What do you think?
Rate this book
Yes, Mormons Are Christians: How A Devoted Catholic Discovered the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ
What is it about the LDS Church that causes it to be one of the fastest growing Christian churches in the world today in a day when religious institutions and values are deteriorating all about us? This book is designed to highlight and clarify the teachings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. It will lead you, the reader, to new discoveries about who you really are, why are are here on earth and what you can become. The writer is himself an adult convert to the Mormon Church. He was destined for the robes of the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church, but instead ended up as a General Authority in the LDS Church. How is this possible? How could he embrace Mormonism after being so dedicated to Catholicism? He explains it all herein. It is the writer's earnest intent and hope to discuss the relationships of truth to mortal life and well as your eternal life. This book is intended for non-members or investigators or new members to obtain the basic principles of the restored Gospel. Written from a convert's point of view, in an easy-to-understand style that both uplifts and inspires.
192 pages, Paperback
Published July 10, 2024
About the author
Gary J. Coleman
8 books2 followersGary Jerome Coleman has been a general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) since 1992.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
July 28, 2026
welcome back to mattie is big time beefing. 🥩
i found this book at a thrift store and, quite literally, it was calling my name.
if there is one religion that has managed to permanently rent out a wing in my brain, it is mormonism.
i don't mean that in a snarky way. i mean it with genuine fascination. i have spent hours talking with missionaries. i have watched documentaries. i've gone down enough youtube rabbit holes to earn honorary algorithm status. i've read sections of the book of mormon. i have absolutely no shortage of curiosity when it comes to understanding what members of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints actually believe.
so naturally, i bought yes, mormons are christians by gary coleman.
and friend...
i had the time of my life.
this book managed to be simultaneously fascinating, informative, confusing, concerning, and one of the greatest theological rage bait experiences i've had in a while.
before i say anything else, i do want to acknowledge that i genuinely appreciated hearing the perspective of someone who converted from catholicism into the lds church. i learned a tremendous amount about mormon theology that i either hadn't encountered before or hadn't seen explained so plainly. i honestly enjoyed reading it because it gave me a better understanding of how faithful latter day saints think about god, salvation, authority, family, and eternity.
that being said...
my eyebrows spent most of the book somewhere around my hairline.
one of the first things that immediately stood out to me was the language.
phrases like "the restored gospel" and "the true and living church" appeared over and over again. now, i understand why those phrases exist within lds theology. they aren't accidental. they're foundational. but they also reveal the central theological disagreement before chapter one has even warmed up.
because if the gospel had to be restored, then it necessarily follows that christ failed to preserve his church.
that is an enormous claim.
jesus says that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. if there truly was a universal apostasy requiring eighteen centuries of silence before joseph smith arrived, then the church wasn't preserved.
it disappeared.
that's not restoration.
that's replacement.
and that's where the conversation stops being about denominations and starts becoming a conversation about entirely different understandings of christian history.
there was one sentence that actually made me put the book down for a second.
the author referred to the nicene creed as creating "confusion and false doctrines."
oh.
oh no.
see, this isn't just disagreement over secondary theology.
the nicene creed wasn't invented because a bunch of bored bishops wanted a committee meeting.
it exists because the early church spent centuries defending the deity of christ against heresy. it summarizes what christians had already confessed from scripture. to dismiss it as false doctrine isn't merely disagreeing with church tradition.
it's rejecting one of the most foundational summaries of historic christian belief.
that sentence honestly explained more about the divide between christianity and mormonism than almost the entire rest of the book.
another thing i noticed almost immediately was the sources.
there were quote after quote after quote from the doctrine and covenants.
the pearl of great price.
the book of mormon.
general authorities.
presidents of the church.
and i kept waiting for the biblical comparison.
it never really came.
that's what surprised me the most.
if you're writing a book specifically arguing that your faith belongs within historic christianity, i expected scripture to carry the argument.
instead, many of the claims were supported by books that christians outside the lds church do not recognize as scripture in the first place.
there were even moments where the author would write something like, "in this statement by jesus..."
and then immediately quote something that wasn't from the bible.
i actually laughed out loud.
because if someone says, "jesus said..."
my brain assumes matthew.
mark.
luke.
john.
not doctrine and covenants section whatever.
that's not a small distinction.
that's the entire debate.
one of my favorite discoveries was learning about "spirit children."
apparently i had an entire pre earth existence that i simply forgot about.
news to me.
according to mormon theology, i have existed long before my earthly life and i am currently living in a state of earthly probation.
which honestly explains why i forgot where i put my coffee this morning.
but more seriously, this idea dramatically changes the biblical story of humanity.
in scripture, our identity begins with god creating us.
in mormon theology, mortality becomes one chapter in an already existing eternal progression.
those are profoundly different stories about what it means to be human.
the discussion surrounding prophets was another place where i found myself increasingly uncomfortable.
the author repeatedly emphasizes that presidents of the church speak "on behalf of the lord."
their words are treated as authoritative revelation.
functionally, that creates an open canon.
the biblical canon isn't sufficient because revelation continues.
that changes everything.
because once ongoing revelation carries divine authority, every previous doctrine becomes theoretically editable.
historic christianity has certainly had teachers, pastors, councils, confessions, and theologians.
none of them get to add scripture.
there was also a section discussing work that left me scratching my head.
the author writes that works have nothing to do with whether someone receives the free gift of salvation.
excellent.
wonderful.
we're off to a great start.
and then...
"however..."
excuse me?
however is doing an olympic level amount of theological heavy lifting in that sentence.
throughout the book there is such a strong emphasis on progression, ordinances, obedience, temple participation, covenant keeping, eternal advancement, and avoiding idleness that the distinction between grace and striving becomes increasingly blurry.
yes, they affirm grace.
but grace often feels like the doorway into an endless performance review.
the section on eternal families was also fascinating.
i had never heard marriage vows described as a divorce decree before.
that certainly wins the award for most creative criticism of "until death do us part."
it was one of several places where i found myself appreciating how internally consistent mormon theology is.
if eternal marriage exists, then of course earthly marriage sounds incomplete.
the issue is that eternal marriage itself depends on an entire theological framework that scripture never teaches.
perhaps the biggest takeaway from this book is that i walked away even more convinced that the debate isn't whether mormons love jesus.
many clearly do.
the debate is which jesus.
which gospel.
which authority.
which revelation.
which understanding of god.
those questions matter.
when the nature of god changes, when additional scriptures become authoritative, when prophets continue speaking revelation, when humanity preexists mortality, when exaltation becomes the goal, and when the church itself is said to require restoration after centuries of apostasy, we aren't talking about disagreements over worship style or church government anymore.
we're talking about an entirely different theological system.
that's why i don't think the question "are mormons christians?" is actually the most helpful one.
the better question is whether mormonism teaches the same gospel confessed by historic christianity.
after reading this book from cover to cover, i don't believe it does.
all that being said, i genuinely enjoyed this book.
i learned something on almost every page.
it made me laugh.
it made me pause.
it made me highlight.
it made me aggressively annotate the margins.
and occasionally it made me stare into the middle distance while whispering, "respectfully... what?"
which, for me, is honestly the mark of a five star reading experience.
theologically speaking, i have approximately nine hundred follow up questions.
emotionally speaking, i am now one documentary away from accidentally earning a minor in mormon studies.
i found this book at a thrift store and, quite literally, it was calling my name.
if there is one religion that has managed to permanently rent out a wing in my brain, it is mormonism.
i don't mean that in a snarky way. i mean it with genuine fascination. i have spent hours talking with missionaries. i have watched documentaries. i've gone down enough youtube rabbit holes to earn honorary algorithm status. i've read sections of the book of mormon. i have absolutely no shortage of curiosity when it comes to understanding what members of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints actually believe.
so naturally, i bought yes, mormons are christians by gary coleman.
and friend...
i had the time of my life.
this book managed to be simultaneously fascinating, informative, confusing, concerning, and one of the greatest theological rage bait experiences i've had in a while.
before i say anything else, i do want to acknowledge that i genuinely appreciated hearing the perspective of someone who converted from catholicism into the lds church. i learned a tremendous amount about mormon theology that i either hadn't encountered before or hadn't seen explained so plainly. i honestly enjoyed reading it because it gave me a better understanding of how faithful latter day saints think about god, salvation, authority, family, and eternity.
that being said...
my eyebrows spent most of the book somewhere around my hairline.
one of the first things that immediately stood out to me was the language.
phrases like "the restored gospel" and "the true and living church" appeared over and over again. now, i understand why those phrases exist within lds theology. they aren't accidental. they're foundational. but they also reveal the central theological disagreement before chapter one has even warmed up.
because if the gospel had to be restored, then it necessarily follows that christ failed to preserve his church.
that is an enormous claim.
jesus says that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. if there truly was a universal apostasy requiring eighteen centuries of silence before joseph smith arrived, then the church wasn't preserved.
it disappeared.
that's not restoration.
that's replacement.
and that's where the conversation stops being about denominations and starts becoming a conversation about entirely different understandings of christian history.
there was one sentence that actually made me put the book down for a second.
the author referred to the nicene creed as creating "confusion and false doctrines."
oh.
oh no.
see, this isn't just disagreement over secondary theology.
the nicene creed wasn't invented because a bunch of bored bishops wanted a committee meeting.
it exists because the early church spent centuries defending the deity of christ against heresy. it summarizes what christians had already confessed from scripture. to dismiss it as false doctrine isn't merely disagreeing with church tradition.
it's rejecting one of the most foundational summaries of historic christian belief.
that sentence honestly explained more about the divide between christianity and mormonism than almost the entire rest of the book.
another thing i noticed almost immediately was the sources.
there were quote after quote after quote from the doctrine and covenants.
the pearl of great price.
the book of mormon.
general authorities.
presidents of the church.
and i kept waiting for the biblical comparison.
it never really came.
that's what surprised me the most.
if you're writing a book specifically arguing that your faith belongs within historic christianity, i expected scripture to carry the argument.
instead, many of the claims were supported by books that christians outside the lds church do not recognize as scripture in the first place.
there were even moments where the author would write something like, "in this statement by jesus..."
and then immediately quote something that wasn't from the bible.
i actually laughed out loud.
because if someone says, "jesus said..."
my brain assumes matthew.
mark.
luke.
john.
not doctrine and covenants section whatever.
that's not a small distinction.
that's the entire debate.
one of my favorite discoveries was learning about "spirit children."
apparently i had an entire pre earth existence that i simply forgot about.
news to me.
according to mormon theology, i have existed long before my earthly life and i am currently living in a state of earthly probation.
which honestly explains why i forgot where i put my coffee this morning.
but more seriously, this idea dramatically changes the biblical story of humanity.
in scripture, our identity begins with god creating us.
in mormon theology, mortality becomes one chapter in an already existing eternal progression.
those are profoundly different stories about what it means to be human.
the discussion surrounding prophets was another place where i found myself increasingly uncomfortable.
the author repeatedly emphasizes that presidents of the church speak "on behalf of the lord."
their words are treated as authoritative revelation.
functionally, that creates an open canon.
the biblical canon isn't sufficient because revelation continues.
that changes everything.
because once ongoing revelation carries divine authority, every previous doctrine becomes theoretically editable.
historic christianity has certainly had teachers, pastors, councils, confessions, and theologians.
none of them get to add scripture.
there was also a section discussing work that left me scratching my head.
the author writes that works have nothing to do with whether someone receives the free gift of salvation.
excellent.
wonderful.
we're off to a great start.
and then...
"however..."
excuse me?
however is doing an olympic level amount of theological heavy lifting in that sentence.
throughout the book there is such a strong emphasis on progression, ordinances, obedience, temple participation, covenant keeping, eternal advancement, and avoiding idleness that the distinction between grace and striving becomes increasingly blurry.
yes, they affirm grace.
but grace often feels like the doorway into an endless performance review.
the section on eternal families was also fascinating.
i had never heard marriage vows described as a divorce decree before.
that certainly wins the award for most creative criticism of "until death do us part."
it was one of several places where i found myself appreciating how internally consistent mormon theology is.
if eternal marriage exists, then of course earthly marriage sounds incomplete.
the issue is that eternal marriage itself depends on an entire theological framework that scripture never teaches.
perhaps the biggest takeaway from this book is that i walked away even more convinced that the debate isn't whether mormons love jesus.
many clearly do.
the debate is which jesus.
which gospel.
which authority.
which revelation.
which understanding of god.
those questions matter.
when the nature of god changes, when additional scriptures become authoritative, when prophets continue speaking revelation, when humanity preexists mortality, when exaltation becomes the goal, and when the church itself is said to require restoration after centuries of apostasy, we aren't talking about disagreements over worship style or church government anymore.
we're talking about an entirely different theological system.
that's why i don't think the question "are mormons christians?" is actually the most helpful one.
the better question is whether mormonism teaches the same gospel confessed by historic christianity.
after reading this book from cover to cover, i don't believe it does.
all that being said, i genuinely enjoyed this book.
i learned something on almost every page.
it made me laugh.
it made me pause.
it made me highlight.
it made me aggressively annotate the margins.
and occasionally it made me stare into the middle distance while whispering, "respectfully... what?"
which, for me, is honestly the mark of a five star reading experience.
theologically speaking, i have approximately nine hundred follow up questions.
emotionally speaking, i am now one documentary away from accidentally earning a minor in mormon studies.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review