7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

Before I had an awakening to my spiritual nature,

Did your awakening lead you out of the LDS Church or did it lead you to reinterpret its teachings in new ways or something ?  I guess I am asking what your spiritual awakening was/is about if you wouldn’t mind sharing.  I like to understand where the words people use are coming from, if that makes sense (not as in etymology).

Edited June 9, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

On the other hand I have been told I may be a Son of Perdition.

By whom?  I find that laughable unless you were hiding your light under a bushel when I first encountered you and since then.  No offense meant, I am not sure all the prophets and apostles that have existed over time would qualify as SofPs if they became enemies of God, but one would have to have at least that level of spiritual power and engagement with God in my view.  And my memory is you were a pretty committed Bishop, but hadn’t been called to an apostleship yet before becoming a questioner, etc.

You would also have to be a great liar because if a SoP you actually know Christ is the son of God, the truth of the Gospel, etc. and your doubt seems very sincere to me. (I need to get reading glasses, so many typos)

Edited June 9, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

 Why wouldn't God accept him to the highest reward based on his faith and devotion now? 

For the same reason he won’t accept any of us now…he is not done with us.  We must put aside all of our natural man, all that is unclean in us, ungodly must be purged and then God must raise us in his ways through our acceptance of his Atonement.  When we can be truly one with God, we can participate in his exaltation.  We cannot do so until God has finished his work on us.

Added:  I believe we can receive the assurance of eternal life in this life.  I don’t believe this has been revealed to the Church and it may be more logic than revelation for me personally, but I see no reason that Navidad couldn’t also receive that assurance because if it can be given to Saints who are not yet receiving or even comprehending what is needed for exaltation, why not others in similar circumstances?

Receiving an assurance of eternal life doesn’t mean we are immediately qualified for it, just that the Spirit intends to get us there…more or less.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Calm

[InCognitus]

Between each of us here and now (in viewing each other), It all comes down to this:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.   By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."  (John 13:34–35)

But beyond that, God is the true judge of who is a true Christian or not, or whether one is "fully Christian".  And our final judgement doesn't happen until the resurrection from the dead, and there is a space of time in between death and the resurrection, so really all of us are a work in progress and "not fully Christian" and we won't be done with our journey until judgement day.  And when that day comes, each of us will be judged according to the truth that we are given in our life and how we respond to it.  And, where "much is given, of him shall much be required" (Luke 12:43-48, Matthew 24:45-51).  So, having the "fulness of the gospel" will mean that the person is judged with greater scrutiny than a person who doesn't have the fulness of the gospel.  

So, @Navidad, just throw this back in the face of any of your LDS friends who may say you are not "fully Christian", because they don't know (other than what it says in John 13:34-35) anymore than anyone else does.  Only God knows our hearts.

This is where I think it works the best:

 

[Calm]

Quote

 a Christian but not Christian enough 

I missed part of this post.

Absolutely not, it makes no sense to me to say someone is “not Christian enough” unless perhaps what is meant is they don’t really believe Jesus is the Son of God, died and was buried and rose and ascended to heaven.  But as far as I am aware, Navidad firmly believes that.

I think you and Sara are using a different type of category and it’s as if I and others are talking about red as a color while you are talking about red as a fruit. We can’t be saying the same thing when we say “red” because we are using a different definition.  And I don’t believe the definition where “not Christian enough” makes sense is one used for “Christian” in LDS doctrine (which is why “fully Christian” is missing on our website as is also “not Christian enough”).

And if we don’t have the words for it, I don’t believe we have that idea/belief.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

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?

This is a very important issue that many people get hung-up on.  I think it is hard for much of Christianity to conceptualize our idea of exaltation because of their ideas of salvation being gifted via the grace of Christ because of our level of faith in this life.   There is no growing into salvation for the rest of Christianity.  It is viewed more as an instant salvation and instant reward at death.  But for us it is not something that we automatically receive as a reward for our faith and devotion in this life alone.  Let me state this very clear - the idea that God would accept any of us into exaltation based on our current level of faith and devotion is not something that we believe in Mormonism.   I don't think many people really fully grasp the far reaching implications of this.  It means that NO ONE is gifted with exaltation "as we are" now, not even the most faithful Mormon who has received all the saving ordinances in this life and remained faithfully obedient throughout their life will be accepted as they are now.  NONE OF US are good enough as we are.  So it is not a dig to suggest that his faith and devotion in mortality is not enough.  We don't view the grace of Christ as a magical veil we pass through that makes us acceptable.  The grace of Christ makes it possible for us to be forgiven, healed, and endowed with strength to perform the work of exaltation ourselves.  Nothing happens without work and change towards Godly evolution.   It will take potential millennia before we have worked out our salvation/exaltation.    

That is a long way to say that God wouldn't accept him to "the highest reward" based on his "faith and devotion now" because he is NO WHERE NEAR exalted godliness.  NONE OF US ARE.  It shouldn't be seen as insulting to say there is more that he needs to learn, accept, and grow before he can be exalted, because it is true for all of us.   

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

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?  

You seem to be suggesting that we should consider Navidad as being "good enough" for exaltation as he is now.   After what I have explained above, you might understand why that idea doesn't hold water with our beliefs.  There is so much we all have to grow and learn and accept that may be completely contrary to what we believe now before we can be exalted.  I, like Bluebell, fully trust that Navidad has what it takes - but it will require sacrifice on all of our parts.  There is absolutely no reason or doctrine in our church to suggest that he is any more or less Christian than I am, or any less faithful and devoted to Christ because he is not a member.   We all will need to shed and sacrifice beliefs and practices in submission and further alignment with God until we are one in every way with Him.  None of us are "Christian enough", in the sense that you say that, to be worthy of exaltation as we are.   

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

l. I have a form of provisional certainty that there will be no earthly denominations, groups, churches or institutions represented in the after-mortal-life.

There might be during the Millennium. I don’t believe our doctrine suggest there will be any denomination after death save all who are exalted shall belong to the Church of the Firstborn, whose names are written in his Book of Life.  My guess here is what God means by Church (of the Firstborn) is not what mortals typically mean by Church.  And likely “Book” as well.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76?lang=eng&id=54,67,71,94#p54

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/77?lang=eng&id=11#p11

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng&id=22#p22

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/5?lang=eng&id=58#p58

The LDS Church is not the Church of the Firstborn(also written Church of Firstborn).  The Church of the Firstborn has always existed.  The LDS Church was organized in 1830.  It is as you say an earthly organization even if we believe it to be appointed to act for God in certain ways on this earth.  The parts of it that are eternal, that are a subset of the Church of the Firstborn will be part of the Church of the Firstborn just as we as individuals, the parts of us that are and will become eternal will be exalted if we are exalted.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Calm

[Vanguard]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

 I have a form of provisional certainty that there will be no earthly denominations, groups, churches or institutions represented in the after-mortal-life. I see no Biblical evidence for that. I can't imagine a bazaar where each earthly faith has a booth to convince our spirits (souls?) that their faith is the correct one prior to judgement day. At the same time, I cannot conceive that of all Christianity the LDS will be the only group in the afterlife to have missionaries to proclaim only their gospel with the blessing of the Godhead.

I too have that form of provisional certainty. I believe our general leaders if pressed in the way we do on this forum, would also admit as much.

This issue about ordinances done with bestowed authority is simply a paradigm that cannot be reconciled with your view. For me, however, it is not about the 'LDS way of doing things' in the afterlife. Completing ordinances with bestowed authority is simply the way the Godhead operates (according to the paradigm). For those who stretched sufficiently toward their God-given capacity as much and as often as said capacity permitted, the paradigm of 'bestowed authority' will simply become a formality relative to the importance of the person stretching sufficiently toward their capacity. I am certain you would never claim that if the Godhead requested of you to embrace said paradigm you would stubbornly not do so, correct? Conversely and similarly, if the LDS paradigm ran contrary to how the Godhead operates, I would (if given the chance), fully and happily embrace this new way of thinking though I would never view it as having to accept Navidad's gospel. The Godhead's paradigm is infinitely bigger than any earthly approximation.

Whew! That was a mouthful! ; )

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

For the same reason he won’t accept any of us now…he is not done with us.  We must put aside all of our natural man, all that is unclean in us, ungodly must be purged and then God must raise us in his ways through our acceptance of his Atonement.  When we can be truly one with God, we can participate in his exaltation.  We cannot do so until God has finished his work on us.

Added:  I believe we can receive the assurance of eternal life in this life.  I don’t believe this has been revealed to the Church and it may be more logic than revelation for me personally, but I see no reason that Navidad couldn’t also receive that assurance because if it can be given to Saints who are not yet receiving or even comprehending what is needed for exaltation, why not others in similar circumstances?

Receiving an assurance of eternal life doesn’t mean we are immediately qualified for it, just that the Spirit intends to get us there…more or less.

Washing of the Feet? Calling and election made sure?

I am kinda confused...

Edited June 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Washing of the Feet? Calling and election made sure?

I am kinda confused...

Spell it out.  I have heard too many different ideas on what is meant by calling and election made sure.

[Buckwheat]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

For the same reason he won’t accept any of us now…he is not done with us

I watch a video few months back about a couple from Finland or maybe Switzerland and they claim they have been accepted into the highest kingdom of heaven already so I think some of us mormons have already proven to HF we are ready for CK. Can't remember the name of the ordinance or maybe it was a ceremony but I'm pretty sure they were guaranteed a spot in the CK. If true does that make them gods already I don't know I'm new at this.

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

You can of course feel however you want and I would never tell you your feelings are wrong.  They are your own.  But you can't tell us what we believe about you, and that is where my disagreement with you lies.

We don't deny you eternal life (that is between you and Christ and something to be settled long after this life is over--for all of us) and we don't believe that other Christians are not fully Christian unless they are baptized, confirmed, and undergo the right ordinances in the LDS world.  I (and others) have told you how you were wrong in other threads but for whatever reason you can't "hear" it right now.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

Oh my.  Ok.  That helps Navidad exactly how?

So like Bluebell you agree that wonderful Christian Navidad is a nice guy and a Christian but not Christian enough unless at some point he accepts the LDS gospel and ordinances.  Don't you see how someone like Navidad would think this position is full of a lot of hubris and arrogance?  

I have no idea what that even means.  You are saying stuff we don't even believe and then calling us full of hubris and arrogance.  I think that's called irony. 

Christian enough for what?  Christian enough to be saved according to our own beliefs regardless of the truth?  None of us are "Christian" enough for that.  If I die and get to the other side and Christ says, you need to accept the authority of the Catholic baptism, or priesthood of all believers, or whatever else, then ok.  Sign me up.  If I'm a true disciple of Christ, why would that be upsetting?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Buckwheat said:

I watch a video few months back about a couple from Finland or maybe Switzerland and they claim they have been accepted into the highest kingdom of heaven already so I think some of us mormons have already proven to HF we are ready for CK. Can't remember the name of the ordinance or maybe it was a ceremony but I'm pretty sure they were guaranteed a spot in the CK. If true does that make them gods already I don't know I'm new at this.

Are you talking about Hans and Birgitta Mattsson from Sweden?

 

[bluebell]

17 hours 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?  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.

 

There is no such thing as an LDS baptism, but I know what you are referring to. 

There is a difference between being given information and having knowledge.  Someone can give me a whole presentation on how the earth is really flat or how theoretical physics works--I could have all the information available and presented to me--and that doesn't mean that I know that the earth is flat or theoretical physics.  No one is held accountable for the information they have been given.  We are held accountable for the knowledge we possess.

Also, where does the church teach that Christians who belong to other religions are a part of an "apostate sect" and aren't fully Christian?  Yes, the church has changed it's message over the last couple hundred years, because it is understanding things better and is long past its bad history with other Christian religions (history that includes being killed by them).

Quote

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.

Here, in the words of JS--

Quote

 

“The great designs of God in relation to the salvation of the human family, are very little understood by the professedly wise and intelligent generation in which we live. Various and conflicting are the opinions of men concerning the plan of salvation, the [requirements] of the Almighty, the necessary preparations for heaven, the state and condition of departed spirits, and the happiness or misery that is consequent upon the practice of righteousness and iniquity according to their several notions of virtue and vice. …

“… While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes ‘His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’ [Matthew 5:45.] He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, ‘according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil,’ or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, ‘not according to what they have not, but according to what they have’; those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right [see Genesis 18:25].”6

“God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them.”7

“Men will be held accountable for the things which they have and not for the things they have not. … All the light and intelligence communicated to them from their beneficent creator, whether it is much or little, by the same they in justice will be judged, and … they are required to yield obedience and improve upon that and that only which is given, for man is not to live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”8

 

And--

Quote

 

“The idea that some men form of the justice, judgment, and mercy of God, is too foolish for an intelligent man to think of: for instance, it is common for many of our orthodox preachers to suppose that if a man is not what they call converted, if he dies in that state he must remain eternally in hell without any hope. Infinite years in torment must he spend, and never, never, never have an end; and yet this eternal misery is made frequently to rest upon the merest casualty [chance]. The breaking of a shoe-string, the tearing of a coat of those officiating, or the peculiar location in which a person lives, may be the means, indirectly, of his damnation, or the cause of his not being saved.

“I will suppose a case which is not extraordinary: Two men, who have been equally wicked, who have neglected religion, are both of them taken sick at the same time; one of them has the good fortune to be visited by a praying man, and he gets converted a few minutes before he dies; the other sends for three different praying men, a tailor, a shoemaker, and a tinman; the tinman has a handle to solder to a pan, the tailor has a button-hole to work on some coat that he needed in a hurry, and the shoemaker has a patch to put on somebody’s boot; they none of them can go in time, the man dies, and goes to hell: one of these is exalted to Abraham’s bosom, he sits down in the presence of God and enjoys eternal, uninterrupted happiness, while the other, equally as good as he, sinks to eternal damnation, irretrievable misery and hopeless despair, because a man had a boot to mend, the button-hole of a coat to work, or a handle to solder on to a saucepan.

“The plans of Jehovah are not so unjust, the statements of holy writ so [illusory], nor the plan of salvation for the human family so incompatible with common sense; at such proceedings God would frown with indignance, angels would hide their heads in shame, and every virtuous, intelligent man would recoil.

“If human laws award to each man his deserts, and punish all delinquents according to their several crimes, surely the Lord will not be more cruel than man, for He is a wise legislator, and His laws are more equitable, His enactments more just, and His decisions more perfect than those of man; and as man judges his fellow man by law, and punishes him according to the penalty of the law, so does God of heaven judge ‘according to the deeds done in the body.’ [See Alma 5:15.] To say that the heathens would be damned because they did not believe the Gospel would be preposterous, and to say that the Jews would all be damned that do not believe in Jesus would be equally absurd; for ‘how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher, and how can he preach except he be sent’ [see Romans 10:14–15]; consequently neither Jew nor heathen can be culpable for rejecting the conflicting opinions of sectarianism, nor for rejecting any testimony but that which is sent of God.

 

And again--

Quote

“Peter, also, in speaking concerning our Savior, says, that ‘He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah’ (1 Peter 3:19, 20). Here then we have an account of our Savior preaching to the spirits in prison, to spirits that had been imprisoned from the days of Noah; and what did He preach to them? That they were to stay there? Certainly not! Let His own declaration testify. ‘He hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.’ (Luke 4:18.) Isaiah has it—‘To bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness from the prison house.’ (Isaiah 42:7.) It is very evident from this that He not only went to preach to them, but to deliver, or bring them out of the prison house. …

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by bluebell

[Saint Bonaventure]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

There is an official Catholic position about who belongs to the Body of Christ.  My memory is it those who have been properly baptized and that this is the definition of Christian for the Catholic Church (Christians are those who belong to the Body of Christ).

These are quotes from the Catechism, which is official doctrine of the Catholic Church.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p2.htm

Also:

https://www.catholicdoors.com/catechis/cat0781.htm#:~:text=805 The Church is the,diversity of members and functions.

As I understand them, there are Catholics on this board who are open to LDS as Christians for a couple of reasons, but don’t believe I should speak for them as I may get it wrong plus it should be their choice to share their ideas when they want.

 

I'm willing to share on this, with the caveat that there is, without exaggeration, a library of material on this subject. 

Before I drop in some crucial passages for this discussion, I'll give a little perspective.

Right this second, Catholics all over the world are praying for the deliverance of loved ones from purgatory so that they will find rest and peace in the loving arms of God. Some of those prayers are being offered for the departed souls of Latter-day Saints. John Paul II taught that purgatory is fundamentally a condition wherein a soul, through grace, is purified through facing, and approaching God. This purification is compared to being cleansed by fire (1 Cor. 3), and so is not thought of as being comfortable. 

The doctrinal justification for such prayers and belief in the salvation of a soul, are articulated in the following passages. Again, there is so much that can be said here, and I'm just trying to lay an understandable foundation. I've bolded some statements for emphasis.

The Necessity of Baptism:

Quote

 

VI.        The Necessity of Baptism

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.⁶¹ Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. (1129; 161, 846)

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (2473)

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (1249)

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. (848)

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (1257; 1250)^[1]

 

---

^[1] Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), 320–321.

 

 

 

 And from Vatican II:

Quote

 

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.¹²⁵ On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,¹²⁷ and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.^19* Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. ^[1]

 

---

^[1] Catholic Church, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011).

 

The Church is Catholic and "Those Who Do Not Know Christ and His Church":

Quote

 

III.        The Church Is Catholic

What does “catholic” mean?

830 The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense:

First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation” which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia. (795; 815–816)

831 Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race: (849; 360; 518)

All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God’s will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one.… The character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.

Each particular Church is “catholic”

832 “The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament.… In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord’s Supper is celebrated.… In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted.” (814; 811)

833 The phrase “particular church,” which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession. These particular Churches “are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists.”³¹⁴ (886)

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.”³¹⁶ Indeed, “from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.” (882; 1369)

835 “Let us be very careful not to conceive of the universal Church as the simple sum, or … the more or less anomalous federation of essentially different particular churches. In the mind of the Lord the Church is universal by vocation and mission, but when she puts down her roots in a variety of cultural, social, and human terrains, she takes on different external expressions and appearances in each part of the world.” The rich variety of ecclesiastical disciplines, liturgical rites, and theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches “unified in a common effort, shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church.”³¹⁹ (1202)

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God.… And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.” (831)

837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who—by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’ ” (771; 815; 882)

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”³²³ With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” (818; 1271; 1399)

The Church and non-Christians

839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.” (856; 63; 147)

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.”³²⁷ The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”; “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”³²⁹

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus. (674; 597)

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race: (360)

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city.…

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.” (28; 856)

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them: (29)

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood. (30; 953; 1219)

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: (161; 1257)

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.” (1260)^[1]

 

---

^[1] Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), 220–225.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

Do you understand that WE have heard that sort of thing from "Christians" OFTEN when we discuss anything with them?

Have you had a Broadway play ridiculing your faith?

People all over the world both Chistians and non, disagree with the faith of others. 

You may not be used to it!  Please know that I am sorry for any offense you have received, but sometimes we just have to ACCEPT that folks will do this sort of thing, and not take offense.

It is actually bad for your health to "let it in" with all the stress it brings with it.  Please don't let it get to you.

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know what it means to be fully Christian when someone says that.

And it really begs the question:

If my right hand offends me and I cut it off, does that make me more or less Christian?

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

By whom?  I find that laughable unless you were hiding your light under a bushel when I first encountered you and since then.  No offense meant, I am not sure all the prophets and apostles that have existed over time would qualify as SofPs if they became enemies of God, but one would have to have at least that level of spiritual power and engagement with God in my view.  And my memory is you were a pretty committed Bishop, but hadn’t been called to an apostleship yet before becoming a questioner, etc.

You would also have to be a great liar because if a SoP you actually know Christ is the son of God, the truth of the Gospel, etc. and your doubt seems very sincere to me. (I need to get reading glasses, so many typos)

Well mostly by various LDS persons on various discussion boards and FB groups. I don't agree with them.  But if I recall an old poster who went by BCspace held this opinion for LDS apostates.

[MustardSeed]

Navidad, 

The following is entirely opinion. 

It sounds like someone(s) in your path has excluded you.  That never feels good.  

At times, I feel excluded from my own religion.  I’m less interested in doctrine (which also at times leaves me feeling rejected) than I am in my personal experience with other humans (which can also leave me feeling excluded.) I’m a long time member with deep roots, extensive callings and relationships, but I understand exclusion. 

I cannot allow myself to walk away from my religion for many reasons in spite of many wrestles.  You have the freedom to do so, and here’s what I personally believe FWIW, no CFR: 
 

Members of my church will at some point have a grand awakening at some point regarding how “off” elements of our culture is (either in this life when prophets make changes) or on the other side. Those who love Jesus will change their hearts easily and follow Him.  I will say the same for all religions.  Those who are prideful will reject spiritual reality and hold on to their traditions as “truth.” 

It’s important for us to love God.  To love each other.  Even this board shows we have a ways to go.  All the doctrine in the world means nothing to me when these laws are so ignored.  
 

It is a basic human need to be included. I would imagine that your ward has invested many man hours in involving you, and maybe your rejection of baptism leaves some feeling personally rejected as much as you feel rejected.  I bet that has come across to you as offensive.  Maybe I’m way off here, but at any rate, I’ll tell you this, I think this all has had less to about Christianity and will all be settled when it has MORE to do with Christianity.  IMO you will be in good hands.  Godspeed. 
 

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by MustardSeed

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

This is a very important issue that many people get hung-up on.  I think it is hard for much of Christianity to conceptualize our idea of exaltation because of their ideas of salvation being gifted via the grace of Christ because of our level of faith in this life.   There is no growing into salvation for the rest of Christianity.  It is viewed more as an instant salvation and instant reward at death.  But for us it is not something that we automatically receive as a reward for our faith and devotion in this life alone.  Let me state this very clear - the idea that God would accept any of us into exaltation based on our current level of faith and devotion is not something that we believe in Mormonism.  

Are you sure?  My understanding of the LDS doctrine of justification and sanctification is we are justifies by faith in Christ, repentance, baptism and the gift of the HG. We are the sanctified by our continuation of abiding in Christ (or enduring to the end) and temple ordinances.  JUstification means we can enter the celestial kingdom. Sanctification likely puts us at some level or another in the celestial kingdom.  Some may be further along than others on that path after they die.  But there is not some checklist we have to have completed before we die to enter the highest glory.  What are your thoughts on what I bolded above?

 

14 hours ago, pogi said:

 

 

I don't think many people really fully grasp the far reaching implications of this.  It means that NO ONE is gifted with exaltation "as we are" now, not even the most faithful Mormon who has received all the saving ordinances in this life and remained faithfully obedient throughout their life will be accepted as they are now.  NONE OF US are good enough as we are.  So it is not a dig to suggest that his faith and devotion in mortality is not enough.  We don't view the grace of Christ as a magical veil we pass through that makes us acceptable.  The grace of Christ makes it possible for us to be forgiven, healed, and endowed with strength to perform the work of exaltation ourselves.  Nothing happens without work and change towards Godly evolution.   It will take potential millennia before we have worked out our salvation/exaltation.    

Well this is much different than anything @Navidadbelieves. 

 

 

14 hours ago, pogi said:

That is a long way to say that God wouldn't accept him to "the highest reward" based on his "faith and devotion now" because he is NO WHERE NEAR exalted godliness.  NONE OF US ARE.  It shouldn't be seen as insulting to say there is more that he needs to learn, accept, and grow before he can be exalted, because it is true for all of us.  

But can you not see that you are imposing the LDS gospel on him when he essentially does not think he needs it? It is a superior, arrogant and exclusive idea ultimately. One way or another he has to accept Mormonism or he is not with the Father.

14 hours ago, pogi said:

 

 

You seem to be suggesting that we should consider Navidad as being "good enough" for exaltation as he is now.   After what I have explained above, you might understand why that idea doesn't hold water with our beliefs.  There is so much we all have to grow and learn and accept that may be completely contrary to what we believe now before we can be exalted.  I, like Bluebell, fully trust that Navidad has what it takes - but it will require sacrifice on all of our parts.  There is absolutely no reason or doctrine in our church to suggest that he is any more or less Christian than I am, or any less faithful and devoted to Christ because he is not a member.   We all will need to shed and sacrifice beliefs and practices in submission and further alignment with God until we are one in every way with Him.  None of us are "Christian enough", in the sense that you say that, to be worthy of exaltation as we are.   

Yea again I think this is just your opinion and not LDS doctrine.  Ultimately based on Mormonism and its doctrine, one must fully accept the gospel of Mormonism and its ordinances to receive God's highest reward or in Bluebells words they were not a true follower of Christ.  Their wonderful faith and devotion may land them in the terrestrial kingdom but that is the end of it.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I have no idea what that even means.  You are saying stuff we don't even believe and then calling us full of hubris and arrogance.  I think that's called irony. 

Christian enough for what?  Christian enough to be saved according to our own beliefs regardless of the truth?  None of us are "Christian" enough for that.  If I die and get to the other side and Christ says, you need to accept the authority of the Catholic baptism, or priesthood of all believers, or whatever else, then ok.  Sign me up.  If I'm a true disciple of Christ, why would that be upsetting?

Don't point the finger at me.  You said if he is a true follower of Christ he will accept the LDS gospel and ordinances at some point. If not well what is the default?  If you cannot comprehend the hubris in that and how a wonderful current follower of Christ might view that I cannot help you.  See this is the problem from a Church that claims the be The Only True and Living Church. And you and others seem to want to have it both ways.  And as for the "stuff that we don't believe" it should be better said stuff you don't believe.  Go study your LDS Canon a bit more then let's talk.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

There is no such thing as an LDS baptism, but I know what you are referring to. 

Sure there is. THere is a baptism that us by the priesthood authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is what I meant. But my guess is you knew that.

[MustardSeed]

56 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Don't point the finger at me. 
 

You said if he is a true follower of Christ he will accept the LDS gospel and ordinances at some point. If not well what is the default?  

Why is it you feel justified in pointing the finger at others but bristle if someone responds to you the same?  I wasn’t trying to be insulting, just pointing out a perceived double standard.

What is the result if we reject Christafter we know His will?  We don’t receive the blessings we otherwise could have received. That’s true for all of us.