That Jesus came in the flesh means Emanuel (God with us.) Right now that's the only thing that makes any sense to me. The book of Isaiah is so great in helping me on this issue. Especially since it was written 700 years prior to the coming of Jesus. Also, the 22 Psalm (Jesus line to the Jews,) pretty much lets you know about God in the flesh.

●As Ron has mentioned, perhaps the most unique thing about Christianity—as compared to other religions—is that we believe in God coming to us rather than us trying to go to God. This is why I get a little perturbed when people start talking about how “all religions lead to the same place (or God).” No, only Christianity says that God came to us. This is the solid rock on which we stand.

Exactly. God with a suit of skin; not any difference at all.

●I don’t think Ron was referring to the LDS concept of deity where God the Father has a "body of flesh and bones." The Christian view is one by which the invisible, infinite and incorruptible God has humbled Himself to take upon Himself human flesh. The LDS view is based on the idea that because the Bible says humans are made in the image and likeness of God that He, therefore, must have a body of flesh and bones like us. This completely reverses the order and direction of things. In one (the Christian view) God humbles Himself; in the other (the LDS view) man magnifies himself.

Note this thought from the apostle Paul:

Romans 1: 22-23 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

I do not believe the LDS would find anything you have written here as provocative. The Book of Hebrews clearly defines the mortal Christ as willingly allowing Himself to be emptied of the Glory He had as God.

●You may well be right that the LDS would not find anything in this post provocative. That is good.
●When you state that Scripture defines “the mortal Christ as willingly allowing Himself to be emptied of the Glory He had as God;” you may be using the phrase in a loose or colloquial manner; however, there are some problems with the language. First, it would be more proper to say (as Philippians 2 states) that Christ willingly emptied Himself and not that He allowed Himself to be emptied. The divine Son cannot be acted upon because no one has the power to do so.

Second, it would be more proper to say that the divine Word or Son emptied Himself rather than the “mortal Christ” was “willingly allowing Himself to be emptied.” Properly speaking, the human nature of Jesus the Christ came into existence at a point in time through the means of the Virgin Birth and, therefore, the divine Son of God (or Word: GK. Logos) is the divine nature of Jesus Christ that pre-existed eternally. It is the divine nature of the Son that humbled Himself and joined Himself to human flesh.

Finally, it is more proper to say that Jesus Christ veiled His divine glory rather than He “emptied (Himself) of the glory He had as God.” Christ’s divine nature never ceased to be part of the Godhead. This is an extremely important part of biblical theology and is central to our understanding of the infinite efficacy of the atoning sacrifice of Christ upon the cross of Calvary. Christ’s death upon the cross and His spilled blood at His crucifixion is the “cup” of “the new covenant in My (Christ’s) blood” that Christians celebrate through the Eucharist or Communion. His blood and sacrificial atonement on the cross has infinite efficacy because of His full divinity.

Paul, in writing the Letter to the Colossians, was dealing with a proto-Gnostic false teaching that denigrated the full humanity of Christ. To counter this teaching, Paul emphasized that when we encounter (or contemplate) the bodily humanity of Jesus Christ we come face-to-face with the full divinity of the Godhead.

Colossians 2:8-9 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

First: Is your wife in agreement with you taking the YP position if they offer it to you?

You wrote: Anyways, I said all of that to say this. I'm preaching on Wednesday and they will either offer my a position or not. I need to hear God in this before they make an offer, because if they make the offer and I haven't heard God I think my head will burst.

●There is no doubt that if you sense a definite call from God regarding this position before Wednesday, it would be good. However, sometimes one can only sense a confirmation after going through the process. I once went through a full process as a pastoral candidate and was confirmed by the search committee, elders and congregation. Yet, it wasn’t until after the congregational vote (which was very favorable), that my wife and I sensed that I shouldn’t take the call.

You wrote: Please pray that God will speak louder than my heart, and if I do get a choice in this, let me come to this church…My mind is already full of visions for this church. Things will be hard because there are people against the pastor here, but I guess that is true anywhere.

●Don’t be afraid to use your head as well as your heart. Here is what I mean; it is my theory that generally about 10-15% of every congregation has a problem with its senior pastor at any given time. That 10-15% keeps changing as the issues change (i.e. the music, his latest car purchase, the youth ministry, etc.). This is just “standard operating procedure.” At some point, though, the percentage of people that are upset with the pastor gets so high (35-40%) that he becomes ineffective. It is very difficult for a pastor—other than a founding pastor—to overcome the negative ill-will of a sizable group of disgruntled people. So, I recommend you take a close look at the “disgruntlement factor” at the church.

Okay, but here is the exception that proves the rule. The single quickest way to get a congregation moving in the right direction is through children’s and youth ministry. If the pastoral staff can get the congregation fired up about reaching the next generation for the Lord and positive things begin to happen, the church staff almost immediately gets the credibility for further ministry. Be very leery, however, of a congregation that is resistant to children’s and youth ministry—such a congregation is (in my opinion) slated by God for the dustbin of history.

It seemed that the oldest people in the church were most interested in seeing the youth of the church fired up like they were only a few years ago. I believe that is really a good sign since often they are the ones most against fired up kids.

●Wow, yes, if the older folks are behind the youth program that is a superb sign. No matter what the present attitude of parents-of-teens; they will get much happier when good things begin to happen with the youth—that’s nearly a “given.” It’s the older folks that are the key, though. They can—unfortunately—be a huge stumbling block or a wonderful pool of resources (i.e. volunteers, funds, facilities, etc.). It sounds like a great opportunity.

This is just my personal opinion; but, I am amazed by how few youth pastors cultivate a cadre of older people for their programs. My observation is that most youth pastors feel very comfortable with college students and young adults for their volunteers. This is good and certainly most of the students in the ministry will have a tendency to identify with younger staff. They also tend to be “hip” and know all the cultural cues that are relevant for the youth. The downside is that a chronologically young staff lacks a couple of important things: wisdom and resources. There are some amazing elderly people that have the great ability to relate with students. They are the kindly grannies and grandpas that kids tend to love. The students generally don’t look at them as “parents” and will, surprisingly, take advice and counsel from them. These elderly people also can wrestle gobs of resources from other older folks. They can even shame the parents into getting behind the program with more than lip-service. That’s just my opinion.

Humanitarian Bowl: Fresno State 40 – Georgia Tech 28

Tonight the BCS Sugar Bowl: Hawaii vs. Georgia

Go Rainbows! The WAC is on the attack!

Today, God has little concern about the past where He and His Son humbled themselves. As Christ said finally, "It is finished".

●I realize that LDS theology has a completely different set of presuppositions from Christianity. Both Christianity and the LDS use similar language and historical events; however, their theological underpinnings are radically different. I would like to demonstrate this by taking a look at this statement. First, though, let me say that one of the reasons I look backward historically is because of the old adage that those who fail to do so are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past. This is not only a premise of my current post; but, it is often demonstrated in our threads.
●You stated that “God has little concern about the past.” The presupposition of the LDS is that its deity (actually deities) is temporal and, therefore, it thinks and acts chronologically and sequentially. By their very nature, these deities can only concentrate on the present because the past and future cannot exist for them. For the LDS deities, the past is the “absolute past” and the future is the “absolute future”—meaning these temporal states are absolutely out of their present control because they do not transcend time. The best the LDS deities can do is calculate and predict what may happen in the future.

However, for the Christian God, it makes virtually no real sense to say that He has greater or lesser concern about temporal events. All temporal events are available to God at the same time. Additionally, the greater the power of a being, the greater that power is demonstrated by attention to the smallest details. On the other hand, the LDS deity—because it is temporal and finite—must marshal its intellectual resources and concentrate on only a few things.

●You stated that “God has little concern about the past where He and His Son humbled themselves.” According to biblical, Christian theology; properly speaking, the Son humbled Himself. The Father did not. On the other hand, one would not be wrong in saying that God humbled Himself through the Son.

The great majority of the world who call themselves Christian affirm the LDS are Christian. And that percentage is growing.

●A few thoughts on this issue:

1. I don’t know where you are getting your information on this.
2. Every Christian denomination I know of will not accept Mormon baptism as a rite of Christian conversion.
3. The determination of the Christian nature of the LDS cannot be made by a popularity contest or focus group. The determination must be made by theological examination. Comparing theological essentials as apples-to-apples; the LDS is heretical in the wildest possible ways.
4. My experience has been that when the average Evangelical Christian becomes familiar with LDS theology they are shocked and repelled. The typical response is, “How can such nice people believe such strange and ungodly things?”
5. The LDS is obviously working “overtime” to present itself as just another Christian denomination invoking the “gentle Jesus” and “family values” with an ad campaign that rivals GM. Again, though, when the average Christian becomes aware of LDS beliefs they become highly resistant toward viewing the LDS as Christian.

You wrote: You have blogged extensively about a God who does not care, does not sorrow with us. Hence, here you repeat that with "it makes virtually no real sense to say that He has greater or lesser concern about temporal events."

●Well…here we go again. As I have pointed out on a number of occasions; you seem incapable of or adamantly resistant to describing my positions accurately. You engage in mendacity in both portraying Mormon beliefs and in accurately defining those that oppose your positions. Meanwhile, I work steadfastly at accurately describing LDS beliefs in clear and dispassionate language.
●You stated that I “have blogged extensively about a God who does not care, does not sorrow with us.” This, of course, is a massive distortion of the theological concept of impassibility. Impassibility simply notes that God does not have emotions that arise out of a bodily nature because He is spirit and does not have a corporeal body. God, of course, has infinite mercy and care for His creation which arise out of His willful love and generosity.

In contrast to this, the LDS deity has a bodily nature and, therefore, has bodily emotions such as bitterness, resentment, lust, etc. This is obvious from the fact that the LDS deity has had (according to LDS theology) intimate procreative relations in order to father billions of “spirit children” with the Mother deity. Obviously, there is a sexual bifurcation in the bodily nature of LDS deity that produces sexual lust. This is clearly not part of Christian theology and this notion is considered blasphemous by Christians.

●You do not seem to understand why it makes no sense to see God as having greater or lesser concern about temporal events. The simplest way to understand this is with the concept of infinity and timelessness. God infinitely understands all things at all times. There is no superficiality or lesser or greater in regard to God’s understanding. However, the LDS deity (or deities) are both time-bound and finite. Therefore, by their very nature they must have “lesser” and “greater” understandings of things. In fact, as I have pointed out, the LDS deity (or deities) can have absolutely no understanding of future events other than to guess about them.

You wrote: God's compassion and feelings do not diminish. Nor does He use coping exercises over time (Yes, over time).

●You don’t seem to understand that you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you insist that God has lesser and greater concern and then you insist that his “feelings” do not diminish. I love the way you throw around the word “ludicrous” when you denigrate the thoughts of others.

Also, you don’t seem to grasp the implications of believing in a deity bound by time and space. As long as you insist on such things as “eternal matter” which the LDS deity only “forms”; “eternal progression” in time; a deity who is essentially composed of “flesh and bones;” then you must live with the consequences of such beliefs. The fact is, a deity composed of flesh and bones that lives inside of a temporal universe cannot know future events because they do not exist for him. Additionally, such a deity cannot possibly be aware of the events in universe except as determined by space and time. Not only does this mean that the time differential between Kolob and the earth must be considered; it also means that there is a sequential process that such a deity must go through merely to think.

Again, I strongly point out that the LDS conception of deity is a magnification of the person and abilities of Joseph Smith. Christianity proclaims that God humbled Himself to take on human nature; the LDS proclaims that man is magnified into a deity.

Romans 1:20-23 they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

●Hmmm….

I would think that this would lead to Calvinists viewing the non-elect as subhuman. Why wouldn't it be permissible to lie, steal, cheat, murder, enslave the non-elect? After all, nothing they experience in this life will be any worse than what is slated for them in eternity…But somehow this mindset doesn't develop

●The hardcore Calvinist position arises out of, in my opinion, an imbalanced view of Scripture. However, it still has a very high view of Scripture and, therefore, I believe that strong Calvinists take seriously the moral teachings of the bible. On the other hand, in my view, the great temptations of strong Calvinism are pride and a general lack of motivation in regard to evangelism. I am not the first person to note this. This has always been the “rap” on strong Calvinism. Additionally, as was true in American colonial history, the children of strong Calvinist are prone to despair about their own “election” and can easily lapse into secularism.

How many ways does God express His feelings in the scripture or that we, in fact, are made by Him in his image?

●So does this mean that you believe that God has wings or is a mother hen?

●The Bible declares that we are made in God’s image and not that God is in our image. I am not the first one to note that the LDS deity is merely Joseph Smith writ large including his proclivities for intimate procreative activity.

Thom, My half sister and her husband own 250 chickens on the other side of the Big Island. I believe they are all hens. Perhaps that is enough for you to run with for the next sermon.

●Thanks, but that won’t be necessary. In fact, my next sermon series is titled “Creation” and the very first one focuses on God’s incorporeal nature as the Supreme Being and Creator of all things from nothing.
●Since you don’t seem to understand why I asked you if you believe God has wings or is a hen, please allow me to explain. Since you believe the corporeal scriptural references to God to be absolutely literal, I wondered if you uniformly apply your interpretation to verses like Psalm 91:4 and Luke 13:34. Or, perhaps you conveniently pick and choose which scriptures literally describe God.

Here are some wonderful quotes from ancient Christian apologists defending the Christian view of the incorporeal nature of God against pagans.

Tatian the Syrian

"Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible, being himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things" (Address to the Greeks 4 [A.D. 170]).

Athenagoras

"I have sufficiently demonstrated that we are not atheists, since we acknowledge one God, unbegotten, eternal, invisible, incapable of being acted upon, incomprehensible, unbounded, who is known only by understanding and reason, who is encompassed by light and beauty and spirit and indescribable power, by whom all things, through his Word, have been produced and set in order and are kept in existence" (Plea for the Christians 10 [A.D. 177]).

Irenaeus

"Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligence, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God" (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

Additionally, I thought you might appreciate the orthodox Jewish view of this subject. Here are a couple of quotes from Mechon-Mamre a Jewish teaching website out of Jerusalem.
(http://www.mechon-mamre.org/index.htm)

God is Incorporeal

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of God's body (the Hand of God, God's wings, etc.) or speak of God in anthropomorphic terms (God walking in the garden of Eden, God laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that God has no body. Any reference to God's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making God's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent God in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent God in a physical form.

God is Neither Male nor Female

This followed directly from the idea that God has no physical form. God has, of course, no body; therefore, the very idea that God is male or female is patently absurd.

●Interesting…huh?

Some readers may be perplexed about my insistence that virtually all LDS doctrines have their dynamic center organized around “eternal marriage” with its potential for unending intimate procreative relations between a Mormon husband and wife (or wives) by which they populate “worlds without end.” But, in fact, the pinnacle of LDS theology is purposefully oriented toward attaining a state of celestial progression to deity. This can only be achieved through the “everlasting covenant of marriage.” The key though, is that this eternal progression to deity includes a state of matrimony with bodies capable of procreative relations that create and populate…yes… “worlds without end.” In order to defend this conception of eternal gender procreation with bodily relations; the LDS is willing to oppose the orthodox Christian beliefs of: A) God’s spiritual nature; B) Christ’s teaching that there is no marriage or sex in heaven; C) that God is genderless; D) that God does not live in time and space; E) that God created all things from nothing; F) that God is immutable; and many other basic doctrines regarding God.

You may think I am being “far-fetched” or somehow distorting what Mormon’s believe. Well, the LDS can speak for itself. Here is Spencer Kimball quoting Lorenzo Snow:

“When two Latter-day Saints are united together in marriage, promises are made to them concerning their offspring that reach from eternity to eternity. They are promised that they shall have the power and the right to govern and control and administer salvation and exaltation and glory to their offspring worlds without end. And what offspring they do not have here, undoubtedly there will be opportunities to have them hereafter. What else could man wish? A man and a woman in the other life, having celestial bodies, free from sickness and disease, glorified and beautified beyond description, standing in the midst of their posterity, governing and controlling them, administering life, exaltation and glory (D&C 76:112) (Lorenzo Snow, The Deseret Weekly, 3 April 1897, p. 481.) quoted by: Spencer W. Kimball, “The Importance of Celestial Marriage,” Tambuli, Jul 1980, 1

●Please keep these things in mind when you read about the LDS objection to the divine incarnation of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity.

Correction. The LDS do NOT oppose these beliefs. The LDS have thirteen articles of faith, the most fundamental doctrines of our religion. Number eleven reads, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

●Of course the LDS believes in freedom of conscience. However, long before the LDS existed, Baptists were the champions of religious freedom of conscience. This is an indisputable historical fact. But, this is not the point. As you readily know, when I say the LDS opposes such things as: A) God’s spiritual nature; B) Christ’s teaching that there is no marriage or sex in heaven; C) that God is genderless; D) that God does not live in time and space; E) that God created all things from nothing; F) that God is immutable; and many other basic doctrines regarding God." I do not mean that the LDS politically lobbies against these doctrines. Rather, (1) it propagates its own notions of these doctrines which are radically different from the classic Christian positions. (2) Additionally, LDS apologists and apologetic websites argue against the Christian positions with great fervency. (3) Finally, the LDS—in their formal teaching materials—oppose the classic Christian views on these doctrines. This is nothing other than a systematic opposition to orthodox Christianity. This LDS opposition to orthodox Christianity can be viewed—in all its fervency—here on TFD.
●If a religion originates nearly 2,000 years after another particular religion and systematically opposes all of the essential doctrines of that particular religion and then propagates doctrines that are radically different then that particular religion; how, with any credibility, can the adherents of the modernist religion claim to also be members of the ancient religion? How can a vegetarian that says that eating meat is wrong, refuses to eat meat and spends his life convincing others to not eat meat, with any credibility, claim also to be a legitimate believer in and participant in meat-eating? If you think this is possible, I have some swamp land for sale.

Gecko wrote: Now Thom may take personal offense with sex in Heaven, dogs in heaven, gods in heaven (but not Catholic deified Saints), differences in how creation occurred, and differences in how God looks.

●For the record—before I deal with the offensive notion of sex in heaven—Catholics do not believe in “deified Saints.” Catholics believe in the beatific vision or “felicity” which is the ultimate happiness of the faithful in heaven. This is a radically different idea than the blasphemous LDS notion of humans becoming gods with their own “worlds without end” that they populate through celestial sexual relations. It is almost shameful to have to compare the two ideas. For one thing, the Catholic idea stresses continence and moral chastity leading to spiritual union with God while the LDS notion holds out the reward of unbridled sexual pleasure while living as a god.
●Some may notice a striking resemblance between the Islamic teaching of sexual pleasures in gardens of delight in paradise for faithful male Muslims and that of the Mormon teaching of the faithful “having celestial bodies, free from sickness and disease, glorified and beautified beyond description, standing in the midst of their posterity, governing and controlling them, administering life, exaltation and glory” via eternal procreative sexual relations. I am not the first person to note that Mormonism is the Islam of the modern era. For centuries, Christians have rightly been repelled by the Islamic view of heaven. Likewise, the LDS notion is offensive. However, at least Muslims have retained a high view of God and defend His supreme transcendence over all of His creation. The LDS blasphemously propagates the notion that humans can become gods of their own “worlds without end.”

●Gecko, you state that we have a difference in what we believe regarding “how God looks.” This is accurate only in the most colloquial sense. Christians believe that the Trinity exists in unapproachable splendor and is completely invisible and cannot be seen. As Christ Himself said, “God is spirit.”

1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 6: 15-17 God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

You wrote: Now I am not a Christian in exactly the same way Baptists are Christians. But Southern Baptists are not Christians in the same way that Covenant Baptists are Christians. Is your own conference of Baptist Churches relatively free from hard and fast conformity? And what of all those non-denominational Christians which have huge diverging beliefs in their own congregations? Are they not Christian? And what of the unchurched who declare themselves to be Christian because of their belief in Jesus Christ as Savior?

●The eternal salvation of individuals is judged by God and God alone. However, false teaching is to be judged by Christians and the true church. LDS teaching is, perhaps, the most radically unorthodox and systematically heretical doctrine to arise in church history. While Islam claims the same deity as Christians and it also looks back to a common biblical history; it also refuses to say that Muslims are “Christians.” They have the moral integrity to state that their doctrines are in strong opposition to those of Christians and not claim to be part of orthodox Christianity.

Some theologians would have you believe there is a consistent interpretation and application of the Nicene creed throughout the Christian world. Because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints varies from it, the LDS are not Christian.

Thom has stated unequivocally that all Christian organization and every good Christian takes the Nicene Creed in total as foundational to all of their doctrines. He asserts that the solidarity is such that all those who vary from its original intended, classic meaning are not Christian. He claims there is such a substantial Christian consensus that the disparity of the LDS in comparison condemns them.

Before participating in this discussion, please become knowledgeable with the implications of the creed.

The initial questions to be asked and evaluated are, “By what authority was the Nicene Creed written? Was the creed meant to be represent all of Christendom when it was written and adopted?” What implications are there for today?

The Nicene Creed was adopted by Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church at the direction of the pagan Emperor Constantine because the Roman Catholic Church by law was the state church of the Roman Empire. All other religions were to be eradicated. All schisms within the Catholic Church were to be eradicated. Absolute conformity was needed using the power of law through the Roman Emperor. The modern world in total was the Roman Empire, Christianity was to be its only religion, and there was to be one universal (catholic) Christian church. Thus, the creed by force of law was going to represent all of Christendom because the Emperor gave the dissenters an “offer that they could not refuse.” When the Bishops of the entire Eastern block of Christendom literally walked out when their definition of the Godhead was not to be incorporated, the solidarity the Emperor wanted did not occur. But the weight of law helped all protesters of that time to submit to force.

The implications today, some 1500 years later, is that the meaning of the Nicene Creed, just as the meanings of the Bible changed. The creed, itself, did not change but Christian churches that came into existence used it as their personal meat hook to hang variant doctrines. The Protestant Reformation initiated widespread rejection of most things Catholic. As for the Nicene Creed, it had soft enough language that it proved quite malleable.

A singular example: The “one baptism” required in the Nicene Creed, administered through the Holy Priesthood of the One Universal Catholic Church, was to morph again and again as Protestants attempted to restore true Christian worship. Then, without central Priesthood authority, the Protestant churches and denominations began rejecting each other as well. The one baptism of the Catholic Bishops is now the tens of thousands of different baptisms of the heretic Protestants. Today we have innumerable creeds within Protestant Christianity that have discarded all things Priesthood.

The one baptism in the Nicene Creed is in fact many different baptisms Every Protestant baptism violations the Nicene Creed. In violating the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed before it, they defined who they were – Protestants.

Conclusions:

The Church of Jesus Christ is a Christian Church and a great deal more. We have the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Where so many unbiased sources attest that we are Christian, you should consider it as well.

II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.

As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.

III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).

We can note two other differences, not as fundamental as the preceding one, but which also have their importance:

A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.

B) If a believer baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after renouncing his or her faith or having been excommunicated, wants to return, he or she must be rebaptized (cf. AF, pp. 129-131).

Even in regard to these last elements it is clear that the Baptism of Mormons cannot be considered valid; since it is not Christian Baptism, the minister cannot have the intention of doing what the Catholic does.

1. Only Mormon baptism is efficacious—all others are not.

Baptism by immersion by a person having the proper authority is the only acceptable way of being baptized…There is only one correct mode of baptism. Jesus revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that a person having the proper priesthood authority to baptize "shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism.

2. Only proper LDS baptism gains the forgiveness of sins—those not properly baptized are unforgiven.

When we place our faith in Jesus Christ, repent, and are baptized, our sins are forgiven through the atonement of Jesus Christ…Alma explained that we must want to be called the people of God. We must be willing to help and comfort each other. We must stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things and in all places. As we do these things and are baptized, God will forgive our sins.

3. Those who are not properly baptized through the LDS cannot “enter the celestial kingdom” and may be “damned.”

Jesus said, "Whoso believeth in me, and is baptized . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned" (3 Nephi 11:33-34). Baptism is the gateway through which we enter the celestial kingdom.

4. Only those properly baptized through the LDS can receive the Holy Spirit.

We Must Be Baptized before We Can Receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost…The Lord said, "If thou wilt turn unto me, and . . . repent of all thy transgressions [sins], and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, . . . ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Moses 6:52).

Only those properly baptized in the LDS can be born again.

With baptism we begin a new way of life. That is why we call it a rebirth. Jesus said that unless we are born of the water and of the spirit, we cannot enter the kingdom of God (see John 3:3-5).

●Yet, the amazing thing is that the LDS is forever saying, “We are Christians just like the rest of them!” This begs the question. How can the LDS—on the one hand—say that the only efficacious baptism is Mormon baptism and without it one cannot: A) be forgiven; B) receive the Holy Spirit; C) enter the “celestial kingdom;” or D) be born again and, yet—on the other hand—say that those who have not been baptized into the Mormon Church by its proper authority are still considered “Christians?” Therefore, according to the LDS, these not-properly-baptized people are “Christians” who are A) not forgiven their sins; B) do not have the Holy Spirit; C) cannot enter the celestial kingdom; and D) are not born again.

●If this makes any sense to you, please raise your hand. If, however, this sounds like typical LDS double-speak, please yawn.

As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix.

●This is a terrific insight that I finally came to realize just recently. I noted to Gecko that Christianity and Mormonism have totally different “presuppositions” that give rise to radically different views of the similar language of the two religions. I also appreciate your quotes’ insight that the LDS is not simply a heresy emerging out of a “false understanding of the Christian doctrine.”

I come back again to my suspicion that the unifying concept for the LDS is eternal marriage with its reward of bodily celestial procreative relations producing “spirit children” to populate “worlds without end.” Just as some Islamic radicals sacrifice their lives for the reward of 72 virgins in paradise; obedient Mormons are animated by the prospect of eternal realms and relations.