7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

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!

And yet you have not demonstrated any Saint is denying you the label of Christian or “fully Christian” whatever that even means and I have an hard time imagining that any Saint said that you were not fully Christian unless they are using an unusual definition of Christian according to LDS doctrine.

Has any Saint actually told you to your face you were not “fully Christian” using those exact words or is that your paraphrase of what you believe they mean?

Perhaps the easiest way to understand how Saints typically view what being a Christian would be is to ask you if you worship Christ.  If you say yes, the vast majority of Saints will accept you as Christian and a gung ho Christian at that if they know you at all.

All mortals are on the path to eternal life in our view.  All mortals have to hit the landmarks of death, resurrection, and judgment though before we are given this ultimate gift of God’s.  Some Saints make speak of having eternal life, but it is the promise and assurance of eternal life if we continue in obedience to God, including any future commandments we are going to receive.  Since I don’t know what the Spirit has told you, I can’t say whether or not you have that same assurance. (I may be unusual among Saints—or not for all I know as I haven’t had that discussion with many—in believing that nonLDS Christians could have such an assurance even without the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but I know of nothing doctrinally that prevents it.)

Some mortals are likely further up the mountain path to the exalted peak than others (being a Saint doesn’t mean we are further down the path than others as there are a lot more commandments we need to write on our hearts beyond being baptized and endowed and my guess is all those tied to loving God and loving our neighbour get us into the heights leading to eternal life with God quicker than just having the ordinances performed, especially if we don’t make them integral in our lives), but that doesn’t mean that if both individuals we are looking at are Christians, that the one further down is more Christian than another according to LDS understanding and doctrine.

Being Christian to Saints is like being in a family.  My sister is not more of a Lesser than I am because she is older than me or lived closer to our parents and spent more holidays and did other activities with them all of her life (save for the year she was at college and I still at home in high school) than I did.  In my own family, my husband and my children are not more a Robinson than I am because they were born a Robinson and I changed my name to Robinson when I was married.  I am as much a member of this particular Robinson family as any of the rest of my immediate family…even if at times Robinson still feels strange as a label on me even after 40+ years of wearing it.

You worship Christ.  True, you come to that worship differently than do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but as long as you choose to commit yourself to that worship, you are Christian in our eyes.  Someone is not half a Christian or more of a Christian because they have not had the same landmark worship events/ordinances in their lives as most adult Saints have.

We do not look at our own children who worship Jesus and God with us in church and in our homes as not fully Christian simply because they have not received endowments yet or even if they haven’t received baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost or because they view Jesus with a child’s eyes.  We do not look at the unendowed adult Saint as less of a Christian than the temple attending Saint on the pew next to them. All are seen as Christian if they believe Jesus is the son of God.  We do not call investigators who come worship us not yet full Christians because they haven’t yet been baptized or because they may see Christ with Catholic or Protestant or other Christian world views than ours.  We just don’t think that way (typically, very few Saints may have decided on their own to change how they define Christian).  One is either Christian or they are not Christian in our faith.  The only uncertain, grey area would be those who are not certain if Jesus is divine or not or are choosing to worship him or not as divine.  If you can fully commit to Jesus as God, whatever that means to you personally, you are fully Christian in our eyes.

Going to be blunt here because I think you are hurting yourself unnecessarily as well as risking being viewed as not as honest as you are….

You, Navidad, need to look at yourself and ask why it is so important to you to keep claiming we refuse to accept you as fully Christian when this is not true.  You are the one here insisting you are not fully Christian in our eyes. (Maybe there is someone who is not a devout Saint claiming Saints don’t view you as a true Christian, but they have their own issues if so.  If there is a devout Saint who speaks this way, it is very unusual and contrary to how leaders speak.)

I agree that we would say you do not yet have eternal life with God…but neither does any Saint yet even though we anticipate that in time we will have and therefore some may phrase this promise as “having eternal life”.   I would phrase it as having assurance of eternal life.  But in LDS doctrine having eternal life is not equated to being a Christian.  It can’t be due to how we look at both.  We and you can be a Christian in the here and now.  We both have to be dead to have received the gift of eternal life with God in the Celestial Kingdom.  To insist we have a definition of Christian or eternal life that we don’t have is unkind and it is not being honest with us and yourself. 

As far as the Gift of the Holy Ghost, I understand why you would feel insulted that many, even most Saints I am guessing, believe your relationship with the Holy Spirit isn’t as deep or meaningful as it would be if you had the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  But that also does not have an impact on whether we view you as Christian or not.  You need to stop making the claim we don’t see you as fully Christian because you don’t have the Gift of the Holy Ghost if you want to appear intellectually honest to many of us. 

You may define being Christian by the quality of your relationship with Christ.  To imply, suggest, or to insist that LDS do the same is a falsehood, Navidad.  The phrase “fully Christian” is meaningless in our doctrine.  We don’t use that label in our teachings.  The phrase “fully Christian” is not on the Church’s website even though we have thousands of talks and articles and webpages posted there.  Why are you still doing this after several of us have explained in detail what is wrong with saying that?

If you want to complain that many Saints don’t see your relationship with Jesus as all you need for eternal life, say that.  If you want to complain that many Saints don’t see your relationship with the Holy Spirit as constant, say that.  Don’t use words that mean something different to us and therefore puts meanings in our mouth that are not ours when we and others read your comments.  It is not kind nor respectful.

I and many others here have adapted our way of speaking of Fundamentalist Christians and stopped calling them Evangelicals in discussions with you because we came to understand that Evangelical means something different to you, even though these Fundamentalists in conversation with us on this board most often called themselves Evangelical and out of respect for you, have decided to use your definition in discussions with you to avoid misunderstandings that might lead you and others to believe we see you and Fundamentalists in the same way when we don’t.  Perhaps you should consider doing the same, adapting the way you speak of our beliefs to actually match how we speak instead of imposing your own words and meanings on our beliefs.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Calm

[Sara H]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And yet you have not demonstrated any Saint is denying you the label of Christian or “fully Christian” whatever that even means and I have an hard time imagining that any Saint said that you were not fully Christian unless they are using an unusual definition of Christian according to LDS doctrine

The following is, in my opinion, what Navidad is attempting to convey. Because the church preaches that other Christian faiths practise an apostate form of Christianity, I assume he feels that the majority of Latter-day Saints do not consider other religions to be really Christian. Which, when our doctrine is taken into consideration, is partially accurate. While Joseph was face to face with God, God informed him that all other churches are an abomination and that the leaders of other churches are corrupt. Therefore, it is reasonable to wonder how a person can call themselves "fully Christian" if the doctrine that they adhere to is apostate. 

 

Therefore, what exactly is a Christian? Is it possible for a Christian to have eternal life with God if they do not believe the LDS Church's interpretation of Christianity? 

 

[Sara H]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

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!

Simply reverse-engineering the journey of a devoted temple-worthy member of the LDS faith and considering what one loses both in this life and in eternity if they decide to quit the church can provide you with a different perspective that will help you better grasp how the LDS church sees apostate Christianity. This will help you better comprehend the LDS view of apostate Christianity.

 

Navidad, if you were a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and decided to leave the restored gospel for another Christian religion, do you think your Christianity would be decreased, or do you think it would be as full as it was when you were a faithful member? This is what you would be giving up. The gift of the Holy Ghost, the power to pass on or bless the sacrament, the ability to wear garments in good faith, the ability to grant blessings, and many other abilities and privileges. Even if you attended a Christian church, latter-day Saints would still consider you to be someone who had been deceived by Satan. Your loved ones will be upset with you for choosing to become a member of a Christian church, and they will also be heartbroken by the fact that you won't be able to join them in the Celestial kingdom. 

 

The fact that it is currently fashionable for Latter-day Saints to wish to be called Christians before they are LDS does not mean that we accept or consider Christian doctrines to be a part of the authentic gospel. Because God did not do this when he spoke to Joseph, and because nothing has changed since then, the remainder of Christianity is still seen as heretical. Therefore, it's possible that some members of the LDS Church prefer to say that other Christians are totally Christian, but what I'm arguing is that our teaching states the exact opposite. 

 

One more thing before we go, Navidad. According to the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, the only Christians who have any actual power from God are members of the LDS church. Does the presence of a priesthood in a religion make it impossible for other Christian religions to be regarded completely Christian? 

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

50 minutes ago, Sara H said:

While Joseph was face to face with God, God informed him that all other churches are an abomination and that the leaders of other churches are corrupt. 

 

While Joseph did indeed report that Christ told him that the other Churches were wrong, he DID NOT say that those other churches were an abomination. That word was reserved for the creeds.  And a creed is not simply a belief or doctrine.  There is a BIG difference between abominable creeds and abominable churches. 

In what way would Joseph think the creeds were an abomination?  Less than a year before he was killed, he taught:

Quote

I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints … are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time. I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes [limits], and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.

 So, Joseph saw creeds as an abomination not because they were altogether wrong (all of them have some truth), but because the credal professors used them to place limits on faith and revelation.  

Which explains why the "professors" of the creeds were labeled as corrupt.  Note that it was not the leaders of those other churches that were thus condemned, but a very specific subset of them.  When taken in context with Joseph's stated beliefs about the creeds, and the phrases from the First Vision that come immediately after (having a form of godliness but deny the power thereof, etc.), the statement about professors indicate that Christ was speaking of those who intellectualize and rationalize faith through the creeds, and even use the creeds to deny the power of God.    

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Sara H said:

The following is, in my opinion, what Navidad is attempting to convey. Because the church preaches that other Christian faiths practise an apostate form of Christianity, I assume he feels that the majority of Latter-day Saints do not consider other religions to be really Christian. Which, when our doctrine is taken into consideration, is partially accurate. While Joseph was face to face with God, God informed him that all other churches are an abomination and that the leaders of other churches are corrupt. Therefore, it is reasonable to wonder how a person can call themselves "fully Christian" if the doctrine that they adhere to is apostate. 

 

Therefore, what exactly is a Christian? Is it possible for a Christian to have eternal life with God if they do not believe the LDS Church's interpretation of Christianity? 

 

God did not inform JS that all other churches were an abomination.  He said that their creeds were an abomination in His sight.  The church also teaches that anyone who "expresses their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ" is a Christian.

And to answer the last question, yes, it is possible for someone to have eternal life with God if, while in this life, they do not believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is lead by Jesus Christ and is the only church with His authority to administer saving ordinances.  I like how Stephen Robinson put it in an article about 1st Nephi chapters 13 and 14 in the Ensign.

"Just as there are Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his lifestyle, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to Him and His lifestyle. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records."

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

Can Navidad enter the highest heaven without an LDS baptism?  Will he be with the Father?  If not then I think he has it pretty accurately.  Oh sure you may grant him the title of Christian but in the after life he is no fully rewarded at all.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

I still consider myself Mormon.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can Navidad enter the highest heaven without an LDS baptism?  Will he be with the Father?  If not then I think he has it pretty accurately.  Oh sure you may grant him the title of Christian but in the after life he is no fully rewarded at all.

If Navidad is a true follower of Christ (as I believe he is) then he will continue to follow Him in the next life, and accept those things he didn't understand or accept while in this life, thus receiving the same reward (to be a joint-heir with Christ) that all who follow Him receive.

My beliefs (and the doctrine they are based on) do not ever come between a true follower of Christ and Christ's ability to exalt.  The only thing that can keep someone from being exalted is their choice to knowingly reject that gift.  

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I know I must frustrate you. I am truly sorry for that. However, here is what I said: Can/will you please tell me which part of what I have said here is describing your doctrine incorrectly. Let me try and be more specific.

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!

The poster described exactly how my wife and I feel. I don't believe you can deem that incorrect. It is after all our experience and our reality, especially in the last several months.

That the LDS deny us our full relationship with Christ - deny that we have a full relationship with Christ. Well, you do believe our baptisms were invalid and not pleasing to the Savior since they were done by someone without Christ's authority as provided through the LDS priesthood holder, do you not? You believe that the correct baptism is essential for starting on the path to a full relationship with Christ in this world and the next. Do you not? You believe that the baptismal waters entered into by an elder with the correct priesthood is salvific, do you not? Neither my  wife nor I have experienced that salvific event, have we? No. Therefore. according to your doctrine we have never experienced the salvific grace of God via the waters of LDS baptism. Therefore we cannot have a "full relationship with Christ".  In the LDS doctrine, we cannot be on the road to exaltation until we have experienced salvation, can we? What have I said that is not describing your doctrine accurately?

Second, I said we are denied a "full relationship with the Holy Spirit." What have I misrepresented there? We have not been baptized correctly and have not been confirmed in the correct church and have not had hands laid on us by those with authority via the only correct priesthood. Therefore we do not have the fullness of the Holy Spirit in our lives; nor do we have the Gift of the Holy Spirit in our lives. What have I said that is not describing your doctrine accurately? I have been told a dozen times that we can have visits or occasional revelations, but not the Gift of the Spirit as we are. Oh, and that is usually followed by "it isn't personal!" Yikes! How much more personal can it get?

The last thing I said is that you deny us eternal life (with the Father and the Savior). We have not been baptized in the right way, we were not confirmed in the right way, and we have not received the Gift of the Holy Spirit. We have not entered the temple, engaged in LDS ordinances or endowments. We have not been sealed in the correct way. Is that not correct? Given all of that , just as we are right now on June 8, 2023, your doctrine teaches that we will not experience eternal life (with the Father and Savior), does it not? What I said that is not describing your  doctrine accurately? If I die today, my LDS friends indicate "I will have another chance in the spirit world." So I should be grateful for that. My comments were about how we are right now, at this moment. Today. What have I just written that does not describe your doctrine accurately?

By your doctrine that I have not, by the hands of an LDS priesthood holder experienced the salvific waters of LDS baptism, not been correctly confirmed, not had the gift of the Holy Spirit given to me, that I have neither experienced salvation nor exaltation - nor am I even on that path, I am indeed not in a full relationship with Christ, do not have the Gift of the Holy Spirit (not some coming and going on occasion), am not on the path of exaltation that leads to eternal life with the Savior and the Father. Therefore it is my conclusion that the LDS doctrine indicates that I do not have a "full relationship with the Savior, " do not have the fullness of the Holy Spirit, and have no hope for eternal life with Christ and the Father just as I am (sounds like the words to a hymn). What have I just written that does not describe your doctrine accurately?

So I have repeated it one more time. Please tell me where I am wrong about what I have said. How is your doctrine different from this Presbyterian pastor in the OP who certainly will offer you the chance to see the light and adopt his beliefs for your eternal destiny to be that of the Christian of his understanding. You offer me the chance to see the light and adopt your beliefs for my eternal destiny to be that of the exalted Christian of your understanding. However, According to your doctrine I am not there right now, in the same way you are not there right now according to his.

Let me also say one more time, I reject his conclusion about you, as I reject your conclusion about me. I have seen and felt the pain of my LDS friends at such a conclusion as he reaches. I am acutely aware of our own pain at your doctrine's conclusion about us. That is why in the spirit of "Ghost," I said "ditto." Several of the non-LDS folks on this board say to me, if you don't agree, just ignore what they say. Well, those folks have no relationships with LDS friends and neighbors. We do  . . . to be seen as less than is more than painful. I will end as I started, I am sure I must frustrate you. I am sorry for that. Thanks for reading this . . . you may respond or not. I have taken up much of your time already. Best wishes. Edited note - several responses/posts have been posted prior to my completing this missive). I mean no disrespect by not having replied or commented on any of them. This post has been a several hour endeavor.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Navidad

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If Navidad is a true follower of Christ (as I believe he is) then he will continue to follow Him in the next life, and accept those things he didn't understand or accept while in this life, thus receiving the same reward (to be a joint-heir with Christ) that all who follow Him receive.

So in  other words he has to have an LDS baptism.  But what if he has been fully preached to in this life and rejects the LDS message?  Does he get a second chance?  Not opinions. What do the scriptures say about this?  And the teachings of the church?  But regardless, @Navidadis correct.  Without an  LDS baptism, according to church doctrine, he is not as fully Christian as you since he is part of an apostate sect. I know the church plays nice and all that today but it was not alway so.  And the early LDS leaders were not kind about Orthodox and Historical Christianity.

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My beliefs (and the doctrine they are based on) do not ever come between a true follower of Christ and Christ's ability to exalt.  The only thing that can keep someone from being exalted is their choice to knowingly reject that gift.  

CFR that the doctrine agrees to what you stated above. Or are you cherry picking?  I like your approach really.  But it is not what the church has taught about such things.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

The following is, in my opinion, what Navidad is attempting to convey. Because the church preaches that other Christian faiths practise an apostate form of Christianity, I assume he feels that the majority of Latter-day Saints do not consider other religions to be really Christian. Which, when our doctrine is taken into consideration, is partially accurate. While Joseph was face to face with God, God informed him that all other churches are an abomination and that the leaders of other churches are corrupt. Therefore, it is reasonable to wonder how a person can call themselves "fully Christian" if the doctrine that they adhere to is apostate. 

 

Therefore, what exactly is a Christian? Is it possible for a Christian to have eternal life with God if they do not believe the LDS Church's interpretation of Christianity? 

 

I was going to respond to Navidad, but BB and calm covered it well. To be clear my position was basically this. That not in one minute of one day in any year have I thought that someone who is a faithful loving Christian was not "fully christian." That is to me an offensive and judgmental phrase. I don't think LDS people have the monopoly of believing in Jesus. I don't think being LDS somehow indicates you're a better disciple of Jesus. 

There is a difference between doctrine, practice, and heart IMHO. Doctrine and practice in aggregate can be wrong while the hearts of many can be true and good and beautiful reflections of Jesus. (I would note that that statement is true in the church as well....we've often had beliefs that I view as wrong, practices that were painfully in conflict with basic gospel truths, and assumptions that were missing things....AND still had beautiful desires to follow God while restoring necessary truths and practices). When JS talked in the JS-H, I see that difference. He talks about the sincerity of individuals while also recognizing problems in the institutions and their aggregate practices. God doesn't say to him all of these christians are abominations. He says their creeds, doctrines, etc are wrong. The closest to a personal condemnation is with "their professors"....but considering the context and descriptor focusing on a career of school of thought, it's still leans to strong repudiation of certain teachings and practices and not the heart of the people sincerely seeking God through these institutions. This then led to further revelations that expanded (not shrank) who would and could be seen as in good standing with God as a doctrine. In aggregate, I take this to mean that in part, these creeds, schools of thought and practice  are wrong because they were missing key doctrine that expands our love for all people, brings humility in recognizing we are all loved by God, and has restorative ordinances that mean all of us will have an equal chance to have our lives and deeds sanctified through Christ. The end goal is that we WILL all be one family again, ordered not by denomination or institutional name, but by our hearts and willingness to take in more light.  

When someone says someone isn't fully christian I picture someone judging another's heart and place with Christ/God. That is a judgment no one here can fully make and to do so is to pretend one is God IMHO. It's atrociously offensive to me. When someone is saying you can't participate in specific ceremonies or callings within our church I picture noting that one hasn't accepted certain restorative beliefs or made specific covenants within our community that we deem necessary and needed for the purpose of said community. That's by no means the same.

For us a Christian is any disciple of Christ. If one dies without accepting certain restored truths here, yes you could still have eternal life. That's the whole point of temples. I can't and won't say that Navidad or any non-lds christian of any denomination won't be there because they currently don't see things my way. I won't see things my way now as when I die. And the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints (a specific practice with a specific mission) is not the same as the church of the lamb of God (the grouping and ordering of all saints at all times and from all faith practices). That's kinda the point in believing in eternal progression. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited June 8, 2023 by BlueDreams

[Jaydes]

I would generally agree, if he left his criticism limited to the Brighamites. but when he presumes to include all of Mormonism, some issues arise.

He not only uses the term Mormonism, but specifically mentions the existence of other branches, and doesn't say to excldue them.

"In Mormon thinking, the rise of Mormonism was not merely a reformation or renewal of the church."

Interesting. I recall God referring to it in these terms; "And thus, if the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them."

 

"The church lost divine authority and true doctrine."

Sectarianism was an issue, but the teaching of the church in scripture is very different, and we know some church appendages still held authority such as Sidney Rigdon's.

"There is no unbroken continuity from the early church to the present."

John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John to Joseph Smith.

"Christianity, for almost all of its history, was false and without the truth—until Joseph Smith and his revelation. "

Joseph Smith's revelation teaches a gospel that was very much held by other churches.

 

"Mormons believe the Bible (the KJV version)"

And many other versions...

"but do not consider it inerrant. Neither do they consider the Bible complete."

If you are a Rigdonite, a Bickertonite, or any of several others, you consider it to be both.

"So while Mormons affirm the Bible, they also affirm the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price."

Multiple Mormon denominations reject the D&C and PoGP, such as the Bickertonites.

"Through an elaborate hierarchy of President, First Presidency, Twelve Apostles, First Quorum of the Seventy, and Second Quorum of the Seventy, Mormons can receive authoritative interpretations and new authoritative revelations."

If you belong to a part of Mormonism that even has these roles... and even within Brighamism, I never got the feeling the Seventy provided authoritative interpertation or revelation.

 

"According to Mormon theology, men and women are the spirit sons and daughters of God.  We lived in a premortal spirit existence before birth. In this first estate we grew and developed in preparation for the second estate. In this second estate we walk by faith. A veil of forgetfulness has been placed over our minds so we don’t remember what we did and who we used to be in our premortal existence. "

If you belong to the rare part of Mormonism that accepts belief in a premortal existence. I do, personally, but many do not.

 

"Mormons do not believe in human depravity. We are not implicated in Adam’s fall. We are basically good in our eternal nature, but prone to error in our mortal nature."

Human depravity is not about implication in original sin, nor is it about our eternal nature. Human depravity is clearly taught in the Book of Mormon, in teachings regarding the natural man.

"In Mormon thought, God has a physical body. "

and Christians would agree. Jesus Christ, the incarnation of God, recieved and retains a physical body. But yes, I know this is referring to the Father... 

So again, if you are a Brighamite, sure. but the MAJORITY of non-brighamite Mormonism rejects the idea that God the Father has a physical body.

"According to Doctrine and Covenants, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also;” but “The Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.”

According to D&C, yes. According to Joseph Smith, no. The provenance of this section is a whole issue in its own right, and only 6 non-continuous words in this verse can actually even be attributed to Joseph in any way.

"There was a long procession of gods and fathers leading up to our Heavenly Father. "

If you are a Brighamite Mormon, and not one of the rest of the others who all consistently deny polytheism, or henotheism. 

 

"God is a man with a body of flesh and bones like us."

Something christians are in agreement to.

"Mormons do not believe in the Trinity."

Except for the many denominations and Mormons who do. Such as myself.

"They affirm the unity of three personages, but the unity is a relational unity in purpose and mind, not a unity of essence."

Except, again, for those who do believe in unity of essence, such as the Josephites and Bickertonites. We aren't even talking some random little dinky sect, we are talking 2/3 of the biggest denominations of Mormonism.

"The three separate beings of the Godhead are three distinct Gods."

Except to those who denounce polytheism.

" Jesus was born of the Father just like all spirit children. God is his Father in the same way he is Father to all. Whatever immortality or Godhood Jesus possesses, they are inherited attributes and powers. He does not share the same eternal nature as the Father. Jesus may be divine, but his is a derivative divinity. "

This is not what the majority of denominations, including the Josephites and Bickertonites teach or believe. This is not what scripture teaches, or what Joseph Smith taught. Majority of Mormonism branches view Jesus as equal and eternal, and called the Son because of his incarnation.

"Mormon theology teaches, in the words of Joseph Smith, that Jesus Christ is “God the Second, the Redeemer.”"

He was listing the members of the trinity numerically...this is just being willfully obtuse.

 

"They do not emphasize Christ as a wrath-bearing substitute, but emphasize simply that Christ somehow mysteriously remits our sins through his suffering."

This is false even regarding the Brighamites. ALL OF US are very clear in the emphasis he claims we do not employ.

" and recalling our forgotten first estate as his premortal spirit children."

I'm not sure of any denomination that teaches this.

"Salvation is finding our way back to God the Father and recalling our forgotten first estate as his premortal spirit children."

No, to most branches of Mormonism, it is about our sins being remitted and gaining access to heaven. To Brighamites, it is about being ressurected, if not also that.

"How this plays out in Mormon life may differ from person to person, but they stress that the gift of the Holy Ghost is conditional upon continued obedience. Mormons must keep the First Principles and Ordinances, which consist of the Ten Commandments, tithing, chastity, and the “Word of Wisdom” which prohibits tobacco, coffee, tea, alcohol, and illegal narcotics."

Of course...Scripture teaches that the Gift of the Holy Ghost induces perfect continued obedience, not the other way around. And if you are a Brighamite, sure you must keep those things. Others not neccesarily, and others realize those are not principles of the gospel, and others realize, if they even accept it, that the Word of Wisdom is neither a requirement nor mentions narcotics.

 

"Temples are also important in Mormon doctrine and practice. Couples must be married in a Mormon temple to have an eternal marriage"

If you are a Brighamite, and not from a Mormon branch that neither employs temples nor believes in eternal marriage.

 

"The Telestial Kingdom is where the wicked go. It is a place of suffering but not like the Lake of Fire. "

Most branches reject degrees of glory theology. That said, Joseph Smith never claimed it is a place of suffering.

"Most people go to the Telestial Kingdom where they are offered salvation again. "

Brighamites do not even believe this.

"This Kingdom is located on a distant planet in the universe. "

Not even according to Brighamites. No one believes this.

Also, this guy makes a lot of claims about what constitutes christianity that not even mainstream christians use as a measuring post.

 

As far as I'm concerned; if you believe in the Bible, the gospel, the trinity, and the divinity and messianic nature of Christ, you are a christian.

[Navidad]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But what if he has been fully preached to in this life and rejects the LDS message?

Ha! No what if about it! Methinks I have been more than fully preached to, read, studied, pondered, debated, wept, and whined (and maybe even wined - but we won't talk about that!). I have had conversations with both pew Mormons and general authorities (of three different Mormon groups including the LDS, by the way!). I once had a lady tell me she was impressed by how well I prayed "in Mormon." Immediately followed up by "But I wish they wouldn't let non-members pray!" Wow! what a let-down that was. I have a library of several hundred books about LDS doctrine and history, and a bunch about the same in Fundamentalist groups. I have presented, prayed, and published (ooh - I am good!) in MHA meetings and literature. I even got to sing in the tabernacle choir loft right next to the bass pipes. I couldn't hear for a week! Of course that is nothing new for me. Come Come Ye Saints! I got compliments for my booming bass voice from lots of those around me who didn't know I wasn't a member! Shhhhh . . .  don't tell them!

After all of that, I guess you can say we have "rejected" the LDS message, however I don't like that phrasing of it. Why have we rejected it? I am glad you asked. I can tell you the principal reason. I have said it here before . . . . we see no more or less Godliness, spiritual discernment, or wisdom in our LDS friends, than in our Mennonite, Presbyterian (to link to this thread), Anglican, or Pentecostal friends. For a group with such an astounding claim of uniqueness and onliness, we thought there would be a concomitant manifestation of a spirituality that was also unique and perhaps even only. The manifestation of the fruits of the spirit are palpable in Godly people

They are indeed palpable in many members of the LDS church . . . some not so much! They are palpable in many members of the Mennonite church . . . some not so much. They are very palpable in many members of the Baptist church (in its many branches) . . . some not so much. Ditto for all Christian groups. So we try and be faithful non-members where we are planted - our ward. Now we have been told we haven't really been planted there and we should not attempt to bear fruit in any way of ministry beyond vacuuming and singing in the choir. The change in bishopric from our first two to the third has been more than jarring. Oh, and we dearly miss our elderly general authority emeritus friend. He was a rock in our relationship in the ward. As Godly a man as I have ever known. I watch his general conference talks every once in a while, just to remember his wisdom.

So what does all this hold for us in the future. My personal faith in my personal faith is just fine. My faith in the LDS church is truly shaken. I guess you can all tell! Truly sorry for burdening you all with our (my) pain. You are a good group to have put up with me.

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

It is my understanding that proper matter (water), form (words), and intention (they have to intend what the church intends - washing away original sin, done with the same meaning behind the words Father, Son, and Holly Ghost, etc.)  We check the first two boxes, but not the last.  I think they judge every sect's baptism based on those 3 criteria. 

I'm not sure what you are asking in relation to what is being discussed about being accepted as a "Christian" though.  As far as I know, most Catholics still consider us Christian despite not officially accepting our baptism as valid - just like we consider them Christian without considering their baptism as valid. 

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by pogi

[Sara H]

31 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I was going to respond to Navidad, but BB and calm covered it well. To be clear my position was basically this. That not in one minute of one day in any year have I thought that someone who is a faithful loving Christian was not "fully christian." That is to me an offensive and judgmental phrase. I don't think LDS people have the monopoly of believing in Jesus. I don't think being LDS somehow indicates you're a better disciple of Jesus. 

There is a difference between doctrine, practice, and heart IMHO. Doctrine and practice in aggregate can be wrong while the hearts of many can be true and good and beautiful reflections of Jesus. (I would note that that statement is true in the church as well....we've often had beliefs that I view as wrong, practices that were painfully in conflict with basic gospel truths, and assumptions that were missing things....AND still had beautiful desires to follow God while restoring necessary truths and practices). When JS talked in the JS-H, I see that difference. He talks about the sincerity of individuals while also recognizing problems in the institutions and their aggregate practices. God doesn't say to him all of these christians are abominations. He says their creeds, doctrines, etc are wrong. The closest to a personal condemnation is with "their professors"....but considering the context and descriptor focusing on a career of school of thought, it's still leans to strong repudiation of certain teachings and practices and not the heart of the people sincerely seeking God through these institutions. This then led to further revelations that expanded (not shrank) who would and could be seen as in good standing with God as a doctrine. In aggregate, I take this to mean that in part, these creeds, schools of thought and practice  are wrong because they were missing key doctrine that expands our love for all people, brings humility in recognizing we are all loved by God, and has restorative ordinances that mean all of us will have an equal chance to have our lives and deeds sanctified through Christ. The end goal is that we WILL all be one family again, ordered not by denomination or institutional name, but by our hearts and willingness to take in more light.  

When someone says someone isn't fully christian I picture someone judging another's heart and place with Christ/God. That is a judgment no one here can fully make and to do so is to pretend one is God IMHO. It's atrociously offensive to me. When someone is saying you can't participate in specific ceremonies or callings within our church I picture noting that one hasn't accepted certain restorative beliefs or made specific covenants within our community that we deem necessary and needed for the purpose of said community. That's by no means the same.

For us a Christian is any disciple of Christ. If one dies without accepting certain restored truths here, yes you could still have eternal life. That's the whole point of temples. I can't and won't say that Navidad or any non-lds christian of any denomination won't be there because they currently don't see things my way. I won't see things my way now as when I die. And the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints (a specific practice with a specific mission) is not the same as the church of the lamb of God (the grouping and ordering of all saints at all times and from all faith practices). That's kinda the point in believing in eternal progression. 

 

With luv,

BD

Do you feel it is possible to be FULLY Christian without adhering to the teachings of the restored gospel? If you go to the website of the church and read an article titled "Restoration of the Gospel," the first paragraph lays everything out for you by explaining that many men and women sought the FULNESS of the gospel truth during the centuries of great apostasy, but they were unable to find it. This occurred thousands of years after the gospel was removed from the earth as a result of widespread apostasy. Even while many people talked about Jesus Christ and his teachings in an honest manner, none of them possessed the FULL truth or the priestly authority that comes from God.

 

People, including Christians, were living in spiritual darkness since the restored gospel was not available on earth at the time, and they were unable to participate in the light of the wonderful gospel because of this. This is basically what the article is saying. Christians were barred from receiving the blessings of the restored gospel for close to two thousand years. These blessings include the ability to obtain a worthy baptism, remission of sins, and the companionship of the Holy Ghost. If they don't accept the gospel as it has been restored, then don't Christians who live in this day and age continue to be in a state of spiritual darkness? 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So in  other words he has to have an LDS baptism.  But what if he has been fully preached to in this life and rejects the LDS message?  Does he get a second chance?  Not opinions. What do the scriptures say about this?  And the teachings of the church? 

The scriptures and the church teach to "judge not" in these matters.  What does "fully preached to in this life" even mean?  It is not about how much one is preached to, it is about how well one accepts the light that is distilled upon their conscience, and what they choose to do with it.  I am 100% convinced that if the gospel is rejected with room for honest doubt, then there is room for perfect mercy and room for growth toward exaltation in the next life.  God will not reject anyone for following their heart and conscience to the best of their ability and understanding.  It is not for us to judge the heart or salvation of another.  That is our doctrine.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Without an  LDS baptism, according to church doctrine, he is not as fully Christian as you since he is part of an apostate sect.

What?  CFR.   That is not what we teach, it is not scriptural, and it resembles no definition of Christian that I have ever heard taught from our leaders.   You are conflating baptism and membership in the church with Christianity.  While other sects might use those parameters for Christianity, we never have.  Joseph Smith and every prophet that ever lived have always referred to members of other sects as fully "Christian".   They are Christians who have not fully received all of the blessings of the saving ordinances...yet.   That doesn't make them any less of a Christian according to our doctrines.

Edited June 8, 2023 by pogi

[Amulek]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

Methinks I have been more than fully preached to, read, studied, pondered, debated, wept, and whined (and maybe even wined - but we won't talk about that!). I have had conversations with both pew Mormons and general authorities (of three different Mormon groups including the LDS, by the way!). [...] I have a library of several hundred books about LDS doctrine and history, [...]. I have presented, prayed, and published (ooh - I am good!) in MHA meetings and literature. [...]

After all of that, I guess you can say we have "rejected" the LDS message, however I don't like that phrasing of it. Why have we rejected it? I am glad you asked. I can tell you the principal reason. I have said it here before . . . . we see no more or less Godliness, spiritual discernment, or wisdom in our LDS friends, than in our Mennonite, Presbyterian (to link to this thread), Anglican, or Pentecostal friends. For a group with such an astounding claim of uniqueness and onliness, we thought there would be a concomitant manifestation of a spirituality that was also unique and perhaps even only.

Then, despite all these years of study, it seems that you still don't fully understand the LDS paradigm.

If charismata were present in only one institutional church - if there were obvious, statistically observable differences in spirituality - if there were incontrovertible evidence that His church had truly been restored to the earth in these latter days - how on earth would it be possible for anyone to act on faith?

I'm sorry, but what you seem to be looking for is something that, by Divine design, is not to be found in mortality. Here, we see through a glass darkly; only later will we know in full.

Best of luck to you my friend.

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Amulek

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Do you feel it is possible to be FULLY Christian without adhering to the teachings of the restored gospel? If you go to the website of the church and read an article titled "Restoration of the Gospel," the first paragraph lays everything out for you by explaining that many men and women sought the FULNESS of the gospel truth during the centuries of great apostasy, but they were unable to find it. This occurred thousands of years after the gospel was removed from the earth as a result of widespread apostasy. Even while many people talked about Jesus Christ and his teachings in an honest manner, none of them possessed the FULL truth or the priestly authority that comes from God.

 

People, including Christians, were living in spiritual darkness since the restored gospel was not available on earth at the time, and they were unable to participate in the light of the wonderful gospel because of this. This is basically what the article is saying. Christians were barred from receiving the blessings of the restored gospel for close to two thousand years. These blessings include the ability to obtain a worthy baptism, remission of sins, and the companionship of the Holy Ghost. If they don't accept the gospel as it has been restored, then don't Christians who live in this day and age continue to be in a state of spiritual darkness? 

 

Read my response to Teancum above. 

You guys are conflating being fully Christian with receiving the fullness of the blessing of the gospel.   We don't define the parameters of Christianity based on how fully one has received the ordinances or blessings of the gospel.  Nor is it based on how fully they have received "truth" or how fully they understand it.   Who has received a true "fullness" of those things?  The answer is no one!  

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It is my understanding that proper matter (water), form (words), and intention (they have to intend what the church intends - washing away original sin, done with the same meaning behind the words Father, Son, and Holly Ghost, etc.)  We check the first two boxes, but not the last.  I think they judge every sect's baptism based on those 3 criteria. 

I'm not sure what you are asking in relation to what is being discussed about being accepted as a "Christian" though.  As far as I know, most Catholics still consider us Christian despite not officially accepting our baptism as valid - just like we consider them Christian without considering their baptism as valid. 

 

The Catholics accept the Mennonite baptism and it is certainly not for the washing away of sins. It is a testimony baptism.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Do you feel it is possible to be FULLY Christian without adhering to the teachings of the restored gospel? If you go to the website of the church and read an article titled "Restoration of the Gospel," the first paragraph lays everything out for you by explaining that many men and women sought the FULNESS of the gospel truth during the centuries of great apostasy, but they were unable to find it. This occurred thousands of years after the gospel was removed from the earth as a result of widespread apostasy. Even while many people talked about Jesus Christ and his teachings in an honest manner, none of them possessed the FULL truth or the priestly authority that comes from God.

 

People, including Christians, were living in spiritual darkness since the restored gospel was not available on earth at the time, and they were unable to participate in the light of the wonderful gospel because of this. This is basically what the article is saying. Christians were barred from receiving the blessings of the restored gospel for close to two thousand years. These blessings include the ability to obtain a worthy baptism, remission of sins, and the companionship of the Holy Ghost. If they don't accept the gospel as it has been restored, then don't Christians who live in this day and age continue to be in a state of spiritual darkness? 

 

Sara: I know you don't know me, but you believe that I live in a state of spiritual darkness? Even if my life evidences otherwise?

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The Catholics accept the Mennonite baptism and it is certainly not for the washing away of sins. It is a testimony baptism.

Interesting.    I guess that "intent" doesn't have to be 100% the same.  Maybe your intent was considered to be "close enough".  I don't know.  Any Catholics want to weight in? 

Maybe it was the form (words) that they had a problem with - while we use the same words (Father, Son, and Holly Ghost), they don't mean the same thing.  It is the intent behind the form, in other words, that might get us on the naughty list. 

[Sara H]

49 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Sara: I know you don't know me, but you believe that I live in a state of spiritual darkness? Even if my life evidences otherwise?

Before I had an awakening to my spiritual nature, I thought you lived in spiritual darkness. But now I know better. When I reflect back on how I used to feel about non-members, it makes me feel queasy in the stomach. I believe, Navidad, that when you claim LDS don't accept you as totally Christian, what you are really feeling is the judgement of your LDS friends, even though they may not be criticising you in a bad way purposefully. From the moment we are born, we are taught that the most important thing we can do with our lives is to bring other people into the Church on the grounds that they are living in spiritual darkness, just like Christians did before the restored gospel was brought back to earth. 

 

I honestly feel sick now that I realise why I felt that way because I lived the most of my life believing Christianity is in a state of apostasy. I apologise for having that belief. I sincerely hope that you will forgive me. My impression is that there is more pressure on the LDS church to accept Christians on an equal footing than there is on the Christian community to do so. But if the LDS church continues to teach that the only place where one may find the authority of God is in the LDS gospel, then I don't think that will ever change. 

 

 

 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure what you are asking in relation to what is being discussed about being accepted as a "Christian" though.  As far as I know, most Catholics still consider us Christian despite not officially accepting our baptism as valid - just like we consider them Christian without considering their baptism as valid. 

Most Catholics or the official position of the Catholic Church?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Sara H said:

Which, when our doctrine is taken into consideration, is partially accurate.

No, it isn’t.  Unless someone is using a different definition for Christian than the vast majority of Saints, including our leaders.

I know how Navidad feels (well, I think I have a pretty good idea).  I have been paying close attention to what he has been saying on this forum since he got here and I have adjusted quite a bit of my language based on what he has said as I have done for other nonLDS Christians that have been kind enough to hang out on the boards I have posted on.  My problem is with not how he feels about our lack of acceptance of his baptism, our view of his relationship with the Holy Ghost, he has a right to feel whatever he wants about out doctrine.  What he doesn’t have a right to do is continue to insist we label him in a way we do not label him.  We do not use the term “fully Christian” in our faith because it is meaningless in the context of our doctrine.

Quote

 

Therefore, what exactly is a Christian?

The Church’s definition is pretty clear:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/christians?lang=eng
 

Quote

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christians. They worship God the Eternal Father in the name of Jesus Christ. When asked what the Latter-day Saints believe, Joseph Smith put Christ at the center: “The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, ‘that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;’ and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.”1

If this is what makes LDS Christian, then this is what makes others Christian as well.

Does Navidad worship God?  Does he believe Christ died, was buried, and rose again and ascended to heaven?  If so, he is as Christian as any Saint.

Quote

Is it possible for a Christian to have eternal life with God if they do not believe the LDS Church's interpretation of Christianity? 

If one is asking about this moment in time, of course.  We do temple work for everyone based on this doctrine.

As far as the next life, can you answer the question about how a now deceased Christian would tell Christ he wouldn’t accept God’s own truth when it was Christ sharing this truth with him or someone they knew was sent by Christ?

If LDS are right and there comes a time in the next life a person who was a nonLDS Christian is taught the truth that the LDS Church knows right now, whatever that might be, and that Christian knows that it is truth where in this life they either never heard of it, didn’t understand it when they had heard it, or they never received a witness for whatever reason, why wouldn’t someone who had devoted their time in this life to trying to be a disciple of Christ continue in the same way in the next life as they did in this one, listening to the teachings of the Spirit and Christ as these are sent to them….just as all LDS Saints who strove to be disciples in this life must also accept the additional teachings of truth we had not received for some reason in mortality…perhaps some truths well known to nonLDS Christians even.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The scriptures and the church teach to "judge not" in these matters.  What does "fully preached to in this life" even mean?  It is not about how much one is preached to, it is about how well one accepts the light that is distilled upon their conscience, and what they choose to do with it.  I am 100% convinced that if the gospel is rejected with room for honest doubt, then there is room for perfect mercy and room for growth toward exaltation in the next life.  God will not reject anyone for following their heart and conscience to the best of their ability and understanding.  It is not for us to judge the heart or salvation of another.  That is our doctrine.  

What?  CFR.   That is not what we teach, it is not scriptural, and it resembles no definition of Christian that I have ever heard taught from our leaders.   You are conflating baptism and membership in the church with Christianity.  While other sects might use those parameters for Christianity, we never have.  Joseph Smith and every prophet that ever lived have always referred to members of other sects as fully "Christian".   They are Christians who have not fully received all of the blessings of the saving ordinances...yet.   That doesn't make them any less of a Christian according to our doctrines.

I guess I am not that interested in chasing this a whole lot further. I think your comments are tainted heavily by your personal view.  It certainly was not the view of the earlies LDS leaders.  And it certainly was not the majority of the view I grew up with under the likes of McConkie and JFS.   Nobody really knows in the LDS view how much of chance that someone who has heard the LDS gospel has had to accept it.  So maybe the sky is the limit.  Perhaps even an evil LDS apostate like me will get another chance if the LDS doctrine of the after life it correct.  On the other hand I have been told I may be a Son of Perdition. And I think about D&C 84 and The Oath and Covenant of the priesthood.  I am happy that the Mormonism seems more accepting of Apostate Christianity.  😀

The only thing I will leave is what I said. @Navidadseems like one of the most believing and faithful Christians I have run across. He almost persuade me to check out his type of Christianity.  Where I live there are a lot of Mennonites.  I don't know any personally though.  But one thing is certain in LDS doctrine.  If he does not receive and LDS baptism and the LDS temple ordinances he will not be in the Celestial Kingdom with the Father.  Do you dispute that?  That is LDS doctrine.  @bluebellwhen I stated this essentially said:

Quote

If Navidad is a true follower of Christ (as I believe he is) then he will continue to follow Him in the next life, and accept those things he didn't understand or accept while in this life, thus receiving the same reward (to be a joint-heir with Christ) that all who follow Him receive.

 

  Yet he seems delighted in his faith life. Why wouldn't God accept him to the highest reward based on his faith and devotion now? And Bluebell states that "if he really is a true follow of Christ he will accept those things he did not accept or understand in this life. thus receiving the same reward" But still he has to have the LDS ordinances or the best he can hope for is the terrestrial kingdom.  So he is Christian but without LDS ordinances he is a less than Christian at least based on what his eternal reward will be. So from Bluebells point of view if Navidad does not accept the LDS ordinances and gospel either in this life or the next he must not be a true follower of Christ? So he is Christian but not Christian enough unless he accept the LDS gospel at some point.  I wonder what @Navidadthinks of that?  

Edited June 8, 2023 by Teancum