The differences between Mormonism and Christianity

Published on April 17, 2008 By erathoniel In Religion

Mormonism and Christianity vary in many ways. It would not be too big a leap to say they're different religions.

Mormonism teaches that God achieved godhood by living a perfect life. Christianity (and Judaism) preaches that God is an infinite being, and always has been. "As Psalms 90:2 and 93:2 state, God has been God 'from eternity to eternity.'"
Mormonism teaches that God is made of flesh and bones. Christianity (and Judaism) preach that God is an infinite, formless (in that he can take any shape or form, and needs not physically exist) being.
Mormonism teaches there are many gods "There are many Gods. Brigham Young-Journal of Discourses 7:333 "How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods." This is directly in contradiction to Judaism and Christianity's teachings that there is only one God, who is, and was, and always will be. "There is only one God. (Dt 6:4; 33:26-27; Isa 43:10; 45:5; 46:9; 1Ti 2:5)"
Mormonism teaches that God takes a wife. "'Implicit in the Christian verity that all men are the spirit children of an Eternal Father is the usually unspoken truth that they are also the offspring of an Eternal Mother. An exalted and glorified Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57) could not be a Father unless a Woman of like glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a Mother' (Mormon Doctrine, 1977 ed., p. 516)" This is never mentioned in the scripture. "The Godhead determined to make man in their image, not to procreate spirit children (Ge 1:26). Nowhere does Scripture even hint at the existence of an Eternal Mother."
Mormonism believes the following: "God would stop being God if intelligences stopped supporting him as God.", where as Christianity teaches that God is infinite. "God is not God unless He is all-powerful, all knowing, absolutely in charge. If God exists only as God because of support given from other intelligent forms, He is not God at all (Isa 44:6; Ro 3:4; Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13) God is unchangingly omnipotent, and no purpose of His can be thwarted. He is not overruled by anyone (Ge 17:1; Job 36:22-23; 42:2; Isa 14:26-27; 40:13-14; Jer 32:27; Mt 19:26; Lk 1:37; Ac 17:24-25; Rev 19:6)".
Mormonism believes that "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (D&C 93:29)" I don't need a reference (Try the first page of Genesis) to disprove this.

There you go. Big font. Follow the Article Link for more. Yes, I did take most everything from there, but as a fellow brother in Christ, with attribution to them, I believe that it is a good, rather than a wrong to spread infomation to save the lost sheep in the world.

Comments (Page 7)

Leauki

on Apr 21, 2008

He said first you have to prove you exist before you can prove Christ exist and work backwards. Can you do that?

That one is easy.

I am, therefore I am.

Whatever it is that is thinking this thought is me. Hence _I_ exist.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Apr 21, 2008

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

If we meet together in Christ's name the Spirit will be with us.

I agree that when we come together in Christ's name he will be glorified and his spirit that indwells each of us, as his followers, will be present.

But I have a bit of a problem with how this particular verse is quoted about. Recently I've heard this same verse misquoted a whole lot. Last week it was by a very new Christian who also serves as our worship leader. So I went up to him after church and brought this to his attention. He said after that it made more sense.

This verse is found in Matt 18 and in the context of church discipline. What he was saying is church discipline is necessary even tho it's very hard to do. Most churches today ignore issues that should be dealt with shying away from the discipline that needs to be done. So he's saying basically..."I know it's hard but when you do this in the manner I just prescribed, don't worry I'll be with you in the midst of this."

We know that Christ will be with us when there is only one of us as well. We don't need to have two or three present for him to be present with us. When he taught us to pray he said go into your closes (alone) and pray to the Father and he will hear you.

I am, therefore I am.

doesn't that go...."I think, therefore I am?"

So, if I tell you that I'm God....is that proof that I am?

It only would if you were Christ...

We can all say we're god or a god I suppose but that wouldn't make us one. But if we could do what Jesus did to prove He was who He said He was (we can't) we might have some credibility.

Jesus proved his divinity by his miracles, by the mouths of the Prophets. The OT scriptures described him to a tee as far as his birth and activities were concerned. He met the heritage requirements and most of all.....who but God could raise someone from the dead? Not just dead, but stone cold dead.

Now...if I could fulfill all those qualifications, then maybe, just maybe, I could claim to be God.

lulapilgrim

on Apr 21, 2008

I am, therefore I am.

doesn't that go...."I think, therefore I am?"

Yes, this is more like it KFC.

Zoologist03

on Apr 21, 2008

But if we could do what Jesus did to prove He was who He said He was (we can't) we might have some credibility.

Oh...so you do demand proof. Interesting...I thought it was faith based.

What if Jesus was just a good magician? People weren't exactly hard to fool back then by sleight of hand.

~Zoo

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Apr 21, 2008

Oh...so you do demand proof. Interesting...I thought it was faith based.

This is what many don't understand. Our faith is based on evidence. It's not really about demanding tho. God gives us ample evidence to believe on him. He who has eyes to see. It's not a blind faith. A way to look at this is like having faith in someone who has already proven themselves to be faithful to you in the past. So why wouldn't you have faith in this person now in the present?

What if Jesus was just a good magician? People weren't exactly hard to fool back then by sleight of hand.

That's why he went out of his way to do the things that couldn't be questioned. When he cured a blind man since birth or a lame man for decades they were well known to the townspeople. It's very clear he waited four days after Lazarus was dead to raise him out of his tomb. He waited on purpose.

It's not like today when these faith healers get up, speak some mumbo jumbo and then claim to cure one of cancer they didn't know they had or some ailment that couldn't be seen.

I always said.....if they are true faith healers why don't they just walk into hospitals and help grow back arms, legs, eyes and hands like Jesus did? That would give them instant credibility don't you think?

kingbee

on Apr 21, 2008

Revelation was closed when St.John, the last Apostle, died

you're not suggesting john the apostle authored 'revelations'?

kingbee

on Apr 21, 2008

The physical evidence is Jesus Christ Himself.

there is no physical evidence whatsoever of jesus' existence. despite 2000 years of searching, no tomb--empty or otherwise--has yet been located or determined (even by sectarian consensus, much less the relatively lax legal standards acceptable to judge judy's lamest counterpart} to be the one in which he was reportedly placed after crucifixion.

erathoniel

on Apr 21, 2008

Here's one difference. There is no evidence for Mormonism science cannot defeat. Yep, I can defeat it secularly.

kingbee

on Apr 21, 2008

Another piece of physical evidence is the Holy Bible

your bible certainly exists. its contents are, by any legal standard, hearsay.

100

kingbee

on Apr 21, 2008

Here's one difference. There is no evidence for Mormonism science cannot defeat. Yep, I can defeat it secularly.

ain't you somethin.

"...how canst thou say to thy brother: Brother, let me pull the mote out of thy eye, when thou thyself seest not the beam in thy own eye? Hypocrite, cast first the beam out of thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to take out the mote from thy brother's eye."

101

Zoologist03

on Apr 21, 2008

Here's one difference. There is no evidence for Mormonism science cannot defeat. Yep, I can defeat it secularly.

Well, Joseph Smith definitely existed and it's easily proven. He's one upping Jesus on that account.

~Zoo

102

lulapilgrim

on Apr 21, 2008

Kingbee posts: you're not suggesting john the apostle authored 'revelations'?[/quote]

Although no one knows for sure, yes, I think it was St.John the Apostle who wrote the last book of Sacred Scripture. I base this upon Apoc. 1:9-10 and the writings of St. Irenaeus, Jerome and Eusebuis.

there is no physical evidence whatsoever of jesus' existence.

History itself is physical evidence. Look up Jesus Christ in any encyclopedia or textbook. Historically, He is there. It's certain that a Jew named Jesus grew up in the town of Nazerath and traveled through Galilee and Judea from about 30 to 33 AD. It's certain that He really lived, really claimed to be God, proved that claim by His supreme command over the laws of nature, taught the Christian religion, and obliged man to accept that religion. It's all there....the written history of Christ begins with 5 reputable historians who record the events, Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul...besides them the Roman historian, Tacitus, writes about Christ and well as does the Jewish historian Josephus.

despite 2000 years of searching, no tomb--empty or otherwise--

The tomb was found as were the Shroud and other burial cloths....

Another piece of physical evidence is the Holy Bible

your bible certainly exists. its contents are, by any legal standard, hearsay.

You should come out of your dream world.

Even subjecting the Gospels as books to the same historical criticism as we apply to other books, we see they prove to be reliable historical documents.

103

erathoniel

on Apr 21, 2008

Yeah, we can prove Joseph Smith existed. Which is proof that he is not above any mortal human.

Burn.

104

kingbee

on Apr 21, 2008

I think it was St.John the Apostle

did john the apostle often use a location-based aka (as in 'john of patmos')? having decided to go to the trouble of identifying himself, why so coy? a book by 'john the apostle' woulda had much greater impact, no?

105

kingbee

on Apr 21, 2008

History itself is physical evidence

no...physical evidence is physical evidence and is totally objective. history is subjective.

The tomb was found

several of them have been 'found'. to which of those are you referring?

Even subjecting the Gospels as books to the same historical criticism as we apply to other books,

faith doesn't require facts. by the same token, facts require no faith.

there's nothin factual about the supernatural. those who insist otherwise diminish the value of both.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!