The Shocking IGNORANCE About Mormonism: It’s Worse Than You Think (Ft Luke Hanson)

[teddyaware]

10 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Ah ok, so the earliest followers of Christ, the ones who knew him personally, were heretics and it wasn't until the 3rd and 4th centuries that we start to see the formation of the true apostolic New Testament church established by Christ by leaders who lived hundreds of years after Christ.

I'm not going to try and convince you of anything, but if you are interested in a different perspective on the early Church:

• Were the Ebionites Heretics? Or Our Best Witness to the Jesus Movement?
• The surprising beliefs of the first Christians
• Who Were the Ebionites? With Dr. Ali Ataie

The New Testament makes it clear that the Judaizing quasi-Christians who rejected Christ’s divinity and refused to give up on the law of Moses were heretics, while the true apostles and prophets whose writings constitute the New Testament were the true believers who exalted Christ’s divinity and understood that the law of Moses was inferior to the law of the gospel. The true Christians realized that law of Moses was designed by God to be a temporary burdensome punishment affixed due to Israel’s rejection of the Gospel law at the time of the exodus.

The Ebionites had no priesthood power, and while they may have correctly anticipated some aspects of the true Messianism that would be restored and fully fleshed out by Jesus Christ himself, their ascetic desert sect was not the true church of Christ founded by Christ himself upon the foundation of living apostles and prophets who were ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood, a greater and more comprehensive priesthood than the priesthood of Aaron.

You may reject the validity of the Apostle Paul’s powerful New Testament condemnations leveled against the counterfeit Judaizing quasi-Christians of his day, but I will not because both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants testify that the New Testament, as presently constituted, is the word of God. When the prophet Joseph Smith sifted through the epistles of Paul to make inspired clarifications and corrections, Paul’s condemnations of the quasi-Christian Judaizers were left intact.

Edited April 30, 2025 by teddyaware

[Zosimus]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The New Testament makes it clear that the Judaizing quasi-Christians who rejected Christ’s divinity and refused to give up on the law of Moses were heretics

CFR

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The true Christians realized that law of Moses was designed by God to be a temporary burdensome punishment affixed due to Israel’s rejection of the Gospel law at the time of the exodus.

CFR that there was such a distinction in the NT between "true Christians" that believed this and not-true Christians that didn't.

Paul wasn't against Jewish Christians choosing to continue to follow the Law eg Acts 21:20-26. Rather Paul was against Jewish Christians forcing gentile Christians to follow the Law. It had nothing to do with true vs false Christianity

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The Ebionites had no priesthood power, and while they may have correctly anticipated some aspects of the true Messianism that would be restored and fully fleshed out by Jesus Christ himself, their ascetic desert sect was not the true church of Christ founded by Christ himself upon the foundation of living apostles and prophets who were ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood, a greater and more comprehensive priesthood than the priesthood of Aaron.

I think you are confusing the Ebionites with someone else

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

You may reject the validity of the Apostle Paul’s powerful New Testament condemnations leveled against the counterfeit Judaizing quasi-Christians of his day, but I will not because both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants testify that the New Testament, as presently constituted, is the word of God

It doesn't matter what you or I think 2000 years later. There were a number of 1st century Christians that disagreed, publicly, with Paul. Many flat out rejected him as an apostle. If you don't agree with them then you are proving my point, your Mormonism is not entirely identical with the beliefs of those Christians closest in time and place to Jesus Christ's Church. They would certainly disagree with your opinion that they were Judaizing quasi-Christian heretics

Edited April 30, 2025 by Zosimus

[teddyaware]

10 hours ago, Zosimus said:

CFR

CFR that there was such a distinction in the NT between "true Christians" that believed this and not-true Christians that didn't.

Paul wasn't against Jewish Christians choosing to continue to follow the Law eg Acts 21:20-26. Rather Paul was against Jewish Christians forcing gentile Christians to follow the Law. It had nothing to do with true vs false Christianity

I think you are confusing the Ebionites with someone else

It doesn't matter what you or I think 2000 years later. There were a number of 1st century Christians that disagreed, publicly, with Paul. Many flat out rejected him as an apostle. If you don't agree with them then you are proving my point, your Mormonism is not entirely identical with the beliefs of those Christians closest in time and place to Jesus Christ's Church. They would certainly disagree with your opinion that they were Judaizing quasi-Christian heretics

A sampling of 3 presentations among many on the subject of the Judaizers who got the gospel of Jesus Christ wrong. The first provides a Latter-Day Saint perspective on the subject. By the way, I find this debate rather silly if you’re a practicing Latter-Day Saint because any knowledgeable member of the church knows that the Judaizing quasi-Christians of Paul’s day were doctrinally incorrect. If you’re not an active Latter-Day Saint, my apologies.

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-12-no-1-2011/jerusalem-conference-first-council-christian-church
 

https://biblehub.com/topical/naves/p/paul--contends_with_the_judaizers_against_their_circumcision_theology.htm

 

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/why-were-judaizers-such-big-problems-in-the-early-church.html

 

Edited April 30, 2025 by teddyaware

[Zosimus]

The Christians (Jews) who personally knew and followed the 12 apostles (Jews) and Jesus (Jew) during his earthly ministry willingly followed the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was not only an important part of their identity and faith as Jews, but if they willfully rejected any parts of the Law they would have faced social and economic consequences. For this reason, many of the early Christians in Jerusalem continued observing the Law. Jesus never required that his Jewish followers abandon the Law of Moses. Jesus himself encouraged his followers to continue following the Law of Moses. The 12 apostles also followed the Law of Moses.

My point is that at that time, while Jesus was teaching his Jewish followers, no one would have considered Jesus, the 12 apostles or his followers to be quasi-Christian heretics, Judaizers, or even “less Christian” simply for continuing in the Law

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

A sampling of 3 presentations among many on the subject of the Judaizers who got the gospel of Jesus Christ wrong.

The point of this thread is to discuss the shocking ignorance about Mormonism of Christian youtubers who say things like "Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism"

In the first link you shared, the section under "The Law of Moses" in the article is based almost entirely on LDS scriptures and revelations, not the Bible. Ideas like the Israelites being taught the fullness of the gospel at Sinai, the tablets of Moses containing the gospel, or Jesus being the one who gave the Law as Jehovah. These ideas are unique to Mormonism and come from LDS sources like the Doctrine and Covenants and the JST. These teachings would have been completely foreign to the Jewish Christians of the 1st century. The uniquely Mormon teachings shared in the article actually supports what those Christian YouTubers argue: that the Mormon view is distinct, so different from their understanding of the Bible that they say things like "Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism". But this is not out of shocking ignorance, it is because Mormonism really is unique and different from their Christianity. Islam is indeed closer to Christianity than Mormonism when discussing things like the Law of Moses. Muslims certainly don't believe that the first set of tablets on Sinai contained the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Like mainstream Christians, Muslims would also not accept that Jehovah was a pre-mortal Jesus

The second link you provide says this: 

"Paul's primary argument against the Judaizers is rooted in the doctrine of justification by faith. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul emphatically states, "We know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:16). Paul asserts that salvation is a gift of grace through faith in Jesus Christ, independent of the works of the law."

Would you say that is correct? 

The third article you shared asks what did the Judaizers believe? Then provides the following important context.

As distinguished in the Lexham Bible Dictionary, the first century Judaizers generally fell into one of three groups:

1. Custom-observing. These individuals made a personal choice to adhere to Jewish customs; however, they did not treat these practices as necessary components of salvation.
2. Social. This group embraced a separatist viewpoint. They made every effort not to associate with the Gentile populace who did not follow the same practices.
3. Elitists. These people believed the observance of the Law was necessary for salvation, including circumcision and Sabbath-keeping. This article will focus on the Social and Elitist Judaizers.

Likewise, you are focusing on the Social and Elitist Judaizers while I am trying to communicate that there were also good number of Jewish Christians (eg Jesus, the 12 apostles, Paul) that were Custom-observers. You can't lump all the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus into a group you call quasi-Christian heretics just because they continued to follow the Law of Moses

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

By the way, I find this debate rather silly if you’re a practicing Latter-Day Saint because any knowledgeable member of the church knows that the Judaizing quasi-Christians of Paul’s day were doctrinally incorrect. 

I grew up a practicing Mormon in the Bible Belt. My default scripture was James, faith without works is dead. For the reasons I provide above, I don't agree with your characterization that the earliest Jewish members of the Church who continued to follow the Law of Moses were Judaizing quasi-Christians. They were certainly doctrinally incorrect to require gentiles to get circumcised. But they were not doctrinally incorrect to require gentiles to follow the guidance of the apostles by keeping other parts of the Law of Moses such as not eating meat of strangled animals or avoiding blood offered to idols

Edited May 1, 2025 by Zosimus

[rpn]

What struck me is how little time it took from Jesus leaving to getting the Church really messed up (200 years later they were talking about Jesus not as the Savior, Redeemer, Son of God but as a great man who was favored of God ---if I got the clip correct).  We clearly need a prophet and an orderly administration throughout the world.   (Of course I got that testimony a really long time ago when I read the "Left Behind" series.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

What struck me is how little time it took from Jesus leaving to getting the Church really messed up (200 years later they were talking about Jesus not as the Savior, Redeemer, Son of God but as a great man who was favored of God ---if I got the clip correct).  We clearly need a prophet and an orderly administration throughout the world.   (Of course I got that testimony a really long time ago when I read the "Left Behind" series.

It wasn’t 200 years later. There were all kinds of strains of Christianity virtually from the start. Figuring out what the death and resurrection of Jesus meant wasn’t an immediate thing for Christianity as a whole. Throwing verbal shade at other Christians for being heretics was a common passtime very early in Christianity. Orthodoxy came later.

[longview]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It wasn’t 200 years later. There were all kinds of strains of Christianity virtually from the start.

Only a few. Some were confused on the Baptism of Repentance (as administered by John the Baptist) and the Baptism for Membership in Christ's New Church (which came later in the three year ministry and post-resurrection). Some Jewish converts needed to be taught that circumcision was no longer required in the New Church.

The difference between the two baptism was the ordinance for Confirmation for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Figuring out what the death and resurrection of Jesus meant wasn’t an immediate thing for Christianity as a whole.

Cleopas and Simon were on the road to Emmaus discussing the events of the Crucifixion when they were joined by the veiled Christ. So what does Jesus do for these two men? He teaches them all over again: "Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Luke 24:27). At eventide, after the Savior disappears from them, they rushed back to Jerusalem to share their experience with the Apostles. There Jesus appears to the whole group fully revealing Himself.

This was the SOLID core of Christianity at the very beginning. That included faithful women who were witnesses of the Resurrection. Plus all the devoted disciples from the three year ministry.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Throwing verbal shade at other Christians for being heretics was a common pastime very early in Christianity. Orthodoxy came later.

There was solid orthodoxy at the beginning. It was decades later when the Apostles (Peter and Paul and others) were warning of devious wolves in sheep clothing.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, longview said:

Only a few. Some were confused on the Baptism of Repentance (as administered by John the Baptist) and the Baptism for Membership in Christ's New Church (which came later in the three year ministry and post-resurrection). Some Jewish converts needed to be taught that circumcision was no longer required in the New Church.

The difference between the two baptism was the ordinance for Confirmation for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

If you base the entire understanding of early Christianity exclusively from the Book of Acts. There was a lot more going on. Particularly as they tried to hold on to the idea that Jesus was the Messiah when Jesus did not do all the promised stuff the Messiah was supposed to do.

9 minutes ago, longview said:

Cleopas and Simon were on the road to Emmaus discussing the events of the Crucifixion when they were joined by the veiled Christ. So what does Jesus do for these two men? He teaches them all over again: "Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Luke 24:27). At eventide, after the Savior disappears from them, they rushed back to Jerusalem to share their experience with the Apostles. There Jesus appears to the whole group fully revealing Himself.

He expounded all scriptures concerning Himself. That exposition is unrecorded though so that doesn’t really clarify anything as you can put whatever you want into the box of ‘things Jesus said on the road to Emmaus’.

9 minutes ago, longview said:

This was the SOLID core of Christianity at the very beginning. That included faithful women who were witnesses of the Resurrection. Plus all the devoted disciples from the three year ministry.

While the gospels themselves say the apostles didn’t understand what Jesus had taught them to the point that they didn’t anticipate a resurrection. 

9 minutes ago, longview said:

There was solid orthodoxy at the beginning. It was decades later when the Apostles (Peter and Paul and others) were warning of devious wolves in sheep clothing.

There wasn’t a solid orthodoxy.

As we all know Peter and Paul agreed together on a pure orthodoxy and never disagreed and were united perfectly on all things as recorded in the *checks notes* wait….hold on.

[Zosimus]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

As we all know Peter and Paul agreed together on a pure orthodoxy and never disagreed and were united perfectly on all things as recorded in the *checks notes* wait….hold on.

Peter and Paul had their moments, but fortunately Jesus had left the Church with James to clear up any confusion. If only Luke and Paul hadn't done so well pushing him out for all his offensive Judaizing 😅

If You Want to Follow Jesus: Go To James the Just

Edited May 2, 2025 by Zosimus

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Peter and Paul had their moments, but fortunately Jesus had left the Church with James to clear up any confusion. If only Luke and Paul hadn't done so well pushing him out for all his offensive Judaizing 😅

If You Want to Follow Jesus: Go To James the Just

Valentinus preserved the true core of Christianity.

*ducks and runs*

[Nofear]

Zosimus's position illustrates very clearly the argument behind Jonah Barne's book. Mormonism's “unique” take on Jewish teaching isn't so unique at all. Of the extant records, the Old Testament is the odd man out.

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Zosimus's position illustrates very clearly the argument behind Jonah Barne's book. Mormonism's “unique” take on Jewish teaching isn't so unique at all. Of the extant records, the Old Testament is the odd man out.

Could you go into more detail on this please?

[teddyaware]

As one who has an unshakable testimony of the divine authenticity of the restored gospel, I’m supremely confident that the Apostle Paul got the gospel supremely right and the proud, bullheaded, insubordinate Judaizers are the ones who got it abysmally wrong! Every four years a great deal of the Come Follow Me study time is devoted to the teachings of the Apostle Paul, not the teachings of the Judaizers. Why? Because the Judaizers were preaching a false gospel, an incorrect system of belief that the Bible roundly condemns…

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1)

Edited May 2, 2025 by teddyaware

[Niblo]

On 4/29/2025 at 6:13 PM, JVW said:

By "the Beloved" do you mean Jesus Christ? Or do you mean Allah? Or just God in general? From what I understand Islam does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or that He was crucified and resurrected. Which belief stands in stark contrast to LDS and Christianity.

I know of no LDS that would disagree with what you have written either.

Does Islam believe that everyone is Islam whether they know it or not?

If I understand this correctly. Everyone is going to heaven? Or perhaps, more specifically, everyone who followed whatever law and path that was "assigned" to them?

Those who believe what, exactly? Believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God? Believe in Allah?

Who is the Beloved?

There is one thing that distinguishes Christianity from other world religions. It is the belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which I understand is not a belief shared by Islam. What are the beliefs that you view as overlapping between Islam and Christianity but don't overlap with LDS?

I didn't know that we had Muslim representation on this board. I'm glad to read your perspective. A few questions: what is the Al-Ma’ida, the Al-Bayyina, the āyāt? Which sect of Islam are you, and why did you pick that sect over the other(s)?

Greetings.

Sorry for the delayed reply to your post.

You ask a number of questions.

First:

You ask: ‘By "the Beloved" do you mean Jesus Christ? Or do you mean Allah? Or just God in general?’

When I speak of the ‘Beloved’, I am referring to Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla).

You add:

‘From what I understand Islam does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or that He was crucified and resurrected. Which belief stands in stark contrast to LDS and Christianity.’

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says:

‘People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about Allāh except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of Allāh, His word (‘wakalimatuhu’), directed to Mary, a spirit (‘warūḥun’) from Him.  So believe in Allāh and His messengers and do not speak of three – stop (this), that is better for you – Allāh is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Nisa: 171’).

The word ‘wakalimatuhu’ refers – not to the Logos (the Second Person of the Trinity, as understood by Trinitarians) – but to speech; to a spoken word – any spoken word.

The word ‘warūḥun’ comes from the form ‘rūḥ’; meaning ‘soul’; ‘spirit’; and ‘inspiration’.  When applied to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām), it refers to his spirit soul.  We all possess the such a soul.

Yes, the Qur’an denies the crucifixion and resurrection of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām).

Second:

You ask: ‘Does Islam believe that everyone is Islam whether they know it or not?’

No. 

Third:

I wrote:

‘There is absolutely no requirement for a Christian (or a Jew) to embrace Islam – to become a Muslim.

‘Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) tells us: ‘We have assigned a law and a path to each of you.  If Allāh had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to Allāh and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Ma’ida: 48’).’ 

You ask:

‘If I understand this correctly. Everyone is going to heaven? Or perhaps, more specifically, everyone who followed whatever law and path that was "assigned" to them?

A wee bit of context:

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says:

‘People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should come to know one another. In Allāh s eyes, the most honoured of you are the ones most mindful of Him: Allāh is all knowing, all aware.’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Hujurat:13’).

These two sūrahs tell us that we have been given our own cultures and traditions – each with its assigned laws and pathway to the Beloved.  Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) desires that we to learn about each other; about people and cultures that differ from our own.  In the end, He will make clear the matters we differed about.

I am reminded of Brigham Henry Roberts – as you know, one-time Latter-day Saint General Authority – who writes:

‘We have the truth, I repeat, on this subject; that is, we have the truth so far as God has been pleased to reveal it. All truth respecting God is not yet revealed, even to the Church of Christ; but so much as he has revealed is true. Our feet in the matter have been set in the right path; we have lines of truth placed in our hands, which, if we and our children but follow patiently and with becoming humility, I am sure will lead us into that fullness of truth wherein is no incompleteness, but all is truth—God’s truth, and all the truth about God.

‘We believe in every principle and precept of the Gospel, and in all the law of God. We believe that every principle is essential. We believe that we should do our duty to God and to our fellowmen. We should do unto others as we would have them do to us. We should observe the laws of chastity, honesty and uprightness, deal justly with our neighbours, and kindly and mercifully with the erring. We should seek to do good at all times and under all circumstances.

‘The feeling should predominate in our hearts that "we are here, not to do evil, but to do good; not to increase error, but to diminish it and to increase the knowledge of the truth; to make men happy, and to spread happiness abroad in the world by persuading men to do that which is right. There is no real happiness in wickedness." (‘Mormon Doctrine of Deity: The Roberts-Van der Donckt Discussion’; my emphasis).

Continued:

Edited May 2, 2025 by Niblo

[Niblo]

Forth:

 I wrote that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) has to say about Christians and Jews:

‘Those who believe and do good deeds are the best of creation.  Their reward with their Lord is everlasting Gardens graced with flowing streams, where they will stay forever. Allāh is well pleased with them and they with Him.  All this is for those who stand in awe of their Lord.’ (Sūrah Al-Bayyina: 7 -8; my emphases).

You ask:

‘Those who believe what, exactly? Believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God? Believe in Allah?’

Those who believe in the truths revealed by the Prophets; those who follow the ‘Way’ that has been assigned to them; those who perform good deeds.

What people choose to believe is a matter of conscience. 

Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī – an Egyptian Sunni Muslim – writes

‘A principle of Islamic jurisprudence states that there is no condemnation of others in matters of scholarly disagreement.  Rather, there is only condemnation in matters upon which all the scholars have agreed.’ (‘Al-Ashbāh’).

Ibn Taymiyyah – another Sunni Muslim scholar – writes:

‘Whoever acts according to the opinions of scholars in matters of juristic discretion should not be condemned or boycotted.  Whoever acts according to one of two different opinions should not be condemned for it.’ (‘Majmūʻ al-Fatāwá 20/207 wal-Naẓāʼir 2/35’).

People are expected to follow their conscience (even if it conflicts with the religious verdict of respected scholars) until new learning, new understanding, creates honest doubt.  When this happens, one must: ‘Leave what makes you doubt for what does not make you doubt.  Verily, truth brings peace of mind and falsehood sows doubt.’ (Sunan al-Tirmidhī : Ḥadīth 2518).

By way of example, please permit me to speak of myself.

Born in 1945 – in the Rhondda Valley, South Wales – and raised a Baptist, I became, at the age of fifteen, a Catholic; and remained one for over fifty years.

For ten years I was a professed member of the Carmelite Third Order; and studied biblical and dogmatic theology; hermeneutics; biblical criticism; canon law, and so on.  I had excellent teachers.  I was a Thomist, and still have a very high regard for the methodology of Aquinas. 

I spent a year with the Carmelite Friars at Hazlewood Castle in Yorkshire (now a hotel); and over a year with the Cistercians (Trappists) at Mount Saint Bernard Abbey in Leicester, testing a vocation (I first visited the Abbey in my early twenties, and knew the community well).  It became clear that life in a religious order was not my calling, and so I became a husband and father (as the Abbey Secretary said to me: ‘Our novitiate is a seedbed of good Catholic marriages!’).  I look back at my time with the Carmelites and Cistercians with great affection.  Even though I no longer share all their doctrinal beliefs, I admire their spirituality, and their honest convictions; and their way of life – especially that of the Cistercians.

 About seventeen years ago, my son became a Muslim.  He obtained a degree in Classical Arabic; married a Moroccan lass (who I consider to be my third daughter); and now lives there.  He is a translator of Qur’anic and aḥadīth exegesis; and of other scholarly works. 

 Having gained a Muslim family, I made it my business to learn all I could about Islam (I’m still learning).  It was during this long process that I began to question certain Christian beliefs I once held as true; and which I had defended many times over the years.  Moving from Christianity to Islam was a painful journey (emotionally); but it was the right journey……at least for me. 

 New learning, new understanding, created honest doubt.  I felt obliged to leave what made me doubt for that which does not make me doubt. 

 Fifth:

You ask: ‘What are the beliefs that you view as overlapping between Islam and Christianity but don't overlap with LDS?’

On the Nature of God:

Trinitarian Christianity:

There is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Within the Godhead, the Father is entirely within the Son and entirely within the Holy Spirit.  The Son is entirely within the Father and entirely within the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is entirely within the Father and entirely within the Son.  In other words, the three Persons form a single unity, indivisible and permanent.  They are not three persons (gods) coexisting side by side, so to speak.  This is monotheism. 

The Church teaches that God does not have a body.  He is spirit: ‘Every corporeal thing, being extended, is compound and has parts.  But God is not compound: therefore He is not anything corporeal.   With this demonstrated truth divine authority also agrees.  For it is said: God is a spirit (John 4:24): To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, only God (1 Tim. 1:17): The invisible things of God are understood and discerned by the things that are made (Rom. 1:29).’ (St Thomas Aquinas: Summa Contra Gentiles - Chapter 20). 

You will know, of course, that Unitarian Christians also believe that the Beloved is pure spirit.

Islam: 

The entirety of Islamic teaching rests on the principle of tawḥīd, meaning 'oneness'.  This is Islam's most fundament concept: Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) is One (Al-'Aḥad) and Single (Al-Wāḥid).

‘Say: “He is Allāh the One (aḥadun), Allāh the eternal, the absolute (l-ṣamadu).  He begot no one nor was He begotten.  No one is comparable to Him.’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Ikhlas: 1-4’).

In Sūrah ‘Al-Shura 11’ we find confirmation that: ‘There is nothing like Him.’

This verse contains the word ‘ka’mithlihi’; a word that uses two letters to describe likeness.  The first (‘kaf’) is used to liken one thing to another to a great degree.  The second (‘mithl’) likens one thing to another to a small degree.  Linguistically, therefore, Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) is telling us that nothing at all can be compared to Him, not in the slightest degree. 

‘Al-Ikhlas’ tells us that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) is One; is Eternal; is Absolute; is beyond any possible comparison.  His very name (Allāh) means ‘the God’; and has been used by Arabic speaking Jews and Christians since pre-Islamic times. 

Islam teaches that the Beloved is pure spirit.

Latter-day Saints:

 God (the ‘Heavenly Father’) is an exalted man with a physical body of flesh and bone.

 Joseph Smith writes:

 ‘If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form— like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man.’ (‘Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345’).

 ‘The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us,’ (‘Doctrine and Covenants; Section 130:22’).

 Elder Roberts writes: 

‘He (Fr. Van der Donckt) should remember that our theology holds that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct and separate personages, in the sense that they are three distinct individuals; and that the Father is a personage of flesh and bone, as Jesus now is; but previous to Messiah’s birth into the world, he was a spirit, the First Born of the hosts of the spirits in heaven, and was with the Father in the beginning of the creation of our earth and its heavens.’ (‘Mormon Doctrine of Deity: The Roberts-Van der Donckt Discussion’).

 And this:

 ‘The Prophet Joseph Smith made this important statement: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God;” then he added something which to some ears is a little offensive—"and to know that we may converse with him, as one man converses with another.” On the same occasion, he also said: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.” (‘Ibid’; my emphasis).

 Continued:

Edited May 2, 2025 by Niblo

[Niblo]

On the Nature of Jesus:

Trinitarian Christianity:

Jesus Christ was the virgin born God incarnate who existed in all time with the Father and Holy Spirit in the eternal Trinity. He lived a sinless life, and willingly died on the cross as a sacrifice for the sin of all humanity.

It is a doctrine of the Church that the ‘Second Person of the Trinity’ (the ‘Divine Logos’) is united ‘hypostatically’ to Christ; and that this union took place at the moment of Christ’s conception.  

In the ‘hypostatic union’, each of Christ’s two natures (divine and human) continue untransformed, unimpaired and unmixed with the other; and this ‘union’ will never end. 

This doctrine opposes the Origenistic doctrine which states that Christ’s human soul pre-existed, and was united with the ‘Divine Logos’ before the Incarnation.

St Augustine writes: ‘From the moment in which He began to be a man, He is also God.’ (‘On the Trinity’; Thirteen; 17, 22’).

In short, Yeshua is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; true God and true man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father, and in the last days the same born according to his humanity for us and our salvation from the virgin Mary.

Unitarian Christians teach that Yeshua was wholly human, and nothing more.

Islam:

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says:

‘The angels said, ‘Mary, Allāh gives you news of a word (‘bikalimatin’) from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be held in honour in this world and the next, who will be one of those brought near to Allāh.  He will speak to people in his infancy and in his adulthood.  He will be one of the righteous.’ (Sūrah ‘Al‘Imran: 45-46’).

‘Bikalimatin’ is derived from the same root (‘kāf lām mīm’) as ‘wakalimatuhu’ and, as you might expect, also refers to a spoken word. 

‘Al‘Imran’ continues: 

‘She said, ‘My Lord, how can I have a son when no man has touched me?’ (The angel) said, ‘This is how Allāh creates what He will: when He has ordained something, He says only, "Be" (‘kun’), and it is.’ (Verse 47).

Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is indeed a word from Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla); and that word is ‘Be’; the command that brought him – and everything else – into being.

This ‘Be’ has nothing to do with the so-called ‘incarnation’.  Yeshua is both prophet and Messiah; but nowhere in the Qur’an is he referred to as God. 

Latter-day Saints:

‘Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father. That is why He is called the Only Begotten Son. He inherited divine powers from His Father.’ (‘Gospel Principles: p. 53’; my emphasis).

This passage suggests that Yeshua was sired through the process of sexual intercourse.   

On Human Beings:

Christianity:

Human beings are created in God’s image, meaning they have personal qualities similar to God’s. Every person is a unique, precious being of dignity and worth.

However, there is the matter of ‘original sin’.

Original sin is called ‘sin’ in an analogical, rather than literal sense and this is what confuses people. 

According to the Catholic Church, we are not born with something, but rather without something.  We are not born with sin in the normal sense of the word.  We are born without original holiness and justice; we are born with a fallen human nature.  The remedy, according to the Church, is Baptism, which sanctifies our soul and in so doing ‘washes away original sin’ by restoring our souls to their original state.  And that is what "original sin" is, a state rather than an act. 
 

The Church teaches that those who die in a state of ‘original sin’ are excluded from the Beatific Vision.  This doctrine was declared by both the 2^nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and by the Council of Florence (1438-1445).

The Catholic Encyclopaedia defines the Beatific Vision as: ‘The immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven.  It is called "vision" to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life.  And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed "beatific".’

Human beings are not born of heavenly parents; and do not become as the Beloved is.

Islam:

Human beings are a unique creation; each with a soul; conscience; knowledge; and free will, making them capable of understanding and choosing between right and wrong. 

Adam and Eve repented of their actions, and were forgiven.  Islam knows nothing of ‘original sin.

Human beings are Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)’s representatives on Earth; responsible for its protection; for maintaining balance and justice; and for following their assigned ‘paths’.  They are born with a natural moral sense (fiṭrah) that allows them to discern between good and evil.  They have an inherent dignity and value simply by virtue of being human, regardless of their achievements or social status. 

Each individual is responsible for their actions, and will be held accountable by Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) for their choices in life and the path they choose. 

Islam and Judaism teach that to sin is merely a part of life.  None of us is perfect, and each of us has an inclination to sin.  Both religions teach that no act is sinful unless the person knows it to be wrong, and has wilful intent. 

In Islam, three types of people cannot sin at all: those under the age of puberty; a person while asleep; and a person who lacks the mental capacity to know that what they did was wrong (who cannot distinguish between good and evil).

Human beings are not born of heavenly parents; and do not become as the Beloved is.

Latter-day Saints:

‘Every person who was ever born on earth is our spirit brother or sister. Because we are the spirit children of God, we have inherited the potential to develop His divine qualities. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become like our Heavenly Father and receive a fulness of joy.’ (‘Gospel Principles; p. 9’).

All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God: ‘Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal (physical) body.’ (‘Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith (1998)’; my emphasis).

‘All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity . . . It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality.’ (‘Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78,80’; my emphases).

Human are not tainted by ‘original sin’.  They are born basically good and are ‘gods in embryo.’  As you will know, a commonly quoted LDS aphorism (attributed to fifth LDS president Lorenzo Snow) says: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.’

Elder Roberts writes:

‘The Latter-day Saints do not teach that man in his present state and condition is God; on the contrary, they hold that there is a very, very wide difference between them, all the difference indicated by the Bible: but they do believe that through the eternities that will pass over man’s head, and with God for guide and teacher, he may become as his Father in heaven is, and that such is his destiny.’ (‘Mormon Doctrine of Deity: The Roberts-Van der Donckt Discussion’).

And this:

‘Is it a strange and blasphemous doctrine, then, to hold that men at the last shall rise to the dignity that the Father has attained? Is it “heathenish” to believe that the offspring shall ultimately be what the parent is?  My soul, I wonder why men at all conscious of the marvellous powers within themselves should question this part of our faith.’ (‘Ibid’).

Continued:

[Niblo]

After Death:

Christianity:

Eternal life in heaven with God for those who have trusted in Jesus Christ. Eternal separation from God’s presence in hell for the unsaved.

Islam:

According to Islam all will stand before Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) on the Day of Judgment.  Each of us will be given a record of our lives.  Those whose book is placed in their right hand will be admitted to Paradise; and those whose book is placed in their left will not.

It is said that a record of good deeds is made straight away; but that a record of bad deeds is delayed for some hours, to allow for repentance.  Even when a sin is recorded it can be erased by sincere and genuine repentance (tawbah). But He will overlook the bad deeds of those who have faith, do good deeds, and believe in what has been sent down to Muhammad - the truth from their Lord - and He will put them into a good state’ (Sūrah uhammad: 2’).

Not only does tawbah wipe out an evil deed, it transforms that deed into a good one: ‘Those who repent, believe, and do good deeds, Allāh will change the evil deeds of such people into good ones. He is most forgiving, most merciful’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Furqan: 70’).

Every day of their lives – many times a day – Muslims speak these words in prayer: ‘The Lord of Mercy’; ‘The Giver of Mercy’; ‘The Compassionate’; ‘The Merciful’.  These are the Beloved‘s Names. We did not give them to Him, He chose them for Himself.  Of all His Names these are His favorite. That is why we are asked to speak them so often – so that we do not forget Who it is that loves us; Who it is that binds us to Himself with ties of tenderness, mercy and forgiveness.

When we repent for the love of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) alone, and not out of fear of punishment; nor for any other reason. This will suffice.

The Dominican scholar, St Thomas Aquinas, writes: ‘It was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature.  For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways.’ (Summa Theologica: Part Three; L.1, C.3).

Muslims believe – I believe – that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) did indeed choose a different way of dealing with Adam – the way of forgiveness: ‘Then Adam received some words from his Lord and He accepted his repentance: He is the Ever Relenting, the Most Merciful.’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Baqara: 37’).

The sin of Adam was wiped out.  This act of Mercy ruled out any need for universal redemption.

Latter-day Saints:

Elder Roberts Writes:

‘Every man that dies shall live again, and shall stand before the bar of God, to be judged according to his works, whether they be good or evil. It is then that all will have to give an account for their stewardship in this mortal life. The word of God is spoken to the children of men. It has been revealed from the heavens. It is extant in the world. It is in force upon the people. Those that reject it will have to answer for it before God, the judge of the quick and the dead; while those that receive and obey the word of the Lord and keep "his commandments, as I have read, shall not only come to a knowledge of the truth, but shall look upon the face of the Redeemer and shall see and know him as he is. Furthermore, they will acknowledge that it is through the atonement and power of the Savior that they are brought again unto life immortal, to enjoy eternal felicity in the celestial kingdom of God, provided they have been obedient to his commandments.’ (‘Mormon Doctrine of Deity: The Roberts-Van der Donckt Discussion’).

As you know, the Saints teach that there are three levels of glory:

1. Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom for faithful Mormons where people may become gods or angels; ‘Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore, shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.’ (‘Doctrine and Covenants 132:20’).

2. Terrestrial Kingdom for righteous non-Mormons: ‘These are they who are a honourable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the a presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.’ (‘Doctrine and Covenants 76:75-76’).

3. Telestial Kingdom for wicked and ungodly: ‘These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers . . . who suffer the wrath of God on earth.’ (‘Doctrine and Covenants 76:103-104’). (See also ‘Doctrine and Covenants 76:57-119; 131:1-4.’)

‘These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie. These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth. These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of  Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work.’ (‘Doctrine and Covenants 76:103-106’).

Sixth: 

You ask: ‘What is the Al-Ma’ida, the Al-Bayyina, the āyāt?’

These are the Sūrahs I refer to (by name; and by their number in the Qur’an):

Al-Baqara (The Cow); number 2.

Al‘Imran (The Family of Imran); number 3.

Al-Nisa (Women); number 4.

Al-Ma’ida (The Feast); number 5.

Al-Anbiya (The Prophets); number 21.

Al-Shura (Consulation); number 42.

Muhammad (Muhammad); number 47.

Al-Hujurat (The Private Rooms); number 49.

Al-Bayyina (Clear Evidence); number 98.

Al-Ikhlas (The Purity (of Faith)); number 112.

ʾĀyah (plural: ʾĀyāt); is the Arabic word for omen, sign, proof, commandment, law, rule and/or guidance.  Each ʾāyah is considered a revelation from Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), carrying deep theological meaning and guidance for believers.  Out of respect, I prefer to use ʾāyah rather than ‘verse’; however, I have edited my previous post, to avoid confusion!

Now that I have answered your question, I shall revert to my preferred usage, in šāʾ Allāh.  I’m sure you won’t mind!

Seventh

You ask: ‘Which sect of Islam are you, and why did you pick that sect over the other(s)?’

I am a Sunni; for the simple reason that the bulk of my knowledge of Islam is derived from them!

My chosen school of theology is Ash‘ari; a school that represents the creed (‘aqida’) of the majority of Sunni Muslims; and has done so for over a thousand years.

These schools agree on the six articles of faith (known collectively as ‘arkān al-īmān’) to which all Muslims should adhere; namely:

Belief in the Oneness of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla): Muslims believe, as you know, that He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things; and that He is both omnipotent and omniscient.  The majority of Muslims believe – as you know – that He is also omnipresent.  Puritans dispute this.  All Muslims are unitarian.

Belief in His angels: The one difference between the Muslim and Christian understanding of these beings is that, for us, they do not possess free will.  They worship their Lord, and carry out His commands.  They did not, and cannot, rebel against Him.

Belief in His Books: These include the Qur’an; the Torah (given to Moses); the ʾInjīl (given to Yeshua); the Psalms (given to David); and the Scrolls (given to Abraham). 

Belief in His Prophets or Messengers: Twenty-five are mentioned by name in the Qur’an; and include Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Yeshua (may the Beloved be pleased with all of them).

Belief in the Day of Judgment.

Belief in the Divine Decree: In a nutshell, nothing happens without the Beloved’s decree; His fiat.  In the Qur’an we read: ‘Do not say of anything, “I will do that tomorrow,” without adding, “Allāh willing,” and whenever you forget, remember your Lord and say, “May my Lord guide me closer to what is right.”’ (Sūrah Al-Kahf: 23-24).

I hope this helps.

Blessings.

Edited May 2, 2025 by Niblo

[Nofear]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Could you go into more detail on this please?

Well, it's intended more as a fly-by post. I don't wish to fully engage. Nonetheless, I respect your request.

On 4/30/2025 at 9:37 PM, Zosimus said:

Ideas like the Israelites being taught the fullness of the gospel at Sinai, the tablets of Moses containing the gospel, or Jesus being the one who gave the Law as Jehovah. These ideas are unique to Mormonism and come from LDS sources like the Doctrine and Covenants and the JST. These teachings would have been completely foreign to the Jewish Christians of the 1st century. 

Several early Church fathers were quite explicit in their teaching Jesus was Jehovah. Many of the pre-Christian apocryphal records are also explicit in their High Christology. Given these two bookends the idea that the early Jewish Christian converts didn't hold these ideas as well seems less than plausible to me. Not that I particularly fault Zosimus's position. It's the traditional one.

The OP was about the video discussing how Mormonism is closer to Islam that creedal Christianity. For me answering that question about who is closer to who isn't all that interesting. I'm much more interested in what is true.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

As one who has an unshakable testimony of the divine authenticity of the restored gospel, I’m supremely confident that the Apostle Paul got the gospel supremely right and the proud, bullheaded, insubordinate Judaizers are the ones who got it abysmally wrong! Every four years a great deal of the Come Follow Me study time is devoted to the teachings of the Apostle Paul, not the teachings of the Judaizers. Why? Because the Judaizers were preaching a false gospel, an incorrect system of belief that the Bible roundly condemns…

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1)

So thank Irenaus for the big steps he took to basically begin to pick which books would make it into the New Testament.

[Robert F. Smith]

Then there is this from a five-year-old:  

 

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Then there is this from a five-year-old:  

 

From the video description: 

Quote

// ⚠️ DISCLAIMER 🚨 The stories presented on this channel are entirely fictional and crafted solely for entertainment. Any resemblance to real events, individuals, or situations is purely coincidental and unintentional. These narratives are not intended to depict, reference, or represent any actual occurrences, persons, or entities.

 

[JVW]

@Niblo Thank you for your reply. I respect the time and effort you took in crafting it. I'll respond when I have time.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Then there is this from a five-year-old:  

 

I prefer fiction that is more entertaining.

[Zosimus]

12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

As one who has an unshakable testimony of the divine authenticity of the restored gospel, I’m supremely confident that the Apostle Paul got the gospel supremely right and the proud, bullheaded, insubordinate Judaizers are the ones who got it abysmally wrong! Every four years a great deal of the Come Follow Me study time is devoted to the teachings of the Apostle Paul, not the teachings of the Judaizers. Why? Because the Judaizers were preaching a false gospel, an incorrect system of belief that the Bible roundly condemns…

If you go back to our first interaction it's clear I have been talking about "the Christianity of Jesus and the 12 apostles". My response to your first comment was that while Jesus was alive, all of his apostles and followers were Jews. They all followed the Law of Moses and they all encouraged each other to continue to follow the Law of Moses. Before Paul was even a Christian, Jesus taught his followers:

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Again, Paul was right to condemn those early Jewish converts that wanted to force the gentile converts to get circumcised, but that didn't come from Jesus and the 12 apostles. Jesus and the 12 apostles all followed the Law of Moses, and they taught their Jewish disciples to continue following the Law of Moses. In the earliest days of the gospel there was nothing proud or bullheaded or insubordinate about choosing to follow the Law of Moses. It was encouraged

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I prefer fiction that is more entertaining.

Okay.  How about this one: