Previously Aaron wrote about the current trend in Mormonism wherein Mormons tell Christians that Mormon beliefs are just the same as theirs – Mormon doctrines are the same as [fill-in-the-Christian-denomination] doctrines. I want to expand on a bit of what Aaron wrote, and add to it.
Mormonism claims that in 1820 all Christian denominations were fighting against each other, not only for converts, but for their unique versions of spiritual truth. According to Joseph Smith,
“…so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong. My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others. In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together?” (Joseph Smith—History 1:8-10)
If every Christian denomination advocates for disparate doctrines, as Joseph Smith said, how can Mormon doctrines be the same as all of them?
When Joseph Smith inquired of God to know which church was right, he claims he was told that the creeds and doctrines of these churches were all wrong (Joseph Smith—History 1:19) – if Mormonism’s doctrines are just the same as these other churches, then reason dictates that Mormonism’s doctrines must also be all wrong – right?
At General Conference in April 2006 President James Faust quoted Apostle Dallin Oaks,
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has many beliefs in common with other Christian churches. But we have differences, and those differences explain why we send missionaries to other Christians” (“The Restoration of All Things,” Ensign, May 2006, 61)
How can these beliefs be different but the same?
Larry Dahl, then Associate Dean of Religious Education at BYU explained,
“Truly the bright light of the Restoration, bursting forth from the time of the Prophet Joseph Smith, makes clear the fundamental, eternal principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That light, revealed through the Prophet, replaced doctrinal shadows and clouds of error the world had inherited as a result of the great Apostasy nearly 2,000 years ago.” (Ensign, “The Morning Breaks, the Shadows Flee,” Ensign, April 1997, 12)
Apostle Boyd K. Packer expressed a similar idea during the commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the priesthood restoration in 2004. As reported by Church News,
“The [Mormon] Church is not merely an adjustment or correction of what had become Christianity following the Apostasy, President Packer said. “It is a replacement, a restoration of organization and authority to what had been when Christ established it.” (Church News, 5/22/04, 4)
If the “bright light of the Restoration” replaced the “doctrinal shadows and clouds of error” that non-Mormons believe — if Mormonism is a replacement of traditional Christianity — how can Mormon beliefs be the same as those in apostate Christianity?
In fact, in 2007 President Faust told a gathering of mission presidents and their wives,
“Our message is distinctly different because it contains the gospel restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.” (Church News, 6/30/07, 5)
President Gordon B. Hinckley also explained that there are “many things of a doctrinal nature that distinguish this Church from all others” (Church News, 8/6/05, 2). Indeed, while encouraging Mormons to maintain their self-identification as Christians, Mr. Hinckley clarified,
“Now we may not be Christian by the standards of the world. In fact, we are not Christians by the standard under which they are Christian. If we were, there would have been no need for a restoration of the gospel. The restoration of the gospel occurred to correct all the mistakes of the past.” (Church News, 5/23/98, 5)
Members of the Mormon Church may be more comfortable telling Christians that Mormon beliefs are the same as their beliefs, but to say that is to be disloyal to the consistent teachings of Mormon leaders from Joseph Smith to current Mormon apostles, and to disdain the whole reason for The Restoration. The teachings of Mormonism are necessarily different from those of the allegedly apostate Christian world. Mormons, Christians invite you to gird up your loins and respectfully engage in the debate. Why? Because as Aaron said, “Truth matters. Life matters. Jesus matters.”
Sharon,
As with Aaron’s previous post, it is disingenuous to claim that Mormons say that LDS beliefs, doctrines, and practices are the “same” as those of Evangelicals when clearly (as you have abundantly quoted above) Mormons do not make such claims.
On the contrary, the Mormon message is that the Restored Gospel is different from that of apostate Christianity. The quote from Apostle Dallin H. Oaks is a good summary:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has many beliefs in common with other Christian churches. But we have differences, and those differences explain why we send missionaries to other Christians” (“The Restoration of All Things,” Ensign, May 2006, 61)
There are similarities (i.e. we believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost etc.) but there are also distinct differences in many aspects of theology (Christology, soteriology, eschatology, etc.) between LDS doctrine and that of Evangelical Protestants. It should be pointed out that there are similarities and differences of doctrine, theology, and practice between Evangelical Protestants and other denominations (Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Greek Orthodox, Coptic Christians etc.) albeit to a lesser degree.
I have pointed out many times that not every Christian is an Evangelical Protestant and there are strong differences in theology. For instance, most Christian denominations (Roman Catholics, Anglicans Orthodox, Coptics etc.) reject the notion of salvation by faith alone. These divisions on virtually every point of doctrine are the reason why there are over 3,000 different sects within Christendom.
These differences of doctrine, theology, and practice amongst the various Christian sects are not minimal or insignificant. Numerous wars of religion have been waged and millions of people have been killed because of differences of religious belief. It has been claimed that Christianity is the most violence-prone religion in the history of humanity. Why this should be so I am not sure but it probably stems from the innate intolerance of its various adherents to the beliefs held by others. This rabid intolerance is clearly on display here on this blog-site every week.
Something I have thought about often lately is the “great apostasy.” I am ashamed to say that as LDS I never once looked into this at all. I just believed it happened. I’ve been reading the writings of the early Church Fathers and studying early Christianity the past several months and it is easy to see that there was no great apostasy. I watched a little video on the Orthodox Christian site, I think it aired on 60 minutes, anyway, the interviewer was sent to a sacred place in the mountains of Turkey by hot air balloon. The place was beautiful and hidden. It was a place early Christians worshiped. Looking at that place and reading about what early Christians suffered for Christ is very humbling. I don’t know if I am strong enough to watch my children burn in the hot seat. I don’t know if I am strong enough to be tortured and burned at the stake. What these Christians went through is horrifying. It shows anything but a great apostasy! If Mormons would just study Christianity ( I never did) they would see just how early Christians followed Christ and how there was no way there was EVER a great apostasy.
Comfort is a big issue, I think. Its more comfortable and easier to not defend beliefs. And I think LDS are finding it harder to truly defend them. They find nuggets they stick to, but when confronted as that nugget not being what they think it is, they cover their ears and close their eyes. All the while they inch ever closer to being traditional Christians.
When I view their history, that is what I see: a move to abandon the hard lines of bygone eras to embrace views that are more relative and thus easier to justify. Part of this move is to use and espouse very Christian sounding words and ideas, except that they are decidedly are not quite the same. Rather, they are very different to those who pay attention.
I debate within myself whether it is worth a person’s time responding to this article and that from Aaron. In fact, I didn’t respond to Aaron’s because it is just simply such a weak straw man argument.
Please provide any example of me or other LDS person here or any LDS leaders saying that all LDS doctrines are “just the same” as those found in non-LDS Christianity. You simply cannot.
You seem to be arguing that two entities must be absoulutely equal and the same if any claim is made that they have any similarities. Black or white, all or nothing. There can be no similarities or things in common without two things being exactly alike. What a strange and obviously incorrect argument.
None of the quotations you offer above supports your argument. Our church does indeed have some things in common with other Christian churches. But it also has many clear, distinct differences. Is that really a difficult thing to understand.
FOF,
You wrote:
“Our church does indeed have some things in common with other Christian churches.”
Would you please list what those things are? I’d be very interested. I’ve listed the basic doctrines that all orthodox Christian religious prescribe to; several times on this blog. I can’t see where any of them are common with Mormon doctrine. Well maybe we could stretch a bit and recognize some of what the Community of Christ, for example, lists as their beliefs.
Maybe you’re talking about things like love your neighbor and do works of charity. But if you’re talking about basic doctrine, there is no similarity.
Also, there is no evidence that what your church, the Salt Lake City LDS, practices and believes was present in the first century Christian church.
FOF, you believe in a 19th century prophet who basically made it up as he went along.
FoF,
My issue with this is the deceptive nature of the LDS missionaries who stood on my doorstep last week and told me that Mormonism and Christianity are the same thing. The sister missionary said this after I told them that I had left Mormonism and converted to Christianity. Why did she say this? How many Christians has she said this to? From the sounds of it, this is something that is being said by LDS. These are 2 totally different religions with totally different doctrines. I think this needs to be addressed because if your leaders are telling these missionaries to say this, it’s a problem. It’s a blatant lie. It’s deceptive. I have been both Mormon and Christian and there is NOTHING remotely the same about them. Our God is different than yours, our Christ is different than yours, our Holy Spirit is different than yours, our doctrines and beliefs are different than yours. Please list the things that you feel are the same.
Falcon,
Seriously? I think you may be spending too much time focuesed on our two faiths. In the context of all the world religions, you may want to consider these common beliefs between us:
1. Supreme being
2. Christ is divine
3. Christ created the earth and the heavens
4. The writers of the Bible (OT and NT) were prophets of God
5. Salvation is impossible without Christ
6. Christ is the Savior of the world
7. We will live after this life as the same persons
8. We will be judged by Christ
9. We will be held accountable for our decisions
10. Adam and Eve as first parents who lived in the garden of Eden
11. Adam and Eve fell by partaking of the fruit and were cast out
12. We must exercise faith in Christ and follow Him for salvation
13. Ten commandments and the other commandments from Christ
14. Christ will return to the earth in power and glory and destroy the evil
And on and on.
But that being said, I fully and enthusiastically agree that there are also many things that we disagree about on doctrine and theology.
FoF,
It hardly seems to me like a “straw-man argument”. It may well not be aimed at you, but that does not suffice to constitute it as a strawman. Aaron and Sharon are primarily targeting a particular evasive manuever sometimes employed, largely at the lay level (including many LDS missionaries), by those who are seeking some way to get critics to simply ‘go away’. One common tactic – not universal, mind you, but definitely in evidence – utilize by some Latter-day Saints without an apologetic bent, is to attempt to convince the critic that their critical energies would better be spent elsewhere. Sometimes (but, again, not always) this function is enacted through statements following this implicit logic: “I see what you believe and what I believe as being substantially comparable; the differences that you criticize are relatively unimportant; hence, either we should coexist in unity or else agree to non-overlapping spheres of activity for the greater good.” Or, in simpler language: “But we obviously believe basically the same things! So why are you being so hostile to us?”
Aaron’s post offered a series of effective rebuttals to this tactical statement, while Sharon is building upon this critique by further elucidating the tensions between this particular lay-LDS tactic on the one hand and high-LDS statements that highlight the distinctiveness of the LDS faith.
Again, F0F, if you don’t use this particular tactic, good for you. I mean that – it’s good if you don’t use it. I think it’s both unfaithful to reality and structurally problematic. But keep in mind that your experience (if indeed you’ve never heard a Latter-day Saint employ this tactic) is not a universal one. And by all means criticize us when we extrapolate this tactic to a uniform one among Latter-day Saints – but likewise give us space to recognize the diversity of approaches among Latter-day Saints and to interact specifically with approaches that you would not endorse, and indeed that may be unfamiliar to you.
As a sidenote, if I were to begin to schematize LDS tactics in reacting to criticism, I would probably characterize this one as the ‘equalitarian tactic’ or perhaps ‘pluralist tactic’ – one that attempts to diffuse criticism by downplaying all meaningful difference. I would characterize another approach or set of approaches as the ‘fideist-dogmatist tactic(s)’ – one that attempts to diffuse criticism through strategies of retrenchment by constructing an epistemology that renders LDS beliefs incorrigible, or which seeks to undermine the concrete instance of criticism by leveling negative moral judgments on the epistemology seemingly presumed by the critic. (Any of these approaches can overlap with another approach, what we might call the ‘invective tactic’, which seeks to undermine criticism through aspersions on the character or motive of either the particular critic in question or all critics in general. Another overlapping approach, we might call the ‘caricature tactic’, which attempts to supplant the original criticism by something less tenable and thereby to entrap or confound the critic.) Another approach or set of approaches I would deem the ‘apologetic tactic(s) – one that attempt to diffuse criticism at least in part by substantively engaging it. Clearly, I think that the greatest integrity attaches to this latter approach, particularly in those lamentably rare cases where it is not combined with the ‘invective tactic’. FoF, my impression from reading your comments here (and I attempt to say this with all due respect) is that your approach commendably focuses on the apologetic tactic, but – far less commendably – with such a heavy admixture of the invective and caricature tactics that it too often displaces the substance. But again, none of those tactics are the one against which Aaron’s and Sharon’s post were targeted, and hence your own criticism here is simply off-base.
FoF,
I am sure this will be misconstrued by you, but on your list, I encourage you to rethink it. I won’t dwell on it much, but I will ask who is the supreme being, who is Christ, etc, down through to who is Adam and to what it means to exercise faith and follow Christ.
Surely, you are not so clouded that you do not see the significant discrepancies in our beliefs to not anticipate that our beliefs on all of these matters are not the same. You can say that the basic words are the same or at least very similar. True, but do you really think that our belief in a supreme being is the same?
johnsepistle, I enjoy reading your well reasoned comments . Your posts here are great .
fof
Before I reply to your comment, which I quote below, I want to review my Mormon ‘credentials.’ Why? So you know I was not a shirt tail Mormon. I was solidly in and fully believing until God came and got me. Born in the church. Baptized in 1962. Attended and graduated from BYU. Mission to Germany. Married in the temple. All 5 of your children born in the covenant. Elders Quorum presidency twice. Gospel doctrine teacher many times. Young Mens president twice. Ward executive secretary. High Priests group leader. Stake council member. Second then first counselor in a bishopric. I had deep spiritual turmoil without ever accessing negative web sites. That went on for some three years. But enough of that.
Your points I quote below are absolutely superficial. They absolutely do NOT go to the heart of the matter. Your points are absolutely what I would have listed while I was LDS. Absolutely. And when I did make such points, both to challenges from blood-pumping people and my own inner thoughts as to why anyone would ever question my Christianity within my Mormonism, I truly believed, as I perceive you do, that what I said was obviously beyond reproach. However, none of your points are self evident and beyond question.
1. Supreme being–Mormons and Christianity define the nature of the Supreme being so differently that they are not the same at all. Belief in a supreme being does not lead to similarity or concurrence. Thor was a supreme being. Apollo was a supreme being. Ala is a supreme being.
2. Christ is divine–Jesus within Mormonism is not the God; he is a god. God the Father is THE God, the one we worship. Thus, divinity within Mormonism is defined differently. The Doctrine and Covenants clearly states, for example, that Abraham has entered his exaltation (D&C 132:29). He is a King and a Priest. He has received all that the Father has to give (D&C 14:7). By extension, when taken in the context of the Endowment, the teachings of LDS apostles and prophets, Abraham can now be considered divine, he is a god (see D&C 76:50-62, especially verse 58).
3. Christ created the earth and the heavens
It is true that Mormon doctrine states that Jesus created the earth and the heavens. Yes, that aligns with Christian teaching. However, Mormon teaching clearly states that Jesus is the firstborn of the Father’s spirit, pre-existant children. Thus, Jesus is a created being. Christians absolutely do not view Jesus as a created being. He is God, He is Jehovah (another concept Mormons have in variance with Christians). Jesus transcends time and space. Jesus is self existing. He is the great I Am. He is God, the begining and the end. A gegotten spirit child of the Father cannot be fully eternal. Of course we can get into a discussion of the etnerality of intelligences, but that is a topic for another day.
4. The writers of the Bible (OT and NT) were prophets of God
In the surface there seems to be agreement. However, read Hebrews, where the writer clearly states, even in the first verse, that Jesus is the end-all, be-all prophet. Jesus brought total fulfillment to the prophet system. Jesus is our prophet and the Holy Spirit is his agent, if you will, to communicate His will to individual believers. There is no real agreement here.
5. Salvation is impossible without Christ
Again, agreement on the surface. However, Mormonism is clearly an earn it, works based system. falcon and others have clearly pointed out the Christian view vis-a-vis the Mormon view on this. The definition of salvation in the New Testament and in Mormonism are absolutely NOT the same thing–at all. Read Romans without the LDS overlay, especially chapter 3 starting with verst 21. Read it in a good translation that is accesable in modern English so that you can fully apprenend what Paul is saying. Elizabethian English is difficult at best, so the King James translation, as noble and foundational as it is, is not necessarily the best translation for a 21st century American to get.
6. Christ is the Savior of the world
Same as above. The meaning of salvation in Christianity and in Mormonism is not the same. I know that because I have lived both meanings. They are not the same. How is Jesus the savior of the world? The answer to that question is the problem, not the similar claim.
7. We will live after this life as the same persons
Again, superficial agreement. However where we live and how we live is different. Mormons have a hierarchy of landing spots. All people, in Mormon belief, are saved from death by receiving general resurrection. Nearly all people are saved from eternal existance with Satan into one of the three degrees of glory. All three degrees of glory are considered heaven. Only those who are sons of perdition, who are cast off into outer darkness with Satan and the 1/3 who rebelled in the war in heaven, are truly and totally in hell. All others are variously saved, thus explaining, in the Mormon view, Jesus’ statement that in His Father’s house are many mansions. That view is totally antithetical to the Christian view. Sorry, they are not the same. Belief in an afterlife as the same person is virtually meaningless. The Native Americans, the ancient Egyptians, and myriad others believed and believe in the same thing. So what.
8. We will be judged by Christ
I beg to differ. Perhaps this is one of those things that is on casters–that moves around–in the Mormon belief system. When I was fully participating, and I mean fully, we were taught that original 12 apostles, and the Nephite apostles were the ones who would judge, granted under Jesus’ authority (D&C 29:12, 1 Nephi 12:9-10, 3 Nephi 27:27, Mormon 3:19). In all fairness, Jesus did say his apostles would sit in judgement of the house of Israel (Matt. 19:18).
9. We will be held accountable for our decisions
Agreement.
10. Adam and Eve as first parents who lived in the garden of Eden
Agreement.
11. Adam and Eve fell by partaking of the fruit and were cast out
The nature of the fall is not at all the same. There is no Adam-and-Eve-fell-upward concept in Christianity. Adam did not fall in Christian thought that man might be (2 Nephi 2:25). The fall was a disaster and not a Godsend.
12. We must exercise faith in Christ and follow Him for salvation
The concept of justification–the condition of being declared not guitly (and not FOUND not guilty, because we absolutely are guilty) is foreign to Mormons. Placing Jesus Christ as the object of our faith is not a work, although Mormons try to make it one. Yes exercising faith in Christ is salvific–absolutely so. However, following him is not a condition of salvation. As we are justified God begins to work within us through the Holy Spirit, changing us. As we change we tend to follow him. Salvation comes before following him. There is most likely agreement between your faith in Christ portion of your comment. There is absolutely not agreement in your second portion. That portion gets into works and salvation, and Paul makes it clear that works of the law have nothing to do with salvation. The works of good deeds, of doing good, of following Christ, is a condition of sanctification and sanctification is a God-given gift of salvation.
13. Ten commandments and the other commandments from Christ
General agreement that the commandments are from Christ. But the nature and purpose of the commandemnts are not the same in Mormonism and Christianity. This can be murky because many Mormons see the meaning and purpose of the commandments very similarly to Christians. However, in my experience, when they do they come in conflict with myirad teachings of LDS apostles and prophets, especially pre-correlation (1973-ish) teachings. I was raised in the pre-correlation LDS world, and those teachings relished the unique differences between Mormonism and traditional, Biblical Christianity. Since correlation, there is a definite blurring of the lines of distinction, although none of the very unique and distinctive LDS teachings that make Mormonism absolutely not the same as Christianity have been rescinded or renounced, let alone denounced, by LDS leadership. To do so would mean that past, pre-correlation LDS prophets and apostles were wrong, were leading the church astray, and were thus in apostasy themselves. The LDS claim to continuous and unbroken priesthood authority and communication with Christ himself would be called into question, and the LDS hierarchy is painted into a very difficult corner on this one.
14. Christ will return to the earth in power and glory and destroy the evil
Agreement, although there is plenty of variation among Christians as to tribulation, post-mellenial, pre-mellenial. The when and where’s of His return vary, even as they do within Mormonism. But, yes there is general agreement as to his glorious return.
All my spelling, grammar, and syntax are original and correct.
Tom
johnsepistle,
Thanks for the articulate response. The problem with it from my perspective is that, while it certainly is reasonable, it in no way is specific to Latter-day Saints. Is there any reason to believe that Aaron’s experience in confronting people of another faith would be any different if he spent his time confronting individuals from any other religion? I don’t think so. Sure, there are people who change the subject and distract from fundamental questions asked them. And of course there are LDS who do so. But the context of this argument here from Aaron and Sharon is that it is something found specifically in LDS and suggests something dishonest or manipulative about the church and its leaders.
I believe my points about it being all or nothing from Aaron’s and Sharon’s posts are legitimate. Do you really think a member of the church is not being truthful when he or she states that there are many things we have in common with non-LDS Christians? I think such a claim from the critics is somewhat bizarre because it is ridiculous as I showed in my quick list of similarities in doctrine.
MJP and Tom- yes. I know that you can go further in any given doctrine and find differences. But from the perspective of world religions, my list is valid and true. Do Hindu or Muslem individuals believe salvation is through Christ? Do they believe that the writers of the Bible were all prophets? No.
There are no two people on the planet who share exactly the same faith and doctrine. The question is where the line is drawn and where the threshold is for saying two people or religions are “the same” or “different.”
Whether you like it or not, your religion and mine have similarities. And those religions have differences. I am not sure why this is a threat to you.
I like the fact that Mormon apostle Packer used the word ” replacement ” ( Church News 5-22 -04)
because that is what the Mormon church did : it’s gospel of salvation and church organization
is’nt a restoration of the very same church and gospel of salvation that Jesus apostles were
authorized to teach the people they met , it’s a replacement of those truths . The true was
replaced by an imitation in 1830 . That’s why Paul’s warning in 2 Tim 4:1-4 ( sound doctrine )
is so appropriate today , since false prophets abound .
OK FOF,
For the sake of the lurkers, I’m going to take this apart piece by piece because I think there’s a certain amount of deception in your answer. It’s very Mormon.
1. Supreme Being. Not good enough FOF. Describe Him. There is One God. Mormons acknowledge many gods of which you believe you will become one. The Mormon god is an Egyptian fertility god Min whose figure, exposing himself no less, is one of the facsimiles in the BoA.
2. Christ is divine. Again subterfuge. Explain what you mean by divine. Your “divine” is not “divine” in Christianity. Your Christ is one of a multiple off spring of your HF, who use to be a man, and one of his many wives.
3. Christ as creator. Please go into depth regarding what this means in Mormonism. Your Christ is a created being. How was this Mormon Christ chosen, in Mormon lore, to come to this earth?
4. Writers of the OT/NT were prophets of God. Again, describe “God”. And the Bible, in your program is corrupted and can’t be trusted. This gets to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Biblical text which is totally different in Mormonism.
5/6. Christ is the Savior of the World. When you say “Savior” what does that mean? Mormons are universalist in their view of salvation. Christ atonement took place on the cross. Not so in Mormon lore. Mormons believe in a two step process of salvation. The second tier for those doing the work to become gods. It’s a process of “earning” the god merit badge.
7. Yea, and as Mormons you’ll have your wives with which to procreate spirit children who will populate the worlds you will rule as a god.
8. The Final Judgement. You need to expand that some because again, you make it sound like it’s all the same. BTW will this take place in Jackson County, Mo?
9. Accountability for our decisions(?) Now what in the world do you mean by that? Way too much blue smoke for me to respond. Christians are saved by grace through faith regardless of their bad decisions. We are accountable to God for the most important decision which is knowing Him and His Christ, which Mormons don’t.
10. Adam and Eve. Yup and as your prophet Brigham Young taught, Adam was really God. You can’t run away from this one. Either BY was a false prophet or he didn’t even know who the Mormon god is.
11. Adam & Eve again. See above. What was the significance of their sin on their posterity?
12. Salvation in Mormonism and Christianity is totally different. Believing and following in Mormonism isn’t the same as in Christianity. More Mormon blue smoke.
13. Ten commandments & commandments of Christ. Give me the significance of those in Mormonism and Christianity.
14. Christ will return to where? Yea, in Mormon-lore it’s Independence, Mo. Again, Mormons do a quick-o-change-o on this having Jesus in Jerusalem and then tripping over to America.
So I can’t even give you a nice try. Mormonism borrows from Christianity and then changes what is borrowed.
FOF,
There’s no feeling of “threat” here.
It’s a matter of clearly articulating the truth. The truth is that you have to go to as broad of interpretation as possible, to come to your conclusions. It would be like saying that the book “Ben Hur” and the Bible are the same because they are books and have Jesus in them.
I don’t know why it’s so important for you to try and jump on the bandwagon with this “me too” claim.
The reason all of this is important is because we are dealing with eternal issues here. As it stands now, if you don’t come to faith in God and the Lord Jesus Christ you are lost. Making up some god and some Jesus by label won’t get a person saved. Jesus warned about false prophets and Christs and that is exactly where Mormonism is. The claim of “same” is subterfuge and dishonest.
falcon,
All of this comes down to the audience to which a person is addressing. A normal person gets what I am saying and would not feel deceived.
You, and many other critics, are hyper-sensitive and hyper-focused on things that most others would not care about.
And in your argument, you want to take things to depths and extents most people wouldn’t. We both believe in the Bible.
Reasonable people understand this and have no problem with it. But most critics are not “reasonable people” regarding our church and doctrine in general.
I have no interest in anybody believing that I am like you. My interest is in people understanding what I believe. And you and I cannot even agree on that. Why would we not also disagree on how to interpret those very basic 14 beliefs I listed. You might as well just tell people that you know what I believe better than I do?
FoF,
I’m trying to be brief here today. Its not as much a threat, as it is a clarification of issues. It seems you agree that your faith and mine are in actuality worlds apart. The Jesus we worship (do you worship Jesus? I am still not sure…) is not the same Jesus you worship. The Father is not the same. Our relationship to God is not the same. About the only thing we can say is that superficially we believe in Jesus and his power to save us. That’s about as far as you can get in describing our similarities.
Its rather cheap of you to know this and still maintain that we are very similar religions. On the surface, maybe, but beyond that the similarities disappear. And considering that we have the eternal destiny of people at stake, yes, its important to be clear how our faiths are not the same, or near the same– vitally so.
So, we defend our faith like we do so that we can educate people on the veracity of your claims. Saying you are similar to us and leaving it there is simply dishonest.
FOF,
Oh “a normal person”. So you will determine who is normal by them agreeing with what you say. That’s a normal person, interesting.
We care about these things because the Bible tells us to care about them. Over and over again Paul tells Timothy to straighten out people who teach strange doctrine and pass it off as Christianity. Do you know any group that does that?
We both believe in the Bible? You avoid the major point.
What you believe?
I guess that’s open to interpretation.
I can tell you what the LDS church believes. That’s not that difficult to determine……or maybe it is. You see what I’ve found in the years I’ve been doing this is that Mormons don’t really have a clue what their church has taught in the past. And then there is the new approach which is to say something is just “opinion” or “folklore”. Here I’ll list some things you believe and you tell me if I’ve got it right.
1. You believe you will become a god.
2. You believe that your prophets speak for god.
3. You believe that you have to earn your place in the Celestial Kingdom in order to become a god.
4. You believe that your wife and you will serve as quasi god and goddess in the Celestial Kingdom where you will procreate spirit children.
5. You believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, MO.
6. You believe that your HF and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith.
7. You believe in polygamy as an eternal principle.
8. You believe that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and had at least 33 wives some of whom were adolescent girls and women married to other men.
9. You believe the BoM is an actual history of an actual people who were the ancestors of the American Indians.
I don’t know. I could go on. What would you like to add?
faithoffathers,
I guess I’m neither normal nor reasonable according to your definitions. Oh well.
However, you said:
“I have no interest in anybody believing that I am like you. My interest is in people understanding what I believe. And you and I cannot even agree on that. Why would we not also disagree on how to interpret those very basic 14 beliefs I listed. You might as well just tell people that you know what I believe better than I do?”
You are interested in people understanding what you believe. It’s clear that no one can fully know, ever, what you believe deep inside. Likewise, there is no way you, or any of us for that matter, can make totally clear and understandable inner, personal beliefs. That’s true. If that is all you have been trying to say all this time, then fine. You are right.
However, when it comes to coming into a right relationship with God, to being reconciled to God doctrines do matter. Your quote, to me, reflects a certain postmodernism that is infiltrating Mormon thought–that somehow there aren’t absolutes. Thus, your view and my view of the fall are different, but we both believe in the fall. Your view of salvation through Christ and my view of salvation through Christ are different, but we both believe in salvation through Christ. I could go on with your own 14 points. Christians, however, firmly stand that differences, and I mean significant and material differences, in the basics of the salvation message do matter. They are not relative.
Mormons have all along claimed that the differences matter. Christians all along have claimed that the differences matter. If they didn’t matter Mormons wouldn’t send missionaries to Christians, as has been pointed out many times on this blog. If those differences didn’t matter, Christians wouldn’t so vigorously counter the Mormon claims. The differences do matter. Whether one correctly or incorrectly understands God’s salvation message does matter. Mormons claim that and Christians claim that. The whole Mormon restoration message is based on a belief in the inherent incorrectness of Christian doctrine and not on some nebulous ‘sameness’ between the two belief systems.
This isn’t a game of your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth. You may not think you’re saying that, but you kind of are. At least it comes across that way when you indicate a concern that people simply understand what you personally believe. What you personally believe, what any of us personally believe, in the end is irrelevant. What is relevant is truth. Christians say the salvation truth is what is found in the Bible. Among Christians of all stripes, the basic message is the same (even with Catholics). The Mormon message is not the same as the Christian message. It is decidedly different, and that difference matters. God’s call upon you, the call for which falcon has been praying in your behalf (and that of Alex) is that you would clearly see the differences between the Biblical salvation message and Mormon salvation message so you can clearly choose which message to follow.
While you are so concerned that we understand what you believe, you seem to fully misunderstand what we hold as the truth of the Biblical message. For me personally, God shook my tree pretty hard in order to get me to be able to see the two salvation messages in clear contrast. For me, all I had to do was read the New Testament without the LDS overlay to see what it says by itself and about itself. The choice before me became abundantly clear. I chose the Bible over Mormonism, and I chose Jesus over Joseph. In other words, the Bible rendered Joseph Smith and his resoration message totally irrenevant and unnecessary.
FoF said
I dont agree with you and still feel you and LDS are being dishonest and here is why.
take the human race in general, Atheist, christian,Muslim, all people groups. Then ask them if they know anything about what Mormon believe.I bet the vast majority know little to nothing. This does not include LDS and People like us who study LDS beliefs.
If you tell the people what you said and leave it at that, then yes they will think that is what you believe and they will tend to believe your being upfront and honest with them. They only hear and know what your telling them.
But when people like Aaron, Sharon,Bill, Falcon, me and other come along and say, Hello Everyone, here is what the LDS are not telling you, then you guys get mad at us. So your leading people to believe what you want them to believe by not openly sharing everything, then you use the excuse, milk before meat.
Mike – Thank you very much! Much appreciated.
FoF – You’re quite welcome. I can see what you mean about these tactics not being specific to Latter-day Saints. I would agree with some of your points, with of course certain reservations. Naturally, to really adjudicate our perspectives here as to whether this tactic has a significant connection with LDS subcultures, we’d need something of a sociological survey beyond either of our capacities to actually carry out. That said, it seems to me that it is something I hear most prominently from Latter-day Saints when faced with the criticisms of groups like Mormonism Research Ministry or by independent Christians. I think I can discern some of the dynamics that explain why this tactic might be more prevalent among Latter-day Saints in LDS-Evangelical encounters than among most sides in most other pairings.
Among interreligious encounters, the LDS-Evangelical sort is one of the few in our time in which we have a fringe group (in a non-pejorative sense of that term) experiencing heated pushback from a more mainstream group by trying to claim inclusion under an umbrella-identifier traditionally held more strictly around markers possessed by the second group (among others) but lacked by the fringe group. Muslim-Christian encounters, for instance, generally (perhaps universally) do not fit this mold (for ease of reference, hereinafter ‘Type U’). In our modern context, Christian-Jewish encounters do not really fit Type U, although it is arguable whether or not Type U suffices to capture the situation of the early church either (depending on our assessment of whether the divergences between early Christianity and other forms of Second Temple Judaism occur at the most central points, if any, at which other forms of Second Temple Judaism were united).
In Type-U encounters, the tactic in question makes greater intuitive sense than it does in other sorts of interreligious encounters. If the fringe group is making a serious bid for the umbrella-identifier alongside more mainstream expressions, then it might well make good sense for non-confrontational adherents of the former to seek to diffuse criticism by attempting to appeal to just those shared points that grant the bid its prima facie credibility. Thus, the internal logic of modern Mormonism renders this tactic a more appealing option that it would be in encounters of other pairings.
Even other Type-U encounters – for instance, JW-Evangelical encounters – may be less likely to involve this tactic, depending on the overall tenor of the fringe group’s attitude toward the outside world. Before I even met with LDS missionaries in the first place, I spent a number of years studying with Jehovah’s Witnesses and attending some of their district conventions, so I can report that I’ve experienced certain disanalogies between the two groups, and that this in my experience has been one of them. In JW-Evangelical encounters, some combination of the apologetic and fideist-dogmatist tactics seems to prevail.
(And in LDS-Evangelical encounters, it seems to me that the equalitarian/pluralist tactic is employed far, far more frequently by LDS parties rather than by Evangelical parties. It just does make as much sense within the internal logic of mainstream Christianity vis-a-vis Mormonism as it does within the internal logic of Mormonism vis-a-vis mainstream Christianity.)
So on the one hand, I’m sure that this equalitarian/pluralist tactic is not the sole preserve of Latter-day Saints. (I doubt that either Aaron or Sharon would argue that it is.) And I’m sure that not all Latter-day Saints would resort to this tactic, even when pressed. (I doubt that either Aaron or Sharon would argue something quite so broad-brushed.) But on the other hand, I do think that wholly dissociating this tactic from any relatively special prevalence among Latter-day Saints would also likely be a mistake.
I think that, to an extent, we’re simply reading Aaron’s and Sharon’s posts differently. I think that the ‘all-or-nothing’ sense you’re perceiving is perhaps not present in the actual text to the extent you think. That may be a legitimate critique of some of the comments occasionally made here, but I don’t think it’s quite as representative of the posts themselves.
For my part, I do think that there are legitimate points of similarity that need to be recognized between LDS beliefs and mainstream Christian beliefs. These need not be points of absolute similarity in order to be points of relative similarity, nor is all claim of similarity undermined by substantive deeper differences underlying surface harmony. I think that the healthiest approach is this: Yes, there are theological points at which Mormonism and mainstream Christianity have some common ground in the form of relative similarity. Yes, there are other extremely critical theological points at which Mormonism and mainstream Christianity diverge in opposing directions. Yes, some of those severe theological divergences are connected with the areas of common ground. Yes, some of the theological divergences are not as readily apparent unless one is cognizant of the ways in which Mormonism and mainstream Christian groups have developed distinct theological dialects with their own only-partly-overlapping lexicons of religious language; and thus, in that respect, many of the points of common ground are smaller than they might appear at first glance, though – here I would strongly caution – not thereby obliterated in toto. Therefore, the areas of common ground must be respected for the relative similarity that they offer, but this should not be allowed to overshadow the critical nature of the divergences and should not be utilized as a pretext for the sort of tactic that Aaron and Sharon have rightly critiqued here.
(Whoops – in that last comment, in the parenthesized fifth paragraph of my reply to faithoffathers, I omitted the word “not”, as in, “It just does not make as much sense within the internal logic of mainstream Christianity vis-a-vis Mormonism as it does within the internal logic of Mormonism vis-a-vis mainstream Christianity”. My bad, y’all.)
Tom , you summed up your last comments well when you said :
” The choice is abundantly clear . I chose the Bible over Mormonism, and I chose Jesus
over Joseph . In other words the Bible rendered Joseph Smith and his restoration
message totally irrelevant and unnecessary .”
More and more LDs are finding out that the claim made by their leaders to have “restored ”
Jesus’ true gospel and His church , has only been clever advertising . Thankfully, many
Mormons have finally recognized just good of a imitation the “restored” gospel was and
are exchanging it for the simple, powerful , uncluttered, original —Rom 1:16
johnsepistle , you mentioned having studied with Jw’s . From my experiences with them
( as one who studied their doctrine ,visited their Assemblies, spoke at churches and on
christian radio concerning them , helped run a support group for ex members , and through
that work ran into and ended up marrying a ex Jw ) , I can say that they have’nt cared at all
about being accepted as “christian brothers like you” etc . But the Mormon church has been
famous the few decades for aggressively demanding to be accepted as ” christians like you ” and
in public interviews, at least , giving the impression that there really is’nt that much difference
between doctrines of Mormonism and other Christian churches . It’s because of this tactic by
the Mormon leaders that christian ministries have been created by those who seek aid the public
in hearing the other side of the story about Mormonism .
Again , I enjoy your contributions here and I learn much from them .
Johnsepistle,
I think the primary issue I have with Sharon’s post is the question she asks following the quotation from President Faust who said, ““The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has many beliefs in common with other Christian churches. But we have differences, and those differences explain why we send missionaries to other Christians” (“The Restoration of All Things,” Ensign, May 2006, 61)
Her question was “how can these beliefs be different but the same?”
I think any person with a half-decent capacity to read and comprehend English can see a serious problem with her question following that brief quotation. There is absolutely nothing contradictory within President Faust’s statement. He did not say all of our beliefs are the same as other Christians. He didn’t say that all of our beliefs are different. He said the church has “many beliefs in common with other Christian churches.” This is absolutely true. And this statement is generic enough that it does not imply anything that is not true or even suggest anything manipulative. There is nothing deceptive there. We have similarities and differences.
It is remarkable to me that the folks here would agree so heartily with the implication that such a statement was in any way wrong, manipulative, or deceitful.
The fundamental problem is that the anti “ministries” disseminate an aggressive message that we are not Christians. The reasons for that are beyond the scope of this thread. But if a person uses the common definitions for “Christians” found in dictionaries and in our culture and society, we absolutely are Christians. The critics have their reasons for their position, which I believe are ultra nit-picky, misleading, and self-centered. But they simply do not control the English language. And according to that English language, we are very simply very much Christians.
Those critics argue that in claiming to be Christians, we are claiming to be “just like other Christians.” And we are aren’t and don’t. We claim to be very different than other Christians. But we are Christians- we believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and the only means of salvation. We believe He is the Son of God, creator, and will be our judge. We believe in emulating His example and serving our fellow men. There is nothing manipulative, deceitful, or dishonest in that statement. It is a fact, and no amount of elucidation of the criteria based in tradition and history will change that. We don’t claim to share the same general traditions, foundations, or authority.
I think it is very dishonest for our critics to be campaigning against us and declaring we are not Christians. I think they know the basis for the dishonesty- manipulation of language- but they don’t care, generally.
Non-LDS Christians do not determine who is a Christian. You folks have no more authority than me or anybody else. “Tradition” is a very weak authority, and very frequently the basis for apostasy and rejection of God’s real authority in the Biblical record.
I appreciate your responses johnsepistle. But I see nothing in the article of this thread that supports the claims from Sharon. It is an argument with no support. If she can offer supporting data or examples with something that would allow us to make generalized statements, that would be different. But she doesn’t off such.
Thanks.
FaithofFathers, you have misunderstood the question that you say concerns you. The question is rhetorically asked of those who say Mormon doctrines are the same as Christian doctrines. That is, as Mr. Faust points out, there are many differences between the beliefs of these two groups; indeed, Mormon missionaries are sent to adherents of Christianity. In that case, I ask, how can the beliefs of both religious groups be different, as Mr. Faust says, and the same, as some Mormons choose to claim?
Sharon,
Thanks for the clarification. That sentence makes more sense with that additional information, but it was not clear.
That being said, I still see no support within your article for your claim. Do you have supporting information?
Thanks.
FoF, thank you very much for that comment. I believe it’s allowed me to better appreciate why you’re understanding Sharon’s post the way you do. I have to say, however, that I think you’re misreading her, and that’s likely why you’re finding problems that none of the rest of us here are seeing. What you seem to be seeing in Sharon’s post is an attempt to highlight internal contradictions within statements by LDS leaders. But I don’t believe that’s Sharon’s intent here at all. Rather, we must read this in the context of Aaron’s post, which Sharon has a stated purpose of expanding on. Aaron’s post was directed at a particular tactic (as I put it, the equalitarian tactic) used by some Latter-day Saints at the lay level to diffuse concrete instances of criticism; and Aaron did this by offering a series of pointed questions, many of which highlight the irreconcilable tensions between this tactic (on the one hand) and other fundamental beliefs and practices (on the other hand) – these including, e.g., emphasis on the Apostasy, the First Vision, sending missionaries to work toward the conversion of Christians, etc.
So, again, Aaron’s post sets up a contrast between the equalitarian tactic and basic LDS beliefs/practices. Sharon’s post appears to build upon this, not by finding contradictions within the statements of LDS leaders, but rather by showing how the actual language used by LDS leaders mitigates against the tenability of the equalitarian tactic; in other words, she is not saying that these particular LDS statements are expressing the equalitarian tactic and its contrary, but instead is showing the impossible situation that would be faced by a Latter-day Saint who both espouses the equalitarian tactic and sustains these leaders, whose very words render the equalitarian tactic exceedingly problematic.
Hence, I agree with you that there is “nothing contradictory within President Faust’s statement” (actually, a quote from Elder Oaks embedded in President Faust’s talk) – but nor do I think that the best readings of Sharon’s post would sustain a belief that she was saying that there is. Nor do I read Sharon as saying that President Faust was being deceptive or manipulative. Hence, on those grounds, I maintain my previous contention that your objection here is off-base, in that I think it attacks an argument that Sharon never actually made nor even so much as intended to imply, so far as I can see.
As for the sentiment that statements of similarities are deceptive or manipulative, I think that such statements can be misleading – if imbalanced. I have known some Latter-day Saints who, in certain circumstances, use rhetoric that overstates the similarities and ignores the differences in order to take advantage of the unfamiliarity of some outside observers with the range of LDS theology. I would, however, distance myself from those who see this phenomenon as lurking behind any and every mention of similarities between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. That seems like a rather paranoid overgeneralization of a particularly communication-stifling sort.
As for the latter concerns you raised, FoF, regarding the use of the word “Christian”, I generally don’t touch upon that issue, personally. Haggling over labels strikes me as less fruitful than engaging with the substance of our respective positions. However, I do have to reject the two major objections you use. Dictionary usage is more descriptive than prescriptive, and while there may be senses – the more neutral senses used by sociological commentators and listed in the dictionary – whereby all Latter-day Saints can and ought to be classified as ‘Christians’, this is simply neither the primary sense of the term (from a Christian perspective) nor the sense that is in dispute. As for the other objection, the Christian community as a whole has been possessor and guardian of the term for thousands of years, and I do not think it unfair for that broad tradition (hardly a weak thing in this instance, but rather a case of meaning being established and reinforced through usage over time) to be quite reluctant to cede full and unqualified usage of the term to an innovative upstart sectarian group. Compare this to the reasons why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been unwilling to accept reference to other LDS-derived movements as “Mormon”, even with additional qualification.
Once again, FoF, I very much appreciate your comments and the civil exchange. (Without the give-and-take of trading thoughts with you, I wouldn’t have had occasion to think through my understanding of criticism-diffusing tactics in interreligious dialogue in general or LDS-Evangelical dialogue in particular; and as that’s perhaps the most fruitful thing I’ve done today, I’m grateful.) I’m hoping that I’ve offered an alternative understanding of Sharon’s post that, by offering a wholly different (and, I truly believe, more plausible in context) assessment of what her claims themselves are, is less objectionable to you – but, most importantly, more faithful to her intent and more defensible.
I see that some more productive dialogue transpired while I was typing my comment – one of the several downsides to my allergy to brevity! In light of that, I’d like to make an addendum. FoF, you say in your latest comment that you “still see no support within [Sharon’s] article for [Sharon’s] claim”. Given the clarification now made, FoF, would you be willing to spell out more precisely the nature of the claim to which you here refer, and offer us some sample exegeting of Sharon’s post to make clearer why you take her to be making it? At this point, I’m no longer sure what claim in her post (actual or perceived) is the target of your objection of insufficient support.
johns,
Nah, they’re just lying!
Let’s face it. Mormonism was built on a foundation of lies and it continues today.
Joseph Smith told one whopper after another and modern day Mormons especially have to obfuscate, shade, mold, leave out and excuse it all in order to make it work.
So you have to look at the entire context of the religion, its history and past practices. Let me offer you a couple of examples.
Here’s the famous example of G.B. Hinckley on the men to god doctrine:
“On whether the LDS Church holds that, “God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, ‘I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it,’” Hinckley told Time.”
http://mit.irr.org/dodging-and-dissembling-prophet
The LDS spin machine took hold of this, as they always do, explaining how GBH didn’t really mean what he said.
From another blog:
In an IM conversation with a TBM [Mormon] about Hinckley’s [current Mormon prophet] denial of God once being a man, I got the biggest song and dance yet:
kc: Why did he say he “didn’t know” that we teach that?
mormon: He reiterated that he didn’t know whether or not it was being covered at individual Church locations, because though it isn’t covered in universally planed Sunday topics, some people still discuss other things at Church that aren’t on the agenda, but the President couldn’t have been sure of such conditions…
kc: They didn’t ask that. They asked if the church as a whole believes that God was once a man. And we do!
mormon: bI believe that Larry King used the word “teach” in his question, and not “believe”…
kc: Nitpicky. He was asking what the church doctrine is, and Hinckley did not take the opportunity to say, yes, this is truth.
mormon: In cases like this, it becomes necessary to nitpick. If you look at the Presidents full response, in context, it makes good sense. And if he felt uncomfortable giving an in-depth response, then I can see why, on the premise of “milk before meat.” It is no small doctrine of which he spoke…
kc: but he left nonMormons with the impression that we do NOT believe God was once a man.
mormon: Well, it’s too bad if they took it that way, but he didn’t deny having such a belief, and at least the public wasn’t in danger of choking on the meat, so to speak…
johns,
Do you see why we don’t give Mormons a break on this stuff? They need to get themselves oriented to reality.
johns
When I had to discipline students, I’d ask myself one question, “Is this a pattern or an event?”. You see, if a kid is habitually doing something you have to approach the problem one way and if it’s just a one time thing, you approach it in an entirely different way.
In Mormonism, we are dealing with a pattern of deceit. That’s the context for the “we believe the same” scenario.
Historically let’s take a look at another prime example of the lying and deceit of the LDS religion as it relates to polygamy.
“No doubt this practice came as quite a surprise to many of the converts who came to Utah from Europe. As far as they knew, polygamy was merely a vicious rumor propounded by enemies of the church. Why should they think otherwise? After all, the idea that Mormons were practicing polygamy was denied outright in the European edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. For example, D&C section CIX:4, which had been printed in Liverpool, England in 1866, read: “Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” Bear in mind that this denial was a part of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876 — 24 years after polygamy became an official LDS doctrine!”
http://www.mrm.org/polygamy
I contend that there is a consistent pattern of deceit within the LDS church that is a standard operational procedure. It’s in the air, the atmosphere. Mormons breath it. So what we would consider dishonest and misleading, they see as normal and natural.
I don’t think you’re appreciating the Mormon culture and history and methods. We’re dealing with a pattern not an event.
johns,
……and my final example of the culture of deceit that exits in Mormonism and should serve as the back-drop for our “we believe the same” discussion. I offer this not in an attempt to change the topic to blacks in the priesthood but to provide another example of the culture of deceit within which a comment like “we believe the same” comes from.
Blacks and the Mormon priesthood.
When this practice of denying blacks the priesthood was finally done away with, LDS leadership was left to explain where and why it had been apart of the church in the first place. The idea that it came from the notion that blacks had not been valiant in the pre-existence had to be explained away as many embarrassing things in Mormonism are as “folk doctrine”.
The most pathetic tactic was for LDS leadership to look about confused and say, “We have no idea how THAT got in here!”
“Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.”
“The events of this spring reveal a Church whose hired historians and high-ranking officials seem at times to be speaking at cross-purposes. They also reveal an ongoing struggle within Mormonism to come to terms with objectionable episodes in its own history without troubling too deeply many members’ profound deference to Church leaders revered as prophets.”
“For decades before and after the 1978 lifting of the black priesthood ban, LDS people developed folk doctrines to justify a segregationist ordination policy that had no foundation in canonized theology or scripture. Some Mormons held onto these folk doctrines after the end of the ban itself, and even after LDS Church officials like Bruce R. McConkie, who himself had once espoused racist apologetics, asked them to stop.”
“The publication of Dickson’s talk in the Ensign, LDS anti-racist advocates worry, will provide renewed cover for Mormons who would like to avoid reckoning with the human origins and harmful consequences of the faith’s historic racism. And that, they say, is no cause for celebration.”
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/7079/shifting_talk_on_mormon_racism_reveals_divisions_within_lds_church/
Interesting and lofty discussion. It seems to me that the issue here is simply that FoF objects to the idea that LDS might consider themselves the same as us. If that is incorrect, fair enough. That is ultimately how I take his position. However, he does say that we have similarities in our theologies.
His position is not entirely clear. Giving him the benefit of the doubt leads me to articulate his position thus: Our faiths are similar because of various reasons, but our differences cannot be ignored.
This is a fair position to take. I cannot say this is unreasonable. My request from him, then, would be for him to explain how the differences affect the discussion. How does he react to those who have said Mormonism and traditional Christianity are the same?
We’ve had first hand experiences shared about LDS who do exactly that. It seems they have happened enough such that we can believe people are telling the truth when they say LDS have told them that.
Its interesting to note the disconnect between the leaders and at least some lay people on this idea. This does not mean every LDS lay person thinks they are the same as traditional Christianity, but it seems those who do make that claim need to be corrected.
And maybe they have been and are being corrected. We have to allow that possibility…
MJP-
I cannot even begin to claim that I have any way of representing all the members of my church or the discussions that take place between non-LDS Christians and LDS. But I recognize very clearly the debate that has gone on for some time between some Christians and LDS regarding whether LDS are Christians. I think the foundation for this discussion belongs there as LDS very often are sensitive to the claim that they are not Christians.
I personally do not know any members of the church who would claim that we are “the same as traditional Christianity.” We are very clearly different in our claims to authority, revelation, doctrine, and theology.
I think this discussion is really about the conflation of two things. Those are the debate about whether LDS are Christians and the claims that “we are the same as Christianity.” Is there any evidence that what Aaron and Sharon are reporting is nothing other than the claims of LDS that they are Christian? Some are better than others at responding to the claim that we are not Christians. I have no doubt that some would respond awkwardly that we are Christians by saying “we are the same as Christianity.”
The logical question is whether we misrepresent our doctrine or beliefs. And I would challenge you to consider whether we really misrepresent our doctrine. And before answering that question, I would point out the fact that the critics here and LDS cannot agree on what our doctrine is. In other words, if you guys disagree with us about what our doctrine is, isn’t it a little premature to declare us liars for misrepresenting our doctrine?
Take the most simple doctrines- for example, faith. I would guess that over 90% of the critics here would disagree with me when I state what our doctrine is regarding faith. Many of those 90% of critics would then claim that I am “misrepresenting our doctrine.” And many would likely go on to claim that I am thus misrepresenting our doctrine to be accepted as a Christian.
All of this, in my opinion, represents what is an approach that is deceitful at its heart. More than any interest to understand other people, I often witness what feels like the desire to place words in other people’s mouths and smear them. I truly have no interest in presenting anything but the truth in relation to my church, its history, its members, and its doctrine. But I understand why a person might not be an “open book” when it feels like so many critics are looking for any opportunity to make the church look bad, whether such an appearance is based on truth or conjecture and rhetoric.
FoF,
Thanks for the response. I know this forum can be quite frustrating.
Its interesting to note you state that we don’t agree with you on what your doctrine is. I don’t know whether we agree or not on what your doctrine is regarding faith. You seem to think it is a requirement, but that faith will only get you so far. And it gets even more complicated in that we have to define in whom the faith is placed, and I am not sure I can do that.
Now, the answers to these questions poses problems for us in the accepting your faith as Christian. I hope you understand that. I hope you understand that we are not obligated to take your word for it, just as you are not obligated to take our word for anything. Check out what we say. Test it.
With that in mind, are we misrepresenting anything? I don’t think we are. Certainly, I understand how you see that we are. We are criticizing your faith, after all. I am fully aware of that. Your faith means a lot to you, as it should. And we should not lightly cover these topics. We need to be careful that we have our facts correct and our arguments strong. Sometimes, we will fall a bit short, but there is no misrepresenting anything in the discussion about how LDS sometimes say they are the same as traditional Christianity. This has and does happen, as evidenced not least by at least former Mormon here.
I do not expect you to speak for every Mormon out there, but it is apparent that there are indeed LDS who have said our faiths are the same. If you heard a Mormon say this, what would you say?
Here is Brigham Young proving you wrong and teaching EXACTLY what Sharon said is taught by “some” Mormons:
Sharon said, to be clear that some Mormons say their doctrines are the same as Christians. Brigham Young explicitly said about Christian doctrines, “That is my doctrine, and I will not quarrel about it.” He did not qualify this statement. He also said that if you live by just the New Testament, you will be saved. He said it clearly… “there is the New Testament; you may leave out the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and follow the precepts of that book faithfully, and I will warrant you to arrive at salvation.”.
Of course this is not true. But he said it anyway. This is EXACTLY what Sharon meant. And this is not just some member somewhere, this is a Mormon “prophet” doing so.
🙂 Have a nice day.
Grindael,
Brigham Young is essentially saying that the New Testament agrees with and supports our doctrine. He is not saying he believes every Christian doctrine taught in Christendom.
He poses the question- “Have you got true principles in Christianity?” Then he says “those principles” are also his because he believes all truth. He is not saying he agrees with all of Christianity as you claim. He is obviously qualifying his acceptance with the question “have you got true principles.” In fact, he disagrees with them very clearly when he says, “If the Christian world would follow the instruction of the New Testament, they would believe the doctrines of the latter-day saints.” He is implying that they are not following the instructions of the New Testament.
And it seems to me I have seen several people, including you, post quotations from Brigham Young condemning apostate Christianity? Correct me if I am wrong. So was he completely contradicting himself? No. He wasn’t. What he is saying does not support what Aaron and Sharon are saying.
FOF,
You don’t get it. He was saying that their doctrines were the same if they had the truth. He also said, very misleadingly that you could believe ONLY the New Testament and you would achieve salvation. That is what Christians believe, but it is NOT what Mormons believe. NOT EVEN CLOSE. So please, save the excuses. I am well aware that Young’s comments hinged on the word TRUTH. He said, IF you have the truth. I get that. But that is only because I’m familiar with Mormon Doctrine. Anyone who is not, could be deceived by those statements.
That is the point you refuse to comprehend. Even you have to qualify Young’s comments with “essentially saying”, because one could be misled if they did not understand the differences in Mormonism and Christianity. Ask any “authority” of the Mormon Church is they agree with this statement that if one rejects the Mormon “added on” “truths” and says “there is the New Testament; you may leave out the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and follow the precepts of that book faithfully, and I will warrant you to arrive at salvation.” They would not. You would be damned as an angel for all eternity, because you rejected the Mormon “priesthood”.
lds.org
In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms “saved” and “salvation” have various meanings. As used in Romans 10:9-10, the words “saved” and “salvation” signify a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. Through this covenant relationship, followers of Christ are assured salvation from the eternal consequences of sin if they are obedient.
If you are “obedient” to the Mormon “priesthood”. You can’t just live by the precepts of the New Testament and achieve “salvation” without BECOMING A MORMON. Brigham Young’s statement is exactly what Sharon meant in the OP and there you have proof that someone indeed did say what you said they did not.
OK,
So we arrive at this point again where a Mormon wants to contend that we are representing what he/they believe. As always I ask, “Be specific about what we are saying you believe that is being mis-represented.” Why won’t you Mormons tell us what it is we are getting wrong? I’ll try again with some basics.
1. Mormons believe that men can become gods just like millions and perhaps billions of men have done. The LDS church has the system and truth by which this god to men transition can be achieved.
2. Mormon men will resurrect their wives.
3. The Mormon man/god and his woman-wife/goddess will possess their own planetary system and procreate spirit children to populate the worlds they will rule.
4. Jesus is a created being, the offspring of the Mormon HF and one of his HMs.
5. The Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are separate entities the former being a force likened to electricity.
6. Providing the “work” for a dead person gives them a chance (after death) to accept Mormonism and the pathway to deification.
7. Joseph Smith used a magic rock in his hat to translate the golden plates given to him by an angel.
8. The LDS church is the one true church and has the restored gospel which includes the beliefs and rituals, temples of the first century church.
9. The BoM reveals an actual history of an actual people who were the fore-runners of the American Indians.
I’ll stop there. I will stand corrected by any Mormon who will provide evidence for me that the above points are false. However, I will also provide evidence that these points are true.
So please, stop with the claim that the LDS beliefs presented on this blog are false. Remember, this blog is populated mainly by former Mormons.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother responding, but here goes.
As a former Mormon it is easy to see what he was saying, or it was easy to agree with Pres. Young. I don’t now, of course. He is correct if you include in your definition of salvation all three degrees of glory. Do you need Mormonism and all of its trappings to inherit salvation in the telestial kingdom? No. For that matter, do you need Christianity and the Bible? No. Do you need Mormonism and all of its trappings to inherit salvation in the terrestrial kingdom? No. If you are a Christian who believes and adheres to the New Testament, will you inherit salvation in the terrestrial kingdom? Yes.
So, technically, in the Mormon scheme of things, Brigham Young is correct. The truths Christians adhere to will bring them to salvation. Note also, that salvation can mean within Mormonism any condition where a person is no longer under the influence of Satan. Thus, going to any one of the three degrees of glory qualifies as Atonement-of-Christ-driven salvation.
However, to compare apples to apples we need to qualify some things. Salvation to Christians means living in the very presence of God the Father. If you are in the telestial kingdom, you have gained salvation in so far as you are resurrected and are no longer under the influence of Satan. Not bad. But you are never going to be in the presence of God the Father. If you land in the terrestrial kingdom, you have likewise gained salvation in so far as you are resurrected and are no longer under the influence of Satan with the added bonus that you get to enjoy the presence of Jesus. But, again, you are never going to be in the presence of God the Father (see D&C 76).
In order to live for eternity in the presence of God the Father, one must inherit the celestial kingdom. Salvation to a Christian means being in the presence of God for eternity. Salvation in the celestial kingdom to a Mormon also means being in the presence of God for eternity. Apples and apples, finally.
BUT, in order to inherit salvation in the celestial kingdom and to enjoy the presence of the Father for eternity one ABSOLUTELY (with certain caveats, see Moroni 8:8, D&C 137:7) MUST participate in Mormonism. To gain the celestial kingdom one must be baptized by the LDS priesthood authority. Furthermore, to gain full exaltation, that condition where one becomes a god with the marriage and family relationships in tact, one must ABSOLUTELY participate in the temple endowment, the temple sealing of husband to wife (wives), and men must be ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood.
To me this is one of the milk-before-meat issues. Mormons can say Christians will be saved based on the truth they have. But to bring parity as to what Christians mean by salvation with what may be considered equivalent in the LDS scheme of things would require a lot of explanation. That would be too much meat to the new initiate to Mormonism.
“Yes,” the Mormon can say to the Christian, “you are saved with what you have.” What doesn’t get said, however, is, “If what you mean by salvation, Mr. Christian, is living in the presence of God, then, no you cannot be saved with what you have.”
That subtle difference is not taught before a person is baptized. Indeed, that subtle difference distills on a person usually, in my opinion, only after they start to comprehend what the Doctrine and Covenants says about salvation in conjunction with what the temple endowment says about salvation. And not disclosing this difference through silence is dishonest, it is bait and switch in nature.
Mormons like their missionaries to contact and baptize a person within a few weeks. Catholics, for example, require potential converts to take up to a year of catechesis before being brought into the C. fold. The latter, to me, is full of integrity. The former is not (having been there and fully participating in the Mormon conversion process as a full-time missionary).
FoF said
So FoF, Why can you LDS claim to be Christian, admit we do have differing beliefs, and yet If I say I am a mormon using your logic, You guess get mad and say thats not true. Just look at how Alex went crazy over this issue.
RickB,
It is a matter of clear communication. How does society define a Christian? It is a person who accepts Jesus Christ as the Savior and tries to live as He commanded. And according to that definition, both of us are Christians.
What is a “Mormon” according to society? It is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Are all Christians Mormons? No. Are all Mormons Christians? Yes.
I don’t think that is difficult to understand.
The umbrella of Christianity is larger than the umbrella of Mormonism. And Mormonism is under the umbrella of Christianity.
It is not different than the fact that all cats are animals, but not all animals are cats. It really is that simple.
Hey all,
I need some advice. I am currently having a dialogue with a young LDS fellow who is a couple of years off his mission. We have been talking for a couple of weeks and I am beginning to believe that he might actually be a saved follower of Jesus Christ. Today he even got misty eyed when we discussed salvation by grace alone with out works.
I’m not an expert on Mormon doctrine and when I casually point out Mormon teachings that is incompatible with the gospel he goes to extraordinary lengths to reinterpret them in a way that does not deny salvation by faith alone by Grace alone.
For example he reads the “after all you can do” passage as actually meaning something like our works are completely insufficient so therefore salvation must be all from Grace.
I know that interpretation sounds very confused but that is how he tried to explain it to me.
I’m not sure how I should proceed with him. It’s obvious he has warm feelings about the LDS organization and he has the whole burning in the bosom thing going on.
The issue is I only have a limited time left to interact with him before he will leave to go back to school. Should I spend that short time showing him the many problems with Mormonism or should I instead try and nurture the spark of love for the true Jesus and the gospel that I believe see in him?
thanks in advance.
peace
So FoF,
According to your logic, then why is it Mormons who are going by RLDS and FLDS who claim to believe JS is a prophet, the BoM is the word of god, and many other beliefs that follow what you believe, they are not allowed to call themselves Mormons, according to LDS mormons.
So we say your not a christain and you get mad, yet you claim RLDS and FLDS are not Mormon. How is that any differant?
Then you claim society defines what or who is a christian and Mormon. I dont care what society says, I go by what the Bible and God says.
Their are many who claim to be Christian simply because they live and were born in the US. But according to Jesus Some people are of their father the Devil, so they are not Christian, and Jesus said, Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will be saved. So many people seem to think they know Jesus, but Jesus claims to not know them.
Hello Fifth,
I cannot post everything I can share with you, but write me at [email protected]
I will send you some stuff that might help. You can read what I send, use what you want and set aside the rest. Rick
fifth,
Get him into the NT. Let the Holy Spirit do the work. I believe the Word and the Spirit will transform your friend.
Tom,
Super excellent presentation. I’m sure FOF will say that you’ve mis-represented Mormonism since you’re no longer a Mormon.
FOF,
I’ll give you credit. You keep trying, but here’s your problem and the reason LDS such as yourself are seen as being dishonest.
Define who Jesus is; who is being accepted as a Personal Savior.
It’s dishonest to mouth that Christian confession when the people you are saying this to have a definition of Our Lord that is not inclusive of the LDS position on the Son. You know better.
There is a very clear definition of who a Christian is based on the accepted doctrine of the nature of God. The implication that you are making is that you’re “the same” which is the topic of our conversation here. You don’t accept any of the basic orthodox doctrine that defines Christianity including the nature of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
You can’t come up with your own definitions, which the LDS church does, and then try to piggy back on to normative Christianity. It’s plain deception.
I guess if you want to keep doing this it’s fine but when people find out that what you’re talking about isn’t the accepted understanding, then you will be seen as a liar. I think you are probably a liar, a clever one, but a liar still the same. The reason is that this has all been clearly explained to you and you continue to proclaim or imply a “sameness” that doesn’t exist.
For the record. You’re really not impressing anyone here. It’s a question of character.
Rick
You said “take the human race in general, Atheist, christian,Muslim, all people groups. Then ask them if they know anything about what Mormon believe.I bet the vast majority know little to nothing.”
Funny thing is that atheists and muslims know more about Christianity and Mormonism than most traditional Christians do. Studies of this nature have been done and have consistantly showed that non-Christians have a better understanding of both Christianity in general and the specifics of denomination than most Christians.
Fifth Monarchy
I know you are not asking for advice from me, but I would advise you look up the phrase “After all you can do” in various LDS liturature and see what it actually means. Then you might be better prepared. Check out this article, especially the last few paragraphs: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/but-if-not?lang=eng. Also try this one: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/following-christ-to-victory?lang=eng.
Falcon
Let us look at your list.
1. Mormons believe that men can become gods just like millions and perhaps billions of men have done. The LDS church has the system and truth by which this god to men transition can be achieved.
True.
2. Mormon men will resurrect their wives.
True
3. The Mormon man/god and his woman-wife/goddess will possess their own planetary system and procreate spirit children to populate the worlds they will rule.
False. This is not doctrine, and it never has been. Though there has been speculation by members and even by leaders, it has never been declared as doctrine.
4. Jesus is a created being, the offspring of the Mormon HF and one of his HMs.
False. Christ is not a created being, for the spirit cannot be created, but is eternal just as God is.
5. The Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are separate entities the former being a force likened to electricity.
Misrepresented. It is the Spirit or Light of Christ that is a force likened to electricty in that it fills all space, just as electricity does. The Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost are both titles of the same being who is the third member of the Godhead.
6. Providing the “work” for a dead person gives them a chance (after death) to accept Mormonism and the pathway to deification.
Misrepresented. While we believe we will be gods this is not synonomous with Deity, and we will not all be deified. Also, the work for the dead does not give everyone a chance at godhood.
7. Joseph Smith used a magic rock in his hat to translate the golden plates given to him by an angel.
While technically true, the term magic is specifically used here to be imply something detatched from Christian theology complete, having origins in pagan beliefs. This is not true, as the concept of the Seer stone is well documented in the Bible itself.
8. The LDS church is the one true church and has the restored gospel which includes the beliefs and rituals, temples of the first century church.
Poorly worded as we have never claimed to have the same temples as the first century. Our temples were built much more recently. However, the basic gist is true.
9. The BoM reveals an actual history of an actual people who were the fore-runners of the American Indians.
True.
So, out of nine you list only three that you don’t misrepresent our doctrine on. Not a very good record.
Now, let us take FoF list and try not to be nit-picky about details. Consider the simple statement and tell us if you agree.
1. Do you agree that there is a Supreme being
2. Do you agree that Christ is divine
3. Do you agree that Christ created the earth and the heavens
4. Do you agree that The writers of the Bible (OT and NT) were prophets of God
5. Do you agree that Salvation is impossible without Christ
6. Do you agree that Christ is the Savior of the world
7. Do you agree that We will live after this life as the same persons
8. Do you agree that We will be judged by Christ
9. Do you agree that We will be held accountable for our decisions
10. Do you agree that Adam and Eve as first parents who lived in the garden of Eden
11. Do you agree that Adam and Eve fell by partaking of the fruit and were cast out
12. Do you agree that We must exercise faith in Christ and follow Him for salvation
13. Do you agree that the Ten commandments and the other commandments come from Christ
14. Do you Agree that Christ will return to the earth in power and glory and destroy the evil
I am not interested in whether you agree on the nature of the supreme being, or what you consider to be divine, or the details of the results of the fall. The question is can you stand up in a court of law and swear to the truth of the previous fourteen statements?
RickB,
The answer is that society has definitions for words. And when we use those words to communicate, we must apply the definitions which society applies to those words or we are not communicating effectively. And that is the purpose of language.
When a person is our society refers to a “mormon,” they are referring to a person who belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Of course, there are some exceptions I imagine. But by and large, this is the way society has defined “Mormon.” So if you refer to a polygamist sect as “Mormons,” there will likely be people who are confused or end up with an incorrect perception or understanding.
It does not matter to me if you call members of my church chipmunks and the RLDS or polygamist sect tree-trunks, the important thing is effective communication. In fact, we have to some degree tried to refer to ourselves as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints instead of Mormons for this reason. It is all about correct and accurate communication.
If you say that LDS are not Christians, most in your audience will appropriately apply the definition which society has attached to the word “Christian” and come away with an understanding that we do not believe Christ is the Savior. And that is not correct. I have no desire to be attached to you or your religion, but I do not want people to misunderstand my belief in Christ.
The problem with you saying that it doesn’t matter what society says about who is a Christian is simply short-sighted. You can privately insist that only people who believe in the trinity and X,Y,Z all you want, but until society adopts the same definition, you will simply be misleading people if you claim we are not Christians to members of society who have not adopted your definition.
Make sense?
Thanks.
LOL this is the end result of all Mormon Doctrine and has been taught since the 1840’s by almost every “prophet” and “apostle”. You are a liar Shem, and not a good one. Why do you keep making these deceptive statements? It is Mormon doctrine because it is a teaching of your “apostles” and “prophets” given by “revelation”.
Say what you want FoF, But I had to Laugh when you said
LDS are effective at this by not sharing everything they believe, They make excuses for not doing this and sometimes call it milk before meat.
Lets see, LDS will say we believe in Jesus and we believe in God the father. LDS will say, Christians do also, therefore LDS are Christian. And people who dont know what Mormons REALLY believe will be led by Omission of facts to believe something that they would not believe otherwise.
What your failing to tell people is, Christians Believe Jesus is God and HE is eternal. You guys lead people to believe this by simply saying, we agree and believe as the Christians do. So this is what people seem to think LDS believe.
Yet you dont tell them you believe Jesus was a created being, and that he is not God the father, and he was not eternal in nature.
How many times have you been asked by Falcon or others to flat out define what you mean? You do not, you simply either avoid the question, or give some pat answer.