7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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 

I thought it was interesting because he actually attempted to engage LDS beliefs. That hardly ever happens with Evangelical critics. I certainly don’t support his thesis. 

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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.

Thanks.  My question was more in relation to @Teancum's comment that "most Christian sects do not accept Mormonism as a valid representation of Christianity."

I thought that you would probably disagree with that comment, and I was wondering if I was right about that. 

As you note above it is mostly about the individual than it is the church or sect, and I don't think it is accurate to suggest that "most" Christian sects probably exclude the entirety of Mormonism as a valid representation of Christianity.  

[Saint Bonaventure]

20 hours 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? 

 

There is so much here. I can recommend readings for those who are interested, but to be brief:

Some Protestant churches accept the creeds and councils, or most of the creeds and councils, (but not the Council of Trent and after). Others do not accept the creeds and councils as authoritatively binding or defining, but may nonetheless agree with the doctrines or teachings in those creeds and councils. This approach can be possible because of a notion of an "invisible church," a "priesthood of all believers," "sola scriptura," and/or "sola fide," that believes in the legitimacy of Christians since the apostles, but that objects to a structured, organized Church (with a capital "C"). For these Christians, their churches may be helpful structures, but are not thought of as structures that are part of an historical apostolic succession. These Christians will sometimes share sentiments that Catholics or Orthodox can be Christians, but they are not going to affirm the Catholic or Orthodox structures, or consider them to be the Christian Church (capital "C").

These Christians have to make arguments that either the structure was never "the Church" or that at some point the structure was compromised so that they can separate the Church as a structure from the "invisible church." 

Catholics and Orthodox will say that it is through Sacred Tradition that Sacred Scripture was even identified. Protestants have responses, of course, and of course I'm not persuaded by those responses whatsoever.

Of course, all of this is outside an LDS restoration framework.

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[Pyreaux]

40 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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.

In my Protestant Church circles, like Our Savior's Church I attend there is barely such things as an important, salvific or necessary, "ordinance", the communion is a memorial symbolizing you remember him. Baptism is a personal compulsion you don't have to do, but if you want, the church is simply willing to accommodate you.

[Thinking]

On 6/6/2023 at 12:31 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

But to cast us out of the Christian family entirely is just silly.

I don't understand the desire to be accepted by the "Christian" community when according to Joseph Smith, God Himself rejected the "Christian" community.

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

[Navidad]

14 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

In my Protestant Church circles, like Our Savior's Church I attend there is barely such things as an important, salvific or necessary, "ordinance", the communion is a memorial symbolizing you remember him. Baptism is a personal compulsion you don't have to do, but if you want, the church is simply willing to accommodate you.

OK. You use three words - important, salvific or necessary. I do think ordinances are "important." I don't think they are either salvific or necessary. Each one of those three words has a bit of a different meaning. Your church sounds non-denominational. Therein there is often less of an emphasis on ordinances. Take care and thanks for the dialogue.

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I don't understand the desire to be accepted by the "Christian" community when according to Joseph Smith, God Himself rejected the "Christian" community.

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Intriguing. What if the "Christian community" is the gathering of individual believers from all groups and from no group? A gathering of individuals who are pleasing to Christ, and not a community of church groups? Would you say the same thing? Do you think God Himself would say the same thing?

[Stormin' Mormon]

34 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I don't understand the desire to be accepted by the "Christian" community when according to Joseph Smith, God Himself rejected the "Christian" community.

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

I am a Disciple of Christ.  Any good works I do, I do through His grace and to His glory.  To deny that I am a Christian is to deny that I am His disciple, which is to deny Him the glory for the things He has wrought in and through my life.  Which is why I'll accept the label "unorthodox," or "heterodox," or "heretical," because none of those deny the basic fact of my discipleship to the Master.  But denying me the label of "Christian," is to deny my relationship with my savior.    

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I am a Disciple of Christ.  Any good works I do, I do through His grace and to His glory.  To deny that I am a Christian is to deny that I am His disciple, which is to deny Him the glory for the things He has wrought in and through my life.  Which is why I'll accept the label "unorthodox," or "heterodox," or "heretical," because none of those deny the basic fact of my discipleship to the Master.  But denying me the label of "Christian," is to deny my relationship with my savior.    

 

And this reason is also why I am perfectly willing to accept other Christians and Christian faith as true Christians and Christianity inasmuch as they seek discipleship of Christ, even if they don’t interpret what that is best to be in the same way I do.

Quote

 

I don't understand the desire to be accepted by the "Christian" community when according to Joseph Smith, God Himself rejected the "Christian" community.

For me it is not about acceptance, I don’t feel the need to be included nor do I see a need for our Church to be included in various Christian community activities though it can make life better for members who are in areas with few fellow Saints if they have a larger local community to belong to in order to have a chance to serve others and to be served, to share caring with, which is often easiest to find in a spiritual community though not exclusive to them.

I simply want myself and my faith to be recognized as Christian so I know they understand that we are seeking to be disciples of Christ, even if we are blowing it in their view.  It’s understanding, not acceptance I desire.  
 

I have no issue with a Catholic who decides we are not Christian by the standard of their Church, which does not accept our baptism, so by one definition used by the Catholic Church we are not of the Body of Christ and therefore Christian (though we might be on an individual level). Someone who says I am not Christian because we don’t worship Jesus is, however, uninformed and if they refuse to admit we do worship Jesus, even if in their view we have wrong ideas about him, I get annoyed.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

There is so much here. I can recommend readings for those who are interested, but to be brief:

Some Protestant churches accept the creeds and councils, or most of the creeds and councils, (but not the Council of Trent and after). Others do not accept the creeds and councils as authoritatively binding or defining, but may nonetheless agree with the doctrines or teachings in those creeds and councils. This approach can be possible because of a notion of an "invisible church," a "priesthood of all believers," "sola scriptura," and/or "sola fide," that believes in the legitimacy of Christians since the apostles, but that objects to a structured, organized Church (with a capital "C"). For these Christians, their churches may be helpful structures, but are not thought of as structures that are part of an historical apostolic succession. These Christians will sometimes share sentiments that Catholics or Orthodox can be Christians, but they are not going to affirm the Catholic or Orthodox structures, or consider them to be the Christian Church (capital "C").

These Christians have to make arguments that either the structure was never "the Church" or that at some point the structure was compromised so that they can separate the Church as a structure from the "invisible church." 

Catholics and Orthodox will say that it is through Sacred Tradition that Sacred Scripture was even identified. Protestants have responses, of course, and of course I'm not persuaded by those responses whatsoever.

Of course, all of this is outside an LDS restoration framework.

Thank you for your input.

Sorry for dragging this out, but I seem to be having a hard time explaining myself.  Let me try to make this as simple as possible.

This is the quote in question:

Quote

...nor do they agree with the conciliar doctrine taught by the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church over the last two thousand years.

Because we don't agree with the "conciliar doctrine" taught by this "church" we are not accepted as Christian by this gentleman.  I am assuming he is speaking of the "invisible church" here and not the Roman Catholic Church.  If I understand correctly, the Roman Catholic Church also uses this term to refer to the "invisible church" (as they include protestants in it too) and not in reference to the Church (capital "C").

So, we have this concept of an invisible church - the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.  This "church" and its "conciliar doctrines" and parameters of membership were entirely devised and created under the authority of the Catholic Church (capital "C").   By accepting this "church" and its doctrines as authoritative, one is legitimizing the authority of the Catholic church in creating, defining and doctrinizing (I don't think that is a word, but I like it) the church in the first place.  It is entirely based on the "Sacred Tradition" of the Catholic Church and its doctrines/creeds, so in that sense I am making the same exact argument that the Catholic Church makes in relation to "Sacred Scripture".   I completely agree with the Catholic position on this.   I think they are unwittingly legitimizing the authority of your Church in viewing the Bible as inerrant and accepting the parameters and "doctrines" of this "church".   By keeping an open and errant canon and by not accepting the authority of the doctrines of this "church", we don't run into the same issues.

I hope that makes more sense.  

Edited June 7, 2023 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I thought it was interesting because he actually attempted to engage LDS beliefs. That hardly ever happens with Evangelical critics. I certainly don’t support his thesis. 

They're not common, I agree. There's better examples out there, even from those who were once more flippant with their criticisms of the church. For example, I like Pastor Jeff on YouTube who has a channel called "hello saints" all about him engaging with LDS beliefs and peoples. His motto is fighting criticism with curiosity and he does a pretty good job with that. He still compares and contrast, but in a way that's far more open to correction on what he does or doesn't know about our faith.

 

With luv,

BD

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

They're not common, I agree. There's better examples out there, even from those who were once more flippant with their criticisms of the church. For example, I like Pastor Jeff on YouTube who has a channel called "hello saints" all about him engaging with LDS beliefs and peoples. His motto is fighting criticism with curiosity and he does a pretty good job with that. He still compares and contrast, but in a way that's far more open to correction on what he does or doesn't know about our faith.

 

With luv,

BD

I like him.  I think he struggles to get his own understanding out of the way when he's dealing with our doctrine, but I don't fault him for that.  I often do the same.

[Saint Bonaventure]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Thank you for your input.

Sorry for dragging this out, but I seem to be having a hard time explaining myself.  Let me try to make this as simple as possible.

This is the quote in question:

Because we don't agree with the "conciliar doctrine" taught by this "church" we are not accepted as Christian by this gentleman.  I am assuming he is speaking of the "invisible church" here and not the Roman Catholic Church.  If I understand correctly, the Roman Catholic Church also uses this term to refer to the "invisible church" (as they include protestants in it too) and not in reference to the Church (capital "C").

So, we have this concept of an invisible church - the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.  This "church" and its "conciliar doctrines" and parameters of membership were entirely devised and created under the authority of the Catholic Church (capital "C").   By accepting this "church" and its doctrines as authoritative, one is legitimizing the authority of the Catholic church in creating, defining and doctrinizing (I don't think that is a word, but I like it) the church in the first place.  It is entirely based on the "Sacred Tradition" of the Catholic Church and its doctrines/creeds, so in that sense I am making the same exact argument that the Catholic Church makes in relation to "Sacred Scripture".   I completely agree with the Catholic position on this.   I think they are unwittingly legitimizing the authority of your Church in viewing the Bible as inerrant and accepting the parameters and "doctrines" of this "church".   By keeping an open and errant canon and by not accepting the authority of the doctrines of this "church", we don't run into the same issues.

I hope that makes more sense.  

It does make sense. Thanks for clarifying. 

As an aside, the "one, holy, catholic, apostolic" statement is an article in the Nicene Creed. Catholics offer it as a profession of faith in Mass on most Sundays, and just before we participate in the universal prayer.

I read a little on this fellow's website. He has a Presbyterian background, but he is starting his own ministry and repeatedly describes himself as "Reformed." Reformed indicates a Calvinist approach to Christianity. Reformed folks are influential right now; they are a strong influence in the Baptist churches, in the traditional end of Presbyterianism, and even in non-denominational churches. 

Calvinists are, in my experience, not the most easy-going folks. They won't settle for vapid, fluffy sermons and they tend to be serious about the Bible and about historical matters such as creeds and councils. I've seen them be very active in pro-life and religious rights movements. They aren't likely to be Sunday-only Christians, but they can come across strongly and not always with subtlety. Chasing the money changers out of the temple is their style, for sure. 

The apologist, James White, has described himself as a Reformed Christian.

You mentioned the Latter-day Saints' open canon. I find the open canon endlessly interesting, and its one of the things that has me thinking of pre-Nicene discussions whenever I read about it around here. 

 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Thank you for your input.

Sorry for dragging this out, but I seem to be having a hard time explaining myself.  Let me try to make this as simple as possible.

This is the quote in question:

Because we don't agree with the "conciliar doctrine" taught by this "church" we are not accepted as Christian by this gentleman.  I am assuming he is speaking of the "invisible church" here and not the Roman Catholic Church.  If I understand correctly, the Roman Catholic Church also uses this term to refer to the "invisible church" (as they include protestants in it too) and not in reference to the Church (capital "C").

So, we have this concept of an invisible church - the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.  This "church" and its "conciliar doctrines" and parameters of membership were entirely devised and created under the authority of the Catholic Church (capital "C").   By accepting this "church" and its doctrines as authoritative, one is legitimizing the authority of the Catholic church in creating, defining and doctrinizing (I don't think that is a word, but I like it) the church in the first place.  It is entirely based on the "Sacred Tradition" of the Catholic Church and its doctrines/creeds, so in that sense I am making the same exact argument that the Catholic Church makes in relation to "Sacred Scripture".   I completely agree with the Catholic position on this.   I think they are unwittingly legitimizing the authority of your Church in viewing the Bible as inerrant and accepting the parameters and "doctrines" of this "church".   By keeping an open and errant canon and by not accepting the authority of the doctrines of this "church", we don't run into the same issues.

I hope that makes more sense.  

I think he is talking about the church as mentioned in Ephesians 2:19,20 and nothing more and nothing later. That is how I believe a conservative Presbyterian would describe the apostolic church - simply and basically God's household. I think you may be interpreting what the pastor is saying through your own lens or perhaps a Catholic lens. He wouldn't see the apostolic church in the way you are describing. It was the household of God overseen by the original apostles and in different communities for the purpose of teaching the lost about Christ. Nothing more and nothing less. At that point it was neither an institution nor an organization beyond the local level. The same can be said for the world-wide community of Christ today. No structure - no organization - just the collective body of individual Christians waiting for the rapture - the ekklesia. No institution involved.

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

It does make sense. Thanks for clarifying. 

As an aside, the "one, holy, catholic, apostolic" statement is an article in the Nicene Creed. Catholics offer it as a profession of faith in Mass on most Sundays, and just before we participate in the universal prayer.

I read a little on this fellow's website. He has a Presbyterian background, but he is starting his own ministry and repeatedly describes himself as "Reformed." Reformed indicates a Calvinist approach to Christianity. Reformed folks are influential right now; they are a strong influence in the Baptist churches, in the traditional end of Presbyterianism, and even in non-denominational churches. 

Calvinists are, in my experience, not the most easy-going folks. They won't settle for vapid, fluffy sermons and they tend to be serious about the Bible and about historical matters such as creeds and councils. I've seen them be very active in pro-life and religious rights movements. They aren't likely to be Sunday-only Christians, but they can come across strongly and not always with subtlety. Chasing the money changers out of the temple is their style, for sure. 

The apologist, James White, has described himself as a Reformed Christian.

You mentioned the Latter-day Saints' open canon. I find the open canon endlessly interesting, and its one of the things that has me thinking of pre-Nicene discussions whenever I read about it around here. 

 

The pastor is affiliated with the PCA, the Presbyterian Church in America. It is a new denomination - did not exist before the 1970s. It is composed of a lot of southern Presbyterians and was composed of several groups that decided to join together in opposition to the increased liberalism in what is now the mainstream Presbyterian Church USA. It is basically Evangelical and is to one degree or another, with great variations loosely aligned with historic reformed theology. It is not a strict orthodox reformed group; each local church is free to adhere to whatever form or expression of the reformed faith (not always strongly Calvinist) they desire. They do tend to believe that once saved, always saved. For many that is the extent of their reformed tradition. They also have a very high view of scripture and scriptural interpretation. It is probably more Presbyterian in the sense of its adherence to a Presbyterian form of church polity. The PCA is not the type of Calvinist described in the post I have quoted.

There are indeed some reformed Baptists, but it is a very small percentage of Baptists in the United States. It is probable that the church the Whitmers attended in Palmyra was reformed Baptist. I believe Saint Bonaventure is referring to more strident and orthodox Presbyterians than those found in the PCA. I have spoken in PCA churches and at their college and did some visiting on behalf of the college I worked for at their seminary. I have a very high regard for the PCA and have watched it grow over the years since it first came to existence when I was in college. It is not a large group. I believe it has somewhere around 300,000 members, nowhere near the size of the PCUSA mainline group at around 1.5+ million members. Here is the statement of faith of the PCA college on Lookout Mountain. Nothing clearly or exclusively reformed in this statement. They also do not require their students have a reformed view of theology. If anything it is more of a specifically Covenant Theology (a type of reformed theology) that is reflected in the name of their college and seminary - Covenant College and Covenant Seminary

We believe the Bible is the written Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible is the revelation of God’s truth and is infallible and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice.

We believe in the Holy Trinity. There is one God, who exists eternally in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

We believe that all are sinners and totally unable to save themselves from God’s displeasure, except by His mercy.

We believe that salvation is by God alone, based on His grace, not on any human individual merit.

We believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, who through His perfect life and sacrificial death atoned for the sins of all who will trust in Him, alone, for salvation.

We believe that God is gracious and faithful to His people not simply as individuals but as families in successive generations according to His covenant promises.

We believe that the Holy Spirit indwells God’s people and gives them the strength and wisdom to trust Christ and follow Him.

We believe that Jesus will return, bodily and visibly, to judge all mankind and to receive His people to Himself.

We believe that all aspects of our lives are to be lived to the glory of God under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I am a Disciple of Christ.  Any good works I do, I do through His grace and to His glory.  To deny that I am a Christian is to deny that I am His disciple, which is to deny Him the glory for the things He has wrought in and through my life.  Which is why I'll accept the label "unorthodox," or "heterodox," or "heretical," because none of those deny the basic fact of my discipleship to the Master.  But denying me the label of "Christian," is to deny my relationship with my savior.    

 

Ditto. You have eloquently described how my wife and I feel when our LDS friends deny us our full relationship with Christ, the Holy Spirit and eternal life (with the Father and Savior). "But its our doctrine, they protest." They take the words right out of the Presbyterian's article. His assertions that Mormons are not Christians is his doctrine! Doesn't make it hurt any less, does it?

Christians are not fully Christian unless they are baptized, confirmed, and undergo the right ordinances in the LDS world. Ouch - "Denying me the label of "Christian, is to deny my relationship with my savior." Ditto!

I wonder how many upvotes I will get for this? No, I didn't think so.

[CA Steve]

Can a person claim to be Mormon who does not believe that the BoM is historical, or thinks current leadership is wrong about LGBT issues, or still believes polygamy should be practiced, or ...?

For example, even though the current prophet has come out in opposition to the use of the term Mormon, I still consider myself a Mormon.

 

 

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ditto. You have eloquently described how my wife and I feel when our LDS friends deny us our full relationship with Christ, the Holy Spirit and eternal life (with the Father and Savior). "But its our doctrine, they protest." They take the words right out of the Presbyterian's article. His assertions that Mormons are not Christians is his doctrine! Doesn't make it hurt any less, does it?

Christians are not fully Christian unless they are baptized, confirmed, and undergo the right ordinances in the LDS world. Ouch - "Denying me the label of "Christian, is to deny my relationship with my savior." Ditto!

I wonder how many upvotes I will get for this? No, I didn't think so.

You're not going to get upvotes because you haven't described our doctrine accurately.  You've been told over and over again that the bold is not what we believe but you ignore that and keep repeating it anyway.  

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Can a person claim to be Mormon who does not believe that the BoM is historical, or thinks current leadership is wrong about LGBT issues, or still believes polygamy should be practiced, or ...?

For example, even though the current prophet has come out in opposition to the use of the term Mormon, I still consider myself a Mormon.

 

 

 

Lots of people who no longer believe still claim to be Mormon.  They use it like people use the word Jewish.  To denote a culture and/or family lineage and not to denote religious belief.

[Teancum]

20 hours 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?

THen why will the Catholic Church accept most other protestant denominations baptism but not ours?

[Saint Bonaventure]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

THen why will the Catholic Church accept most other protestant denominations baptism but not ours?

This is the main document on this topic, from back in the early 2000s. Amulek linked to this document earlier in this thread. Cujo22 was also referring to it:

The Question of the Validity of Baptism conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (vatican.va)

 

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Lots of people who no longer believe still claim to be Mormon.  They use it like people use the word Jewish.  To denote a culture and/or family lineage and not to denote religious belief.

I am not asking about those who no longer believe in Mormonism as a religion but see themselves culturally as one, I am asking about those who reject what other Mormon's consider as core beliefs, can they still be considered religiously Mormon? 

Edited June 8, 2023 by CA Steve

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I am not asking about those who no longer believe in Mormonism as a religion but see themselves culturally as one, I am asking about those who reject what other Mormon's consider as core beliefs, can they still be considered religiously Mormon? 

Are they members of record?  If so, why wouldn’t they be?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I am not asking about those who no longer believe in Mormonism as a religion but see themselves culturally as one, I am asking about those who reject what other Mormon's consider as core beliefs, can they still be considered religiously Mormon? 

Sure.  As far as I know, they do still consider themselves to be mormon.

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, Navidad said:

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?

I stand corrected. 😁

23 hours ago, Navidad said:

 

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. 

Interesting comments and approach.  Much different than the LDS view.