Why the Protestant Church Needs Another Ninety-Five Theses

[Devobah]

Here

You should be able to read these without needing a Linkedin account. I have one but was able to access it without needing one. Overall this is an interesting article written by Mark Bernard, a Facilitator for Blessing Point Ministries. The group is not a church in itself (from what I understand, but I could be wrong) but a group that is designed to help with church healing and unity.

The article, originally written back in 2021, presents 95 Theses for the Protestant Church pointing out flaws and concerns that this Reverend is starting to see within the Protestant Church. I think that we, as church members, could learn from and be better about. 

Some of my favorite theses or ones that I find most intriguing:

6. Whereas Protestants rejected extra-biblical authorities and appealed only to Scripture, we quickly made idols of our own favored teachers – repeating the pattern we once condemned.

7. Entire schools of theology arose from our chosen teachers, whose followers became as unbending as the group from which we originally parted.

16. Protestant leaders have overlooked the fact that how they handle a controversy is as important to God as the controversy itself.

17. We have behaved as if every doctrine, no matter how obscure, requires us to proclaim, “Here I stand; I can do no other!”

20. Protestantism infused “being right” (our convictions about “the truth”) with Papal primacy, elevating it over every other Christian virtue.

21. The Protestant need to always “be right” flowed from our insecurity over the pain we experienced (and caused) as the Reformation unfolded.

26. Some of our children witness us devouring each other and flee the church rather than joining our cannibalism. Generations have thus been lost.

27. Others of our children witness our divisiveness and inherit the same brutal spirit.

28. A layman could observe our behavior and astutely ask questions such as, “Where is discernment? Where is wisdom? Why have Protestants been so inclined to make war against brethren who disagree with them? Why wield the sword against one’s own?” (1 Kings 12:24)

30. Again, an observer could ponder, “Perhaps, after 500 years, it’s time for the Protestant Church to ask the question Gideon posed, ‘If God is with us, why has all this happened to us?’” (Judges 6:13)

34. Though we have been unable to stay unified for long, the Gospel has gone forth from us, but it has been tarnished by our divisions.

37. If God reaches anyone through such hostile divisions, it only reflects God’s mercy, or sense of humor.

42.When Paul wrote to the Corinthian church “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you,” he acknowledges the presence of divisions threatening their spiritual health, yet the church retained its singular corporate identity. (1 Cor. 11:19)

I'll stop there for right now. But I encourage the reading of this piece. I found it intriguing. It's caused me to ponder the reformation, the Church, and the purpose of the Restoration of the Gospel as a whole. There's plenty of other good points about the Protestant Reformation that could also be used for the Church as well. The phrase "always reforming" is something that is said in many Protestant Circles, but seems to hardly be really practiced outside of mentally excommunicating other churches for not believing the same thing as their particular church. 

Which one of these theses do you think most applies to our Church? What are your thoughts on the Protestant Reformation as a whole. I would love to get a Non-LDS understanding of it.

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Devobah said:

Here

You should be able to read these without needing a Linkedin account. I have one but was able to access it without needing one. Overall this is an interesting article written by Mark Bernard, a Facilitator for Blessing Point Ministries. The group is not a church in itself (from what I understand, but I could be wrong) but a group that is designed to help with church healing and unity.

The article, originally written back in 2021, presents 95 Theses for the Protestant Church pointing out flaws and concerns that this Reverend is starting to see within the Protestant Church. I think that we, as church members, could learn from and be better about. 

Some of my favorite theses or ones that I find most intriguing:

6. Whereas Protestants rejected extra-biblical authorities and appealed only to Scripture, we quickly made idols of our own favored teachers – repeating the pattern we once condemned.

7. Entire schools of theology arose from our chosen teachers, whose followers became as unbending as the group from which we originally parted.

16. Protestant leaders have overlooked the fact that how they handle a controversy is as important to God as the controversy itself.

17. We have behaved as if every doctrine, no matter how obscure, requires us to proclaim, “Here I stand; I can do no other!”

20. Protestantism infused “being right” (our convictions about “the truth”) with Papal primacy, elevating it over every other Christian virtue.

21. The Protestant need to always “be right” flowed from our insecurity over the pain we experienced (and caused) as the Reformation unfolded.

26. Some of our children witness us devouring each other and flee the church rather than joining our cannibalism. Generations have thus been lost.

27. Others of our children witness our divisiveness and inherit the same brutal spirit.

28. A layman could observe our behavior and astutely ask questions such as, “Where is discernment? Where is wisdom? Why have Protestants been so inclined to make war against brethren who disagree with them? Why wield the sword against one’s own?” (1 Kings 12:24)

30. Again, an observer could ponder, “Perhaps, after 500 years, it’s time for the Protestant Church to ask the question Gideon posed, ‘If God is with us, why has all this happened to us?’” (Judges 6:13)

34. Though we have been unable to stay unified for long, the Gospel has gone forth from us, but it has been tarnished by our divisions.

37. If God reaches anyone through such hostile divisions, it only reflects God’s mercy, or sense of humor.

42.When Paul wrote to the Corinthian church “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you,” he acknowledges the presence of divisions threatening their spiritual health, yet the church retained its singular corporate identity. (1 Cor. 11:19)

I'll stop there for right now. But I encourage the reading of this piece. I found it intriguing. It's caused me to ponder the reformation, the Church, and the purpose of the Restoration of the Gospel as a whole. There's plenty of other good points about the Protestant Reformation that could also be used for the Church as well. The phrase "always reforming" is something that is said in many Protestant Circles, but seems to hardly be really practiced outside of mentally excommunicating other churches for not believing the same thing as their particular church. 

A few thoughts:

1. The sine qua non of Protestantism is disunity.  It's right there in the name.  From the article:

• "As Protestants, we have been infected with a propensity for schism that began at the birth of our movement." 
• "Protestantism has been sullied by innumerable, acrimonious splits, between churches and denominations."
• "Arising on the wings of this theological rigidity, the new denominations derived from these schools later crash landed and splintered further."
• "Protestant groups have continued to split at both local church and denominational levels for the past five centuries without abating."
• "We are no better than Israel’s enemies who turned on each other when God fought against them. (Judges 7:21-22)"
• "Though we have been unable to stay unified for long, the Gospel has gone forth from us, but it has been tarnished by our divisions."
• "The Protestant Church suffers from a disease that resists treatment and spreads quickly, its penchant to rebel against authority."

Yep. 

Disagreement and schism is encoded in its DNA.  I don't see a solution to this, except for the one that began in 1820.  

2. #5 is interesting:

• "Having discarded a flawed hermeneutic which elevated church fathers and popes above Scripture, a cacophony of divided theological positions filled the void."

Seems like a restoration of authority, and continuing revelation, and the open canon that goes with these things, is the answer.

3. I like #33:

• "God, in His limitless mercy, continues to use Protestant churches for His glory in spite of our fragmentation." 

I think this is quite true.

4. And #38:

• "That God uses a fractured, conflicted Church for His purposes in no way justifies the unspiritual way many Protestant churches and denominations came into existence."

Very true.

5. #41, #80 and #91 are intriguing:

• "The speed with which we revolt against spiritual authorities who disagree with our views displays our propensity toward rebellion, ignoring the fact that rebellion against divinely appointed authorities equals rebellion against God. (John 19:11; Romans 13:1)"
• "Since the Reformation, it has become commonplace to blaspheme constituted spiritual authorities (like pastors, elders, denominational leaders, evangelists) in the church."
• "The Protestant Church shall not overcome its penchant for dismemberment until those in spiritual leadership and authority take responsibility for the sins of our 'fathers' as well as our present sins."

This sounds fairly . . . Latter-day Saintish:

• "For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith."  (D&C 21:5) 
• "(W)hether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:38)
• "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."  (Matt. 10:40)
• "Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water..."  (3 Nephi 12:1)
• "Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you."  (D&C 112:20)

Who are these "spiritual authorities" / "divinely appointed authorities" / "constituted spiritual authorities" / "spiritual leadership" in Protestantism?  By what means do those claiming such authority justify that claiming?

Same goes with #86:

• "The absence of teaching and an understanding of mediatorial authority since the Reformation, limits Protestant efforts to get free from its endless cycles of division."

What is this "mediatorial authority"?

6. #43 also sounds pretty Latter-day Saintish: 

• "When Paul wrote to the Corinthian church 'For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you,' he acknowledges the presence of divisions threatening their spiritual health, yet the church retained its singular corporate identity. (1 Cor. 11:19)"

I agree with this.  There has been just such a "singular corporate identity" since 1830.

7. #57 makes an important, though IMO flawed, point:

• "Let the authority of Scripture be the bond among Protestants, not our divergent views on what the Bible teaches. (2 Timothy 3:16)"

This sounds nice, but it doesn't work in the real world.  "{T}he authority of scripture" is an eye-of-the-beholder thing.  Indeed, it is what perennially divides Protestantism.  The unifying component our Protestant brothers and sisters lack is priesthood authority.  

8. #92 is interesting:

• "When genuine brokenness over our division and rebellion ensues, a new spirit can fill the Protestant Church, creating a God-honoring unity that our Lord will bless and a power to the Gospel we have not seen in a long time."

Has Protestantism ever experienced this "God-honoring unity"?  If so, when?  Where?

9. We as Latter-day Saints are fortunate to have living prophets and apostles to guide us.  But we still have a long way to go in achieving the unity that the Lord commands of us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

...........................

1. The sine qua non of Protestantism is disunity.  ...........................

Disagreement and schism is encoded in its DNA.  I don't see a solution to this, except for the one that began in 1820.  

2. #5 is interesting:

• "Having discarded a flawed hermeneutic which elevated church fathers and popes above Scripture, a cacophony of divided theological positions filled the void."

Seems like a restoration of authority, and continuing revelation, and the open canon that goes with these things, is the answer.

3. I like #33:

• "God, in His limitless mercy, continues to use Protestant churches for His glory in spite of our fragmentation." 

Protestantism paved the way for the Restoration.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

...........................

• "That God uses a fractured, conflicted Church for His purposes in no way justifies the unspiritual way many Protestant churches and denominations came into existence."

Very true.

5. #41, #80 and #91 are intriguing:

• "The speed with which we revolt against spiritual authorities who disagree with our views displays our propensity toward rebellion, ignoring the fact that rebellion against divinely appointed authorities equals rebellion against God. (John 19:11; Romans 13:1)"
• "Since the Reformation, it has become commonplace to blaspheme constituted spiritual authorities (like pastors, elders, denominational leaders, evangelists) in the church."
• "The Protestant Church shall not overcome its penchant for dismemberment until those in spiritual leadership and authority take responsibility for the sins of our 'fathers' as well as our present sins."

This sounds fairly . . . Latter-day Saintish:

• "For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith."  (D&C 21:5) 
• "(W)hether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:38)
• "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."  (Matt. 10:40)
• "Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water..."  (3 Nephi 12:1)
• "Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you."  (D&C 112:20)

Who are these "spiritual authorities" / "divinely appointed authorities" / "constituted spiritual authorities" / "spiritual leadership" in Protestantism?  By what means do those claiming such authority justify that claiming?

Same goes with #86:

• "The absence of teaching and an understanding of mediatorial authority since the Reformation, limits Protestant efforts to get free from its endless cycles of division."

What is this "mediatorial authority"?

...............................

7. #57 makes an important, though IMO flawed, point:

• "Let the authority of Scripture be the bond among Protestants, not our divergent views on what the Bible teaches. (2 Timothy 3:16)"

This sounds nice, but it doesn't work in the real world.  "{T}he authority of scripture" is an eye-of-the-beholder thing.  Indeed, it is what perennially divides Protestantism.

Very well said.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

  The unifying component our Protestant brothers and sisters lack is priesthood authority.  

Important, yes.  However, far more important is the unifying power of the Holy Spirit, which is so often ignored by Protestants.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

8. #92 is interesting:

• "When genuine brokenness over our division and rebellion ensues, a new spirit can fill the Protestant Church, creating a God-honoring unity that our Lord will bless and a power to the Gospel we have not seen in a long time."

Has Protestantism ever experienced this "God-honoring unity"?  If so, when?  Where?

.................................

Protestantism in America is crashing and dissolving, as it has already in Europe and England.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Protestantism paved the way for the Restoration.

Yes.  As did Catholicism.  

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

The unifying component our Protestant brothers and sisters lack is priesthood authority.  

Important, yes.  However, far more important is the unifying power of the Holy Spirit, which is so often ignored by Protestants.

Agreed.  The Gift of the Holy Ghost comes to use via restored priesthood authority, so these components work together. 

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Protestantism in America is crashing and dissolving, as it has already in Europe and England.

I wonder if the same can be said re: Islam.  Just saw this:

The rise of secularism.  The effects of increased access to information via the Internet.  Internal divisions within Islam.  Conflicts between Islamic "law" and governance and secular law/governance.  

The Church has been heavily influenced by the rise of secularism and Internet-based effects, so we have that in common.

There is some "division" within the Church, but I think not nearly as bad as what we see in Islam.

The Church disclaims any secular authority, so we essentially avoid the conflicts that arise from that.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Tony uk]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Protestantism paved the way for the Restoration.

Very well said.

Important, yes.  However, far more important is the unifying power of the Holy Spirit, which is so often ignored by Protestants.

Protestantism in America is crashing and dissolving, as it has already in Europe and England.

The church of England seems to be branching of in different directions. And non of the branches seem which way they are going. As are many of the protestant denominations in the UK.

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, Devobah said:

37. If God reaches anyone through such hostile divisions, it only reflects God’s mercy, or sense of humor.

This one is my favorite.

In conversations I have had with American atheists who are antagonistic toward Christianity, there are two main themes that I have observed among them:

1. The divisive contention and disagreement among Christians and the judgmental attitudes displayed against those who are not Christian is nothing that they want to be a part of and is evidence that no "god" could possibly exist (in their view).
2. Their rejection of a God is often based on ideas (or caricatures) about God that are derived from specific Protestant doctrines, such as Calvinism's views of the sovereignty of God and the presence of evil in the world (as an example).  

If we claim to be Christian we need to follow Christ's teachings.   As Jesus taught his disciples, "ye are the light of the world".  What does that "light" (or lack thereof) communicate to others?

[Dario_M]

Oh my... i also just hate those Linkedin accounts as well. I've never understood the purpose of those accounts anyway. 

Edited March 7 by Dario_M

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Oh my... i also just hate those Linkedin accounts as well. I've never understood the purpose of those accounts anyway. 

It provides a background for potential employers to look at, like an extended resume.  I have seen one business professor say his number one suggestion on how to get the job one wants after college is for college students to start writing up LinkedIn posts dealing with their desired job so when their future potential employer looks at their account as they often will when looking at job candidates, they can see a long term investment of time and attention to the career, which may give them an edge over someone with good grades, but lacking any public history/experience in the field.  Given the high turnover these days with employees at least in the US (changing jobs frequently, there isn’t as much loyalty to the company any more), showing a long term interest implies you will more likely stay with the job.   I have read stats of 80% of college students changing their majors multiple times and around 20% of the 1/3 wanting to change their jobs want to go into another field.  I don’t know how accurate those stats are.  Most employers likely want employees to stick around longer than 4 years, especially if there is extensive training/adjustment to the job involved, I am guessing.

Edited March 7 by Calm

[Dario_M]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

It provides a background for potential employers to look at, like an extended resume.  I have seen one business professor say his number one suggestion on how to get the job one wants after college is for college students to start writing up LinkedIn posts dealing with their desired job so when their future potential employer looks at their account as they often will when looking at job candidates, they can see a long term investment of time and attention to the career, which may give them an edge over someone with good grades, but lacking any public history/experience in the field.

They can also just send their resume to their future employer. And that will do it as well. 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

 Given the high turnover these days with employees at least in the US (changing jobs frequently, there isn’t as much loyalty to the company any more).

That's not only in the US.🇺🇲 In the Netherlands🇳🇱 we also have this problem. And i guess...a lot more other country's as well. 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

showing a long term interest implies you will more likely stay with the job.

But why does all this private information needs to be online? On a Linkedin account? Where everyone can see it. 🤷‍♀️

3 hours ago, Calm said:

 I have read stats of 80% of college students changing their majors multiple times and around 20% of the 1/3 wanting to change their jobs want to go into another field.  I don’t know how accurate those stats are.  Most employers likely want employees to stick around longer than 4 years, especially if there is extensive training/adjustment to the job involved, I am guessing.

Yeah i guess that as well indeed. 

Edited March 7 by Dario_M

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

And that will do it as well. 

Resumes won’t have all the posts and ongoing stuff that LinkedIn can carry for them.  So they are not as good at showing details of experience.  Plus resumes can be padded, fudged.  But Linked In shows timestamps, so it gives better providence so to speak. It shows an actual history rather than the resume just telling about it.

Edited March 7 by Calm

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

But why does all this private information needs to be online?

It is no more private than ideas and discussions posted here.  Does it bother you people will be able to see what you talk about here?

It doesn’t need to be online, the individual isn’t forced to do it, they get to choose what they want to put up; it just is helpful in allowing employers another avenue of getting to know their future employees up front and individuals another avenue to sell themselves as the best match for the job. If the company is going to be investing significant money in the new hire in salary, training costs, etc, it makes sense they are going to want to get the most for their investment. LinkedIn gives a person a chance to present their job qualifications in a more complete form than a resume will. In the highly competitive arena that is getting a great job you want right out of school or at anytime, it makes sense to make yourself look as best suited for the job as possible.

[Dario_M]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Resumes won’t have all the posts and ongoing stuff that LinkedIn can carry for them.  So they are not as good at showing details of experience.  Plus resumes can be padded, fudged.  But Linked In shows timestamps, so it gives better providence so to speak. It shows an actual history rather than the resume just telling about it.

But with Linkedin you have less privacy. 

[Dario_M]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

It is no more private than ideas and discussions posted here.  Does it bother you people will be able to see what you talk about here?

No. But i don't put my phone number, last name, or adres on here. So i believe that that is not the same thing you see. On Linkedin that's a compleet differend storie. It works differend on there.

But yeah..if people are okay with it then that's up to them. But i myself have a hard time getting it.🤷‍♀️ Oh my. 

 

[Stargazer]

On 3/6/2025 at 4:30 PM, Devobah said:

26. Some of our children witness us devouring each other and flee the church rather than joining our cannibalism. Generations have thus been lost.

27. Others of our children witness our divisiveness and inherit the same brutal spirit.

28. A layman could observe our behavior and astutely ask questions such as, “Where is discernment? Where is wisdom? Why have Protestants been so inclined to make war against brethren who disagree with them? Why wield the sword against one’s own?” (1 Kings 12:24)

30. Again, an observer could ponder, “Perhaps, after 500 years, it’s time for the Protestant Church to ask the question Gideon posed, ‘If God is with us, why has all this happened to us?’” (Judges 6:13)

34. Though we have been unable to stay unified for long, the Gospel has gone forth from us, but it has been tarnished by our divisions.

37. If God reaches anyone through such hostile divisions, it only reflects God’s mercy, or sense of humor.

42.When Paul wrote to the Corinthian church “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you,” he acknowledges the presence of divisions threatening their spiritual health, yet the church retained its singular corporate identity. (1 Cor. 11:19)

 

I happened to read something today that kind of interfaces with some of these sentiments. It was on the Testify YouTube channel, and he posted this:

"With the barbarians of atheism and Muhammadism at the gate, I’m not wasting my time debating which sect of Christianity is the “one true church.” If Christians put half as much zeal into evangelizing the world as they do into converting each other to their own brand of Christianity, we’d be in the middle of a revival. Don't lose sight of the real spiritual war going on."

On the other hand, he has posted at least eight videos specifically against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Maybe as a Protestant he feels free to do this, but it doesn't make any sense in light of what he wrote here. I responded:

So... what about those 8 videos on your channel that zealously drag Mormonism through the mud? In your little statement here, you are essentially making clear that you believe there is no "one true church." Fair enough. But if there is no "one true church," why did you spend an inordinate amount of effort denigrating the faith of 15 million or so Christians? Unless you are about to tell me that Mormons aren't Christians? And if that's how you feel, how can you say there is no "one true church," if you then declare that this church or that church isn't really Christian? Every Christian church is true, unless it believes A, B, or C? Or the only churches that are true are ones that believe X, Y, or Z? In that case, you are contradicting yourself about there being no "one true church," because if you do either of those two things, you've just defined the "one true church." It seems you've painted yourself into a corner.

 

 

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I happened to read something today that kind of interfaces with some of these sentiments. It was on the Testify YouTube channel, and he posted this:

"With the barbarians of atheism and Muhammadism at the gate, I’m not wasting my time debating which sect of Christianity is the “one true church.” If Christians put half as much zeal into evangelizing the world as they do into converting each other to their own brand of Christianity, we’d be in the middle of a revival. Don't lose sight of the real spiritual war going on."

On the other hand, he has posted at least eight videos specifically against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Maybe as a Protestant he feels free to do this, but it doesn't make any sense in light of what he wrote here. I responded:

So... what about those 8 videos on your channel that zealously drag Mormonism through the mud? In your little statement here, you are essentially making clear that you believe there is no "one true church." Fair enough. But if there is no "one true church," why did you spend an inordinate amount of effort denigrating the faith of 15 million or so Christians? Unless you are about to tell me that Mormons aren't Christians? And if that's how you feel, how can you say there is no "one true church," if you then declare that this church or that church isn't really Christian? Every Christian church is true, unless it believes A, B, or C? Or the only churches that are true are ones that believe X, Y, or Z? In that case, you are contradicting yourself about there being no "one true church," because if you do either of those two things, you've just defined the "one true church." It seems you've painted yourself into a corner.

If they can other all of Islam and atheism into “barbarians at the gates” they aren’t looking to be inclusive. Arguing that you are “one of the good ones” and not a barbarian might work but only until they no longer need you. This has ‘alliance of necessity’ written all over it. We have to defeat the real enemy! Then later we can prune out the Christians that are semi-barbaric.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

On the other hand, he has posted at least eight videos specifically against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Does he think we are Christians?

[Devobah]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Does he think we are Christians?

He does not. He’s got several videos about the Church and Joseph Smith.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Devobah said:

He does not. He’s got several videos about the Church and Joseph Smith.

Not surprising

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Does he think we are Christians?

Haven't taken the time to investigate this. I've usually just seen his short-form videos which are generally good Christian teachings. I didn't check out his general channel until the day he posted that little bit that I responded to. Which was why I responded to it.

[Injeun]

The bible, which testifies of one gospel, one Christ, and one God, is a silent witness against the supposed bible based religion which is known as Christianity. This is because the religion is comprised of tens of thousands of differing gospels, Christs, and Gods, one set for each different denomination. So it isn't actually bible based. It's more bible adjacent or reflective, as in an image. It isn't united in Christ, but is divided from within its own particulars. So it has no standing whatsoever from within or without. There is no God in it. It is the work of men, and may as well be the religion of gossip about God. It is the result of men presuming to venture into divine matters and assume authority.

I say this, but I don't make it this way. Men have done so. It is self evident. It isn't my religion or God. It is an imposter with tens of thousands of sharp tongues and prison cells, holding 2.6 billion souls captive in its belly. And is two thousand years in the making.

So when they say the LDS Church isn't Christian, it means the LDS Church isn't an imposter. The reason they reject the LDS Church is because to welcome it, would be to rend Christianity to the ground as if the stars would fall from the sky and the sun and moon cease to give their light. As an LDS member, I say that God is real, he lives and is divine. And the Bible testimony is true. So there is God and hope. The value in the false religion of Christianity resides in the souls of its captives, not the image it presents.

 “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek. He hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound,

 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn,

 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness, that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified.” Isaiah 61

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/6/2025 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

Yes.  As did Catholicism.  

Nope.  It was only with the rise of Protestantism that the Restoration had a chance to preach.  The RC inquisition made that impossible.

On 3/6/2025 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

Agreed.  The Gift of the Holy Ghost comes to use via restored priesthood authority, so these components work together. 

Nope.  Denial of the Holy Spirit is the biggest problem for mainline and evangelical Protestants.  They substitute sola scriptura, which means that they are cultivating their own human interpretations, foolishly inviting rampant denominationalism -- which is suicidal.  Joseph Smith, for example, first experienced a direct theophany -- long before he ever received priesthood authority.  Inspiration comes first, as any convert will attest.  The missionaries depend upon it.

On 3/6/2025 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

I wonder if the same can be said re: Islam. .....................

The rise of secularism.  The effects of increased access to information via the Internet.  Internal divisions within Islam.  Conflicts between Islamic "law" and governance and secular law/governance.  

Nope.  Islam will be the dominant religion in Europe and England by the end of this century.  Demography is destiny.

On 3/6/2025 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

The Church has been heavily influenced by the rise of secularism and Internet-based effects, so we have that in common.

There is some "division" within the Church, but I think not nearly as bad as what we see in Islam.

The Church disclaims any secular authority, so we essentially avoid the conflicts that arise from that.

....................

Nope.  Since Latter-day Saint theology is naturalistic and humanistic, the effects of secularism are minimal.  Indeed, the internet and modernism merely advance the interests of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- which has been rapidly adapting to modern science and technology.  No other religion has been as effective, although the SDAs are doing just fine.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/6/2025 at 2:36 PM, Tony uk said:

The church of England seems to be branching of in different directions. And non of the branches seem which way they are going. As are many of the protestant denominations in the UK.

And yet, there have been so many brilliant Christians in England, whom so many of us adore:  Tom Wright (now at Oxford), Margaret Barker, James Barr (RIP), C. S. Lewis (RIP), et al.

[Tony uk]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And yet, there have been so many brilliant Christians in England, whom so many of us adore:  Tom Wright (now at Oxford), Margaret Barker, James Barr (RIP), C. S. Lewis (RIP), et al.

And I must admit, I failed to mention my own background, the Roman Catholic Church. There has been a decline in numbers there also. Especially with different branches there, Traditional, Moderate, progressive. It is becoming something a bit sad in a way.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope.  It was only with the rise of Protestantism that the Restoration had a chance to preach.  The RC inquisition made that impossible.

Did not the Catholic Church contribute to the preservation of ancient texts over the years and the spread of Christianity in general (as far as I know conversion rates are higher among fellow Christians than non Christian’s)?

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, Injeun said:

So when they say the LDS Church isn't Christian, it means the LDS Church isn't an imposter.

I realize that you may be generalizing what it means to be "Christian" according to the topic of this thread, but it's not fair to group all of Christianity (apart from the LDS Church) as an "imposter".  There may be incorrect doctrines among them (as there may even be among believers in the LDS Church), but there are also many individuals in Christianity (apart from the LDS Church) who sincerely desire to be true followers of Christ and who also exhibit Christ-like behavior.  Furthermore, there are true followers of Christ in the LDS Church and we are a Christian church by definition.

The problem as I see it from the items listed in the OP of this thread is that there is a general attitude of persecution and judgement of others among some that profess to be Christians which is a behavior that is totally foreign to the doctrines of Christ, and it is that same lack of love for others that President Nelson has admonished us to avoid (and why would he do that if that attitude did not also exist among some members of the LDS Church?)