Skip to main content


Before moving on, some have brought up the concern of Mormons worshipping a “different Jesus,” thus suggesting that it does not matter how much we appeal to the name Jesus Christ if it is the wrong Jesus anyway. In my afore mentioned manuscript, I spend over 20 pages responding to this argument, including a table showing the characteristics of Jesus listed in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and “The Living Christ,” showing that they are indeed the same Jesus. Perhaps one day my arguments in that regard will see the light of day, but for now, I’m only interested in making my case for Mormons as Christians, not refuting the case against it. That has been done before, and I’m quite content to direct readers to the previous efforts of others.

Mormons Make Covenants in the Name of Jesus Christ

At the very core of LDS theology is the making of covenants through Jesus Christ, which reconcile us back to God. It ought to be clear from this fact that we are Christians, but our critics are never satisfied. Thus, we shall explore this concept in the New Testament, and see how the Latter-day Saint understanding compares.
The Bible and the Gospel Covenant

            The Apostle Paul taught that Jesus was the “mediator of the new covenant” (Heb.12:24), which is also called the “better covenant” (Heb. 8:6; also see Heb.8:7-10, 13; 7:22), and an “everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20); and that Christ brought about this covenant by means of His death and atoning blood (see Heb.9:15-20; 13:20). Jesus Himself taught His disciples during that great and last supper that the emblems which he had administered to them (the bread and the wine) were symbolic of the new covenant which was to be wrought through His own blood (see Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-25).[1] It is by virtue of this covenant that we are granted a remission of sins (see Matt.26:26-28) and made perfect by Christ’s blood (see Heb. 13:20-21).

Latter-day Saints and Covenants

            For Latter-day Saints, the ordinance of baptism represents the formal entry into the new and better, and everlasting covenant which was mediated through Jesus Christ’s atoning blood. Upon baptism, the Latter-day Saint covenants to: (a) take upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ (see Gal. 3:27); (b) always remember Christ (see Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25); and (c) to keep Christ’s Commandments (see John 14:15; 15:10; 1 John 2:3; 3:22; 5:2-3). In turn, God promises the following for keeping this covenant: (a) the remission of our sins (see Acts 2:38; Matt. 26:26-28); (b) that we will receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost (see Acts 2:38); and (c) be born again (see John 3:3-5; cf Rom. 6:3-4)

            To the Latter-day Saint, the Sacramental emblems of Christ body and blood serve as a symbol of this covenant, just as Christ Himself taught in the New Testament (see Matt.26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-25), and partaking of the Sacrament weekly allows the repentant sinner to re-new this covenant and once again demonstrate their willingness to follow Christ (see Moro. 4:1-3; 5:1-2; D&C 20:76-79).  Latter-day Saints further make formal covenants “confirmed before of God in Christ” (Gal. 3:17) through ordinances in the Temple.

            The Christian nature of this covenant is self-evident. Would non-Christians formally take upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ; and strive to remember Him and follow Him? Whether or not one agrees with the LDS Church about baptism being the formal entry of the “holy covenant” (Luke 1:72) which Christ delivered; whether or not one agrees that the LDS covenant is in fact the New Testament gospel covenant; one must agree that, in its very nature, this is clearly a Christian covenant.

Conclusion of Part 2

            The New Testament is clear that through the Atonement, Jesus Christ delivered and mediated a new and better covenant, and that by this covenant we may be cleansed of our sins and inherit eternal life. Consistent with this teaching, Latter-day Saints formally enter into a Christian-natured covenant via baptism. Therefore, I suggest that according to this New Testament based practice, Mormons are Christians.

Other Reasons

LDS Scripture Testifies of Christ
LDS Prophets and Apostles Testify of Christ
Jesus Christ as the Only Means of Salvation

[1] In the King James text of the New Testament, the word diatheke is translated as both covenant and testament. Diatheke literally means covenant or “contract” (see Strong, Transliterated Strong’s Greek-English Dictionary of the Greek New Testament, g1242). Hence, while these passages have been rendered as testament in the KJV, covenant would be an equally accurate translation of the Greek text. The same is applicable for Heb. 7:22; 9:15-20


Popular posts from this blog

The 15 “Best Books” to Read BEFORE Having a Faith Crisis

Elder M. Russell Ballard recently stressed that it is important for Gospel educators to be well-informed on controversial topics, not only by studying the scriptures and Church materials, but also by reading “the best LDS scholarship available.” I personally think it is imperative in today’s world for every Latter-day Saint—not just Gospel educators—to make an effort to be informed on both controversial issues as well as knowing reliable faith-building information as well.
(Given that Elder Ballard’s CES address was published to general Church membership in the Ensign, I think it’s safe to say that Church leadership also feels this way.)
An important step in the process of getting informed is reading the 11 Gospel Topic essays and getting familiar with their contents. But what’s next? How can a person learn more about these and other topics? What are the “best books” (D&C 88:118) or “the best LDS scholarship available”?
Here are 15 suggestions.
1. Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith S…

Responding to the New Video on Nahom as Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Many of my (few) readers have probably already seen the new video by Book of Mormon Central on Nahom as archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, starring my good friend (and co-author on a related paper) Stephen Smoot. If you haven’t, check it out:

As usual, comments sections wherever this video is shared have been flooded by Internet ex-Mormons insisting this not evidence for the Book of Mormon. I’ve actually had a few productive conversations with some reasonable people who don’t think Nahom is, by itself, compelling evidence—and I can understand that. But the insistence that Nahom is not evidence at all is just, frankly, absurd. So I’ll just go ahead and preempt about 90% of future responses to this post by responding to the most common arguments against Nahom/NHM now:
1. The Book of Mormon is false, therefore there can be no evidence, therefore this is not evidence. First, this is circular reasoning. It assumes the conclusion (Book of Mormon is false) which the evidence pre…

New Paper on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon

Joseph M. Spencer, an adjunct professor at the BYU religion department, recently published a paper in the non-LDS peer review journal Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception, titled, “Isaiah 52 in the Book of Mormon: Note’s on Isaiah’s Reception History.” Spencer is a young scholar who is doing exciting stuff on the Book of Mormon from a theological perspective.
The paper is described as follows in the abstract: Despite increasing recognition of the importance of Mormonism to American religion, little attention has been given to the novel uses of Isaiah in foundational Mormon texts. This paper crosses two lines of inquiry: the study of American religion, with an eye to the role played in it by Mormonism, and the study of Isaiah’s reception history. It looks at the use of Isa 52:7–10 in the Book of Mormon, arguing that the volume exhibits four irreducibly distinct approaches to the interpretation of Isaiah, the interrelations among which are explicitly meant to speak to nineteent…