church created the idea of this "one, holy, catholic, apostolic church" and set the parameters of this "church".  They created the creeds/doctrines which need to be accepted to be a part of this catholic or universal "church".   If we accept that our Christianity is defined by membership in this "church" or not (as the author in the OP is trying to do), then by accepting those parameters as authoritative, one is deferring to the authority of the Catholic church in deciding who is or who is not Christian.    

[Calm]

 

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

Something quite strange has occurred over the past 15 years in regard to how members of the LDS faith want to be perceived by the rest of the world. In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took pride in being unique and unconventional. They were not afraid to assert that the gospel preached by their church, the LDS gospel, and not the gospel preached by Christians was the only genuine and active gospel in existence. However, it appears that our current focus is on attempting to persuade everyone else that we are just as Christian as they are. This is despite the fact that we previously had no such preoccupation. 

 

My entire life, I have been under the impression that the reason Joseph re-established the gospel was due to the fact that all religions, including Christianity, were corrupt, but Christianity in particular. Was it just taught from the pulpit at the building that houses my ward, since it no longer appears that church members are at ease with that doctrine. Between Christianity and the restored gospel, there are literally hundreds of points of contention. But in my view, the most significant distinction is that our religion tells Christians that they cannot return to God without first accepting the gospel of the Latter-day Saints. The majority of Christians I know are of the opinion that even Latter-day Saints can return to God as long as they have a new birth. 

I am 65 this year, an active member all my life, living in California and Illinois in my youth with around a half year in Utah living with relatives off and on.

We have been quoting from CS Lewis for as long as I can remember.   And before the guitar was kicked out of SM, I heard a lot of nonLDS Christian songs performed in SM as well.

While I heard some with your own interpretation of church teachings about other faiths, there were many others who spoke from the pulpit who had more expansive views of what Christianity is and what was meant by corruption.

I do agree that The Great Apostasy has been generally narrowed in its claims, but I heard the idea of it being authority that was the crucial loss that led to the splintering of sects long before 15 years and that there was a lot of gospel truths left in Christian faiths, more like 40 in discussion I had at BYU when a student there.

My view of the gospel was greatly influenced through talks that started when I was around ten iirc with my mother, who was not only read widely among our church leadership’s texts, but read others’ beliefs as well as she firmly believed that Truth is more important than where one finds it as taught by Joseph Smith, her favorite teacher besides scripture and the Spirit:

Quote

“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199)

So I admit I am predisposed to be more open to hearing acceptance of other faiths in the words I hear across the pulpit or in my BYU classes or discussions with friends.  Perhaps I ‘heard’ more than was there.  We tend to hear in others’ words often what we already assume to be true.  This filter may lead us to add or subtract from the ideas others are presenting.  An example are those who say they never or rarely hear of Jesus being spoken of in LDS Sunday services when for others our meetings are drenched in references to him.  However, I highly doubt that I imagined all the references to good and truth being found in other faiths.  Church meetings had more acceptance of other faiths, I believe, much more than you claim.

Pres Hinckley mid90s is pretty clear there is great good in other faiths:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-gordon-b-hinckley/chapter-20-fellowship-with-those-who-are-not-of-our-faith?lang=eng
 

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

My point, which doesn't seem to be very clear, is why should these parameters which the Roman Catholic Church created in defining the "one, holy, catholic, apostolic church" be the parameters that defines who is or who is not a Christian?

They don't and they aren't.

Does that help?    -  I am trying to learn to make replies that are more brief!

[Pyreaux]

4 hours 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.

It is the view of the majority of the English-speaking world, perhaps not the bulk of self-interested Protestant preachers but not the pews, and to them Baptism is just a symbol, not a crucible of who is a Christian.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

They don't and they aren't.

Does that help?    -  I am trying to learn to make replies that are more brief!

I know that is your position and opinion, which I agree with and am grateful for.  But the pastor in the OP disagrees - it is that mindset that I am questioning.   You seem to understand that the Roman Catholic concept of this “church” should have no bearing on what other “Christians” think or believe.  I just don’t understand why another sect would legitimize Catholic authority in accepting the idea and parameters of this universal “church” in this way.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Something quite strange has occurred over the past 15 years in regard to how members of the LDS faith want to be perceived by the rest of the world. In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took pride in being unique and unconventional. They were not afraid to assert that the gospel preached by their church, the LDS gospel, and not the gospel preached by Christians was the only genuine and active gospel in existence. However, it appears that our current focus is on attempting to persuade everyone else that we are just as Christian as they are. This is despite the fact that we previously had no such preoccupation. 

 

My entire life, I have been under the impression that the reason Joseph re-established the gospel was due to the fact that all religions, including Christianity, were corrupt, but Christianity in particular. Was it just taught from the pulpit at the building that houses my ward, since it no longer appears that church members are at ease with that doctrine. Between Christianity and the restored gospel, there are literally hundreds of points of contention. But in my view, the most significant distinction is that our religion tells Christians that they cannot return to God without first accepting the gospel of the Latter-day Saints. The majority of Christians I know are of the opinion that even Latter-day Saints can return to God as long as they have a new birth. 

 

 

 

I grew up in the 80s and 90s, and my perception of the church back then is different. I don’t remember ever being happy and excited that other churches did not believe that we followed and worshiped Jesus Christ. In fact I had quite a few conversations in high school, trying to persuade my protestant friends the opposite.

Neither had I ever considered, nor heard taught at church, that we were separate from the rest of Christianity and therefore not Christian.

I did not grow up in Utah though, so maybe that’s why? 

[Navidad]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't believe that is accurate.  It is my understanding that most Catholics consider us Christian.  Most Evangelicals do too (despite not being part of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church).  It is mostly the extremely conservative or fundamentalists (which are a minority of Christian sects) who reject us from the Christian family. 

Would you concur @Navidad?

I am not exactly sure what you are asking me. Let me answer as clearly as I can. If I have misunderstood your question, let me know. I can't speak for what most Catholics consider - there has been a movement in the Catholic church in this issue since Vatican II when the official church decided to be more ecumenical in their thinking. I will let our Catholic friends speak to that.

I can speak with some certainty that Evangelicals as a whole do not believe that any person, by virtue of membership, affiliation, or fealty to any religious group, no matter how "Christian" it might be are automatically or autonomically Christian. Christ did not die for organizations. Therefore, for the Evangelical the fact that we identify certain organizations as Christian, that does not result in the conclusion that every member (or any member) of that group is a Christian. Neither does it mean that someone who is a member of no Christian group is not a Christian either. One does not get a Christian card when joining a church, denomination, or group. Nor does (according to Evangelicals) anyone's group membership card, grant them access to the Father. Humans, according to Evangelicals are not born Christian. They may or may not become Christians at some point in their life. When I was twenty, I served a mission in Africa. My role was to convert folks to a relationship with Christ, not to any particular church. I wasn't there on behalf of any church. I was sent by an Evangelical mission that had no specific affiliation with any church. My goal was to help make Christians, not members. Those who responded to our "gospel" were free to attend whatever church they chose, or no church at all.

So much for my short answers! Ha!      So, all the Evangelicals I know believe that any human being, a member of any church, no church, or a lapsed member of any church or no church, a 10 year old or a 90 year old can become a Christian by a proclamation of faith and trust in the work, mercy, grace, and love of the Savior. Then and only then, but immediately (as when Christ declared people whole) they become a Christian. In a crowd of 10,000, it happens one person at a time, as it always has and always will. So, are all members of the LDS church Christians? Probably not. Ditto for all members of the Mennonite or any other church. Are there members of the LDS church or the Mennonite church, the Baptist church, or the Catholic church who are Christians? Yes! I know Jewish Christians or Christian Jews who identify as Evangelical. Would most Evangelicals agree to that? Yes. Would most Jews agree with that? Probably not.

I don't know if that answers your question or not? Please let me know. It is a different paradigm than one that declares someone to be a Christian once they join a particular church. Are Mormons Christians? For the Evangelical, the answer is "Could be, it depends on their relationship with Christ." Ditto for every other faith group or individuals who are members of no faith group. If I migrated to the LDS church as a member, none of my Evangelical friends would say I am no longer a Christian. My faith in Christ goes with me wherever I migrate.

[Navidad]

27 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Baptism is just a symbol,

Just a symbol???? It is the most important ordinance in most Protestant churches. It is certainly not a "just." That is like saying that if I don't believe in transubstantiation, the communion is "just" a symbol. That is neither accurate nor fair.

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Interesting article. 

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

Why is it interesting to you?

I personally don't get what's interesting. It's someone getting our beliefs a little more correct (there's still errors in it from what I was reading...some of them important ones) saying something I've heard again and again and again: we're not Christian. And inadvertently throwing in some digs with it (like that mormons "don't know history".....what the heck does that even mean???) That's hardly novel. 

But maybe I'm missing something that you did find particularly interesting....

 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Navidad]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

I know that is your position and opinion, which I agree with and am grateful for.  But the pastor in the OP disagrees - it is that mindset that I am questioning.   You seem to understand that the Roman Catholic concept of this “church” should have no bearing on what other “Christians” think or believe.  I just don’t understand why another sect would legitimize Catholic authority in accepting the idea and parameters of this universal “church” in this way.

I don't know the man, but I read his affiliations on his church's website. I am sure that he is quite conservative reformed in his theology. That tends to lead to being conservative in other ways as well. For example, many in his group do not accept the need for psychological counseling. They believe a psychiatrist (medical doctor) is needed for physical problems and a dedicated pastor/counselor is needed for spiritual problems. That's it - spiritual or physical.  No psychologists- because they are peddling a false narrative. I am confident he would not legitimize Catholic authority. His idea of the universal (catholic) church would be the world-wide body of believers in Jesus Christ (the ecclesia) regardless of organizational affiliation. For example those who will be caught up in the rapture when Christ returns for His own.