When Agreement Isn’t Agreement: Why Conversations with Mormons Feel So Confusing

We have all experienced sitting on the couch, reading a book, when there is a knock at the door. Outside stand two Mormon missionaries. You recognize them immediately from around the neighborhood and instead of feeling annoyed or guarded, you feel a familiar sense of anticipation. These are people who need to hear the gospel, and you are glad to speak with them about Jesus.

You invite them inside, and the conversation begins easily. Your first instinct is to establish clear theological boundaries that you can explore with them, but almost immediately, you notice something unexpected. The language they use sounds strikingly familiar. Jesus comes up quickly, followed by faith, salvation, and grace. The vocabulary that normally exposes the difference between belief and unbelief is already on the table, spoken confidently and without hesitation. At first, this feels encouraging. You share the gospel and are met not with resistance, but with agreement. Statements that would normally provoke disagreement are affirmed. There is no obvious hostility, no clear doctrinal clash, no moment when the conversation clearly turns. And yet, something feels wrong. You find it increasingly difficult to identify what exactly needs to be confronted or clarified. You are saying things that you expected to distinguish Christianity from Latter-Day Saints, but they are received as though no distinction is needed. The gospel has been spoken, but it does not feel as though the gospel has actually been heard.

This is where many Christians quietly get stuck. The expectation in evangelism is that real points of disagreement will surface and can then be addressed directly with Scripture. But in these conversations, disagreement never quite appears. Everything sounds right, and yet not right in any concrete way. The discussion remains polite and sincere while moving in circles, returning again and again to shared affirmations without ever settling what those affirmations actually mean. And this is what makes the moment so confusing. You know the differences must be there, or the LDS missionaries would not be sitting in your living room attempting to evangelize you. Their presence alone testifies that a real disagreement exists. And yet, when you try to name it, it slips through your fingers. The question begins to press itself: if the disagreement is real, why is it so difficult to locate?

The problem is not that the Christian lacks compassion, conviction, or clarity. The problem is that agreement is happening at the level of sentences rather than at the level of definitions. The same words are being used, but the realities those words refer to are not the same. Vocabulary is shared, while meaning is assumed. This also explains why evangelizing Mormons feels uniquely difficult. As Christians, we know we are called to share the gospel with them. But when we do, it does not feel like a gospel conversation in the way we expect. With atheists, the pressure points are obvious. God is denied, and the gospel confronts that denial directly. With Mormons, the truth of their denial is hidden beneath agreement. When the gospel is articulated, it is affirmed, and that affirmation makes it hard to know where the Christian must actually press.

A simple example makes this clear. Christians often say that Jesus is eternal, and Mormons readily agree. On the surface, the agreement appears complete. But the moment the conversation slows down and the question is asked, “What do you mean by eternal?”, the unity begins to unravel. When Christians say Jesus is eternal, they mean that he is uncreated, eternally God, the second person of the Trinity. When Mormons say Jesus is eternal, they are referring to the eternality of intelligences, one of which became Jesus after being organized by the Father. The same sentence has been affirmed, but the underlying categories do not overlap.

The same pattern appears with other core Christian language, such as the phrase “saved by grace.” Christians and Mormons both affirm it, but they do not mean the same thing. In Christianity, grace accomplishes salvation. It is God’s unmerited favor that actually saves sinners. In Mormon theology, grace enables progress and completes what faithfulness and effort begin. The word is shared, but the role it plays in the system is not.

When these differences remain hidden, conversations circle without landing. Agreement feels real, but nothing is resolved because the underlying worldviews never actually meet. This dynamic is intensified by the way Mormonism presents itself publicly today. To be clear, LDS doctrine has not changed. What has changed is its public-facing emphasis. This shift is not accidental. It reflects a deliberate effort by the LDS Church to present itself, at the surface level, as simply another Christian denomination. Shared Christian language is brought to the foreground, while theological distinctives are pushed into the background. The result is a sense of familiarity that feels reassuring at first, but ultimately produces confusion, especially for Christians who are genuinely trying to speak truthfully and lovingly.

This shift should not be understood as a bait-and-switch in a nefarious sense. It reflects a deliberate communication strategy, not an attempt to deceive. Institutions routinely emphasize points of contact with their audience while postponing points of difference, especially when those differences are likely to create immediate resistance. We have seen something similar within Christianity itself. In the seeker-sensitive movement, churches often foregrounded broadly affirming language about Jesus while delaying or minimizing theological precision. Messages such as “Jesus loves you for who you are” were emphasized, while harder clarifications like “repentance means change who you are” were often postponed or left unstated. The shift was not driven by a rejection of doctrine, but by the belief that familiarity would create openness and reduce resistance. The intention was pastoral and evangelistic, even when the long-term effects proved problematic. In that sense, Mormonism is not unique. The confusion does not arise from malicious intent, but from the predictable consequences of emphasizing shared language while leaving underlying definitions unexamined. In that sense, Mormonism is not unique. The confusion doesn't arise from malicious intent, but from the predictable consequences of emphasizing shared language while leaving underlying definitions unexamined. What you win people with is what you win them to. When faith is built on undefined terms, it is often fragile.

This is why conversations with Mormons feel so disorienting, and it is also why theology matters within the church. Mormonism is not Christianity. It teaches a different gospel brought by a different Jesus, and that difference matters, not because we are interested in winning arguments, but because people matter. That is why these conversations are necessary. That is why preparation matters. And that is why Fellowship Night exists.

If you are interested in joining Tennessee Apologetics for a Fellowship Night, or want to follow this Mormon series, visit tennesseeapologetics.com to see when our next gathering is and how we approach these conversations with clarity and charity.