Comments about ‘LDS Christianity: Differences that matter’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Nov. 27 2011 10:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Newport Beach, CA

When the Nicene Creed speaks of Christ and his Father being "one Being," it's a translation of a word the Latin version of the Creed rendered as "consubstantial." That either means "being one Being," or one entity, or "being of the same substance."

There's an obvious difference. One jelly bean is "of the same substance" as another jelly bean -- but they are not the same jelly bean.

Interestingly, the Athanasian Creed refers to Christ as being "consubstantial" with the Father, as touching his Godhood, and likewise consubstantial with his Mother (Mary), as touching his Manhood. Nobody's arguing that Christ and Mary are "one Being." That argues for the "of the same substance" understanding of what "consubstantial" means.

The whole point of the Council of Nicaea was to refute Arius's heresy that Christ was less than fully divine -- that he was a different *kind* of being from God the Father. That is, it was to establish that the Father and the Son are "of the same substance."

LDS and Trinitarian theology are not as far apart as either side thinks.

Anchorage, AK


"washing of regeneration" is Baptism. Hence an ordnance (works)interwoven with grace.
Renewal of the Holy Ghost is a separate incident from Baptism.

"all men" have not been baptized (regenerated).

No faith or action is required for salvation (resurrection, live forever). Faith and all it entails is required to have eternal life (exaltation, live with God).

Cedar Hills, UT

Members of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints completely reject The Nicene Creed which all protestant churches are based upon. This confusing document attempts to describe the incomprehensible nature of God and the only thing they do succeed in doing is creating a document that is completely incomprehensible and absurd to the human intellect...and most importantly this document is NOT based on the New Testament but instead on centuries later traditions and falsehoods. So yes - differences do matter.

Payson, UT

Just one question....

Why did Roger Williams, one of the founders of the Baptist Church, leave what is now considered Christianity and become a "Seeker" of the restoration of the original Church of Jesus Christ, with Apostles, Prophets, and Authority brought back to Earth by Angels? Who are the real Christians? Read some history.

Salt Lake City, UT

"As LDS we believe, love and follow the Christ of the New Testament--not the "Christ" that was invented by the Council of Nicea."

Sounds just like those other Christians that say the LDS church doesn't worship the Jesus in the Bible.

layton, UT

RE:RG, I asked him if Paul's lost epistle to the Corinthians (referred to in 1 Cor 5;9)were to be discovered.

Not everything Pau wrote was inspired like his laundry list. Even if something was found it should not contradict the Bible.

That seer his name shall be called Joseph(Smith), and it shall be after the name of his father. ( Genesis 50:33 JST)? JS prophecy about himself. Not found in the Septuagint(Apostles Bible) or Dead Sea scrollsand Massoretic texts.
Joseph Smith Jr. Joseph son of Jacob, prophesied of the future mission of the Prophet JS twenty-four hundred years before the LDS prophet was born(50:33 JST ).(Religious truth defined by J F Smith, p.256-257).

For ALL the prophets were until John(the Baptist)(Mt 11:13) In past times He spoke by the prophets but in these Latter Days by His Son.(Heb 1:1,2 paraphrase)The office of prophet is done.

Re: JM. I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I(ego)am(eimi)...(John 8:24) The Jews understand,= Jesus is saying He is God.

Bountiful, UT

Not to confuse things, but in terms of authenticity, there is a group of Christians in southwest India who belong to a church founded by the Apostle Thomas.

As such, they have a strong historical claim to being authentic Christians, as well, but do no lie under the four umbrellas of traditional Christianity: Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestantism and "Restorationism" (ie, Mormonism).

Who can prove that this group is not more authentic than any other Christian group? Their lineage to Jesus is unbroken.


"LDS apostle Elder Dallin H. Oaks refers to what we call the Standard Works the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price as 'the Royal Family of scripture.' I say, 'I don't love one family member more than another. I love all four of them, equally.'"

Elder Oaks seems to be saying that the book of mormon is equivalent to the bible. There is no book equal to the bible for christians.


The word "Christian" to most people in the world means that a person is a believer of and follower of Jesus Christ and that He is their Savior.

If the word "Christian" were to be redefined as a person who (#1) must believe in the Trinity, (#2) that God is a nebulous personality and not a being, and (#3) the Bible is the only work inspired by God in the whole world, then I'm pretty sure Mormons wouldn't have any problem not being called "Christian".

So until the word "Christian" means something other than just a believer of and follower of Jesus Christ, then we need to accept that Mormons are Christians.

Brent T. Aurora CO
Aurora, CO

So I read the linked "paper" by Matt Slick. Much baffles me; but, three things here. First, if you meet a Buddhist he'll tell you that perhaps Jesus was a wise prophet and taught good things, while not accepting Him as deity. He might even live a life one would consider Christian, but wouldn't consider himself a Christian nor would we. If you meet someone who believes God either came Himself or sent His Son, and that Jesus Christ died for/atoned for our sins and is the instrument through which our salvation and destiny after this life depends, seems that makes you a Christian. Second, Jesus walks around and teaches things -- the purpose of which is to at least attempt to live by. That has to matter; otherwise, if one can choose to deliberately ignore these, we act in our own interest and mock His teachings. And third, between the lines and forgetting the twists of translation and interpretation, He prays in Gethsemane for His Father to remove the cup, on the cross He asks His Father to forgive his executioners and commends His Spirit to His Father -- is he talking to Himself? Why?

Bakersfield, CA

The discussion prompted by this article is vitally needed. There are misconceptions, assumptions and heresies, some preening and proud ducking, my testimony Upmanship, etc. But I feel that scripture should be the defining issue over the smorgasbord of opinions.

That includes the article's final quote by Orem's Rev. Lower. I agree that compassion and joint-ministry are great endeavors. But when the Reverend is quoted as saying that "we need to work together to share Christ's love...in a world that needs our ministry", I would ask him if neglecting to share Christ's true salvation message with the spiritually-dead, eternally lost soul is showing him Christ's love or mandate?

Jesus said that He was the Bread of Life and he had living water. He told the Samaritan woman that her people worshipped that which they did not know. "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.". John 4:23,24

What did Christ tell Peter to feed to His sheep?


The LDS church has been trying to minimize the distance between Evangelists and themselves for quite a while now. Yet back in the day, Joseph Smith, the man who founded the church, and Brigham Young made it quite clear that they were different. Besides that, you're talking about a newspaper that publishes the MORMON TIMES and is talking about differences when the leaders of the Mormon Church are so pointedly trying to close the gap. There's no way you could count that as a reliable source. Being an Evangelist myself, I don't think I have a completely fair view myself. The only way to truly analyze the differences is to have a 3rd party come in and look at it, which will probably never happen. But in the meantime, when there are fundamental differences in what Mormons and Evangelists believe about the Holy Trinity and God Himself, we will never be able to sit quietly in peace for a very long period of time.

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

donn: You really need to read the entire Chapter 8 to gain a greater understanding. Jesus was not saying he was God, but that he was the Son of God. That is what he had said from the beginning. As you read further, the Jews refused to accept that as he called him a Samaritan even though he was from Galilee.

The problem is that I accept Joseph Smith translation of the Bible because I accept him as a prophet of God. You do not. That doesn't make it false. That is an opinion.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints do place equal importance to both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. As Ezekiel said the Book of Judah, the Old Testament, and the Book of Joseph, The Book of Mormon equals the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon doesn't contradict the Bible nor does the Bible contradict the Book of Mormon. These are theological differences. Neither one makes one more Christian than the other.

When the Lord comes again the wicked shall be destroyed, Satan shall be bound and Jesus shall reign on the Earth for a thousand years.

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

During the time the Goverment of the World will be one government reigned over by Jesus Christ. Those left on earth will be the MOST righteous of all the people on earth. In the end every knew shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer and Savior of the World. After a thousand years Satan will be loosed once more and then will come the final judgement.

It is time for us to prepare ourselves to receive our Lord.

Chris from Rose Park

I like this article. It is simple. These are the same conclusions that were generally accepted from my meeting with many Catholics, Anglicans, and some evangelicals from my mission for the LDS church in Canada.

I also like the reactions to this article. They are for the most part very civil. It is important for people to understand one another without misconceptions. I for one like to know what someone really thinks and not just what I believe they think.

Pullman, WA

I love the way Bro Millet and Dr. Mouw can find a way to be civil and respectful of each other even though they don't always agree. They offer a good example for the rest of us. I don't think Dr. Mouw goes around telling Mormons what they believe and I know Bob Millet doesn't tell Dr, Mouw what evangelicals believe. May the rest of us take an example from that.

Provo, UT

It's clear from reading these responses that most of those commenting are doing so to express their own beliefs and not to seek actual answers to their questions. That's fine and it's unlikely that this forum be the place for those with a strong belief against another's to somehow suddenly see the light and change their own beliefs. All I ask is that you be up front about your intentions if you are asking a question. Some purport to ask as if they are confused but a really trying to say, "I know how wrong you are and this proves it," and the go on to reveal that they wouldn't think differently even if the received an answer contradictory to their beliefs.

Provo, UT

For my part, I'm LDS, and having read the canon of books we consider scripture, there is no clearer book to me regarding the nature of Christ and God than the New Testament (except perhaps Joseph Smith's account of his first vision). The NT is replete with references to Christ and his father as separate beings. God is referred to as the one to whom Christ prayed and even begged to remove the bitter cup from him, to whom Christ commended his Spirit on the cross, who Stephen saw to the left of Christ, whose voice came from heaven at Christ's baptism by John declaring God's relationship to Christ as His son, and on and on and on. there are comparatively few scriptures in the NT that refer to God and Christ as one (though they certainly exist, and often referring to us as one with Christ simultaneously).

As one who has done quite a bit of textual analysis in my employment, I would be hard pressed to think anything other than that Christ and His father were anything but two separate beings, using the New Testament alone.

American Fork, UT

I had some poignant discussion in my post. I guess I exceeded 200 words.

Manti, UT

I have always wondered why Jesus ascended to heaven with His resurrected body. If God has no body parts, what did He do with it? Why was it that He ascended to heaven with His whole body if not to show us that He is intending to keep it?

The Father and the Son were manifest in the New Testament as separate beings several times. For instance, were not all three (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) at the transfiguration and at the baptism of our Savior? Were they not manifested separately?

When Jesus prayed the "Lord's Prayer" or the great intercessory prayer, He prayed to His Father. Was He praying to Himself? Why did He tell us to call the Father "Our Father"; did He mean I am the Father, pray to Me?

The LDS Church might be different in beliefs, but they are the ones who are more scriptural in their teachings if you believe the Bible.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments