Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

The answer is right there in the post that you liked. It explains why the post you didn't like is in full agreement with the one you liked. In short, you didn't read either of them carefully enough, because if you had, you would either reject them both or accept them both.

[shalamabobbi]

mfbukowski,

I think we use some of the same vocabulary but the definitions we attach are distinctly different. What RB calls the Holy Ghost we refer to as the Spirit of Christ and what we call the Holy Ghost, RB has not experienced.

He uses the word revelation but he merely means second hand evidences, nothing at all approaching personal revelation such as the kind of experience reported in last general conference's Sunday morning session by president Monson for example.

RB is right, you would reject them both. The experiences you want to read into his words are tied to this work and he really hasn't had them. If he had, he would be a part of this work..

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

The answer is right there in the post that you liked. It explains why the post you didn't like is in full agreement with the one you liked. In short, you didn't read either of them carefully enough, because if you had, you would either reject them both or accept them both.

I think that is far too simplistic- as I said in my post, I thought you might answer "both", but that is far too general a reply - you are only talking about General Revelation here.

I must admit at least you are now admitting to one revelation- something you have not brought up before.

But many LDS would agree with you here, so be aware of that- I am not sure what that does to your position that we are not "Christians" when in fact many LDS testimonies are based on similar feelings.

You are definitely blurring the distinction between your previous stands on these issues and ours.

That's good for us, but I wonder how you can keep your notion that we are worshiping a "different God" or "Christ" or whatever your position is, with this apparently new approach at least to your polemics if nothing else.

If you are basing your position now on general revelation, and admit that all people can receive it, you are now committing to the idea that that includes Mormons, and we can all sing Kumbaya now.

Forgive me for being a little suspicious.

It would be nice if we really could get together and sing Kumbaya, but I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Edited October 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

I think we use some of the same vocabulary but the definitions we attach are distinctly different. What RB calls the Holy Ghost we refer to as the Spirit of Christ and what we call the Holy Ghost, RB has not experienced.

He uses the word revelation but he merely means second hand evidences, nothing at all approaching personal revelation such as the kind of experience reported in last general conference's Sunday morning session by president Monson for example.

RB is right, you would reject them both. The experiences you want to read into his words are tied to this work and he really hasn't had them. If he had, he would be a part of this work..

I hesitate to judge what Rob has or has not experienced- that's not our job to do, but he has not shown evidence of the kind of things I have experienced yet- that much, I am sure about.

But I think a real problem for his polemics arises now, bringing up what amounts to general revelation, because if that is what he bases his understanding of the Bible on, then that would make us equally capable of being as right or wrong as he is, and he loses the distinction between how Evangelicals know the Bible is true and how Mormons know scriptures are true.

I don't see how he can keep the distinction.

[shalamabobbi]

I hesitate to judge what Rob has or has not experienced-

I am going entirely off his post, the first you quoted that you liked.

I know that God exists because he has revealed himself..

in his creation, in the conscience, in Christ, and in scripture.

God's revelation in Christ is known to me in and through his revelation in Scripture.

the "how" of my knowing these things is divine revelation.

God reveals himself to me in all four of the ways just mentioned; that is how I know that God exists.

the Bible is God revealing himself..

I know that the Bible is God's word because it is..

God makes himself known in the physical world as Creator; the scientific facts testify to this reality.

the historical facts testify ... these things to be true

for me all facts are revelatory.

But I think a real problem for his polemics arises now, bringing up what amounts to general revelation, because if that is what he bases his understanding of the Bible on, then that would make us equally capable of being as right or wrong as he is, and he loses the distinction between how Evangelicals know the Bible is true and how Mormons know scriptures are true.

Whether it be rigorous reason or personal spiritual experience, both are looked upon with suspicion, if they cause the growth to move beyond the static position. That's my take FWIW..

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

I think that is far too simplistic- as I said in my post, I thought you might answer "both", but that is far too general a reply - you are only talking about General Revelation here.

No. I was talking about both general and special revelation.

I must admit at least you are now admitting to one revelation- something you have not brought up before.

No again. I have always insisted that I do believe in revelation.

But many LDS would agree with you here, so be aware of that- I am not sure what that does to your position that we are not "Christians" when in fact many LDS testimonies are based on similar feelings.

You are definitely blurring the distinction between your previous stands on these issues and ours.

That's good for us, but I wonder how you can keep your notion that we are worshiping a "different God" or "Christ" or whatever your position is, with this apparently new approach at least to your polemics if nothing else.

If you are basing your position now on general revelation, and admit that all people can receive it, you are now committing to the idea that that includes Mormons, and we can all sing Kumbaya now.

Forgive me for being a little suspicious.

It would be nice if we really could get together and sing Kumbaya, but I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.

You're simply not grasping the entirety of the post to which you refer. I mentioned God's revelation in creation, conscience, Christ, and the Bible. Furthermore, the issue dividing us is not the belief in special revelation but the content and meaning of that revelation. Evangelicals reject LDS religion because its primary basis is what we are convinced are false revelations. These false revelations distort your understanding of all four media of revelation that I discussed. I also explained that in my view knowledge of revelation and knowledge of facts are never at odds because all facts are revelatory. This means that facts can confirm true revelations and they can also expose false revelations. My position has not changed and I am not blurring my previously stated understanding of the differences between our two beliefs.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

No. I was talking about both general and special revelation.

No again. I have always insisted that I do believe in revelation.

You're simply not grasping the entirety of the post to which you refer. I mentioned God's revelation in creation, conscience, Christ, and the Bible. Furthermore, the issue dividing us is not the belief in special revelation but the content and meaning of that revelation. Evangelicals reject LDS religion because its primary basis is what we are convinced are false revelations. These false revelations distort your understanding of all four media of revelation that I discussed. I also explained that in my view knowledge of revelation and knowledge of facts are never at odds because all facts are revelatory. This means that facts can confirm true revelations and they can also expose false revelations. My position has not changed and I am not blurring my previously stated understanding of the differences between our two beliefs.

How does one distinguish between true and false revelations?

Let me guess.

If it corresponds to Evangelical theology it is "true", and if it does not, it is "false". Right?

How did I know?

And what do you mean by "facts"? Is "Pluto is a planet" a fact? How about Quantum Mechanics or Newtonian physics as opposed to Relativity? Which of these are "factual"? We know these facts by revelation? Which are right?

Edited October 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

No again. I have always insisted that I do believe in revelation.

Do you believe that God speaks to us directly?

[shalamabobbi]

A logical difficulty in calling the LDS side the one listening to that false spirit masquerading as an angel of light is the fact that resurrected beings were involved in the restoration of this last dispensation.

The only beings that could be resurrected so far in the history of the resurrection would be those who are saved. The resurrection of the unjust has not occurred yet.

This requires the assertion to be made that we are not being duped by false messengers but rather making these experiences up. So the problem becomes one of multiple witnesses collaborating together to perpetrate a fraud. That is the only logical tack left for the detractors to take.

[diglot]

A logical difficulty in calling the LDS side the one listening to that false spirit masquerading as an angel of light is the fact that resurrected beings were involved in the restoration of this last dispensation.

The only beings that could be resurrected so far in the history of the resurrection would be those who are saved. The resurrection of the unjust has not occurred yet.

This requires the assertion to be made that we are not being duped by false messengers but rather making these experiences up. So the problem becomes one of multiple witnesses collaborating together to perpetrate a fraud. That is the only logical tack left for the detractors to take.

To play devil's advocate: this seems to assume that the LDS view is true that evil spirits are incorporeal. From a mainstream Christian perspective, fallen angels are capable of appearing as corporeal beings. For example, in Second Temple Judaism, there is literature in which fallen angels are portrayed as having physical intercourse with women, producing offspring in the process.

Edited October 29, 2011 by diglot

[Gervin]

edit

Edited October 29, 2011 by Gervin

[shalamabobbi]

To play devil's advocate: this seems to assume that the LDS view is true that evil spirits are incorporeal. From a mainstream Christian perspective, fallen angels are capable of appearing as corporeal beings. For example, in Second Temple Judaism, there is literature in which fallen angels are portrayed as having physical intercourse with women, producing offspring in the process.

Is there anything Biblical that is interpreted by mainstream Christianity along these lines? Thanks.

[diglot]

Is there anything Biblical that is interpreted by mainstream Christianity along these lines? Thanks.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking. Could you clarify? thanks

[mfbukowski]

Well they may be deleted from the board, but I have full copies in my email of what that nice fellow said.

I hope Rob got to see them so at least he can understand why we get a little touchy around here occasionally, and mis-see him as cut from the same cloth.

Please note I do not mean to imply in any way that Rob is like that individual- I am simply citing it as an explanation, so he can possibly understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of such vindictive.

It makes it hard to even interact with critics, especially very vocal and visible ones. I don't think Evangelical critics who are perceived as "anti-mormons" will ever understand that, because there is no corresponding group who oppose EV's that way.

[diglot]

Is there anything Biblical that is interpreted by mainstream Christianity along these lines? Thanks.

Oh I think I understand what you are asking now.

The OT briefly mentions the story of the fallen angels having intercourse with women and producing offspring (Gen. 6) This tradition is also found in the NT. So I think even the Bible indicates that a corporeal supernatural being can be evil.

I'm curious as to why you specifically asked for a biblical reference to this concept?

Edited October 29, 2011 by diglot

[mfbukowski]

Oh I think I understand what you are asking now.

The OT briefly mentions the story of the fallen angels having intercourse with women and producing offspring (Gen. 6) This tradition is also found in the NT. So I think even the Bible indicates that a corporeal supernatural being can be evil.

...or good and can produce offspring.

[diglot]

...or good and can produce offspring.

2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6 also refer to that incident. If it was good angels (or resurrected beings), then apparently producing offspring gets them thrown into hell.

Edited October 29, 2011 by diglot

[shalamabobbi]

2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6 also refer to that incident. If it was good angels (or resurrected and exalted beings), then apparently producing offspring gets them thrown into hell.

I want to be sure I am understanding this correctly. The mainstream Christian belief is that these angels were created corporeal with the physical capacity to create life in a sexual manner and that it was something intended by God that they were never to exercise in any manner?

To answer your previous question, Rob accepts the Bible as trustworthy so I assume that is the only viable standard for mainstream Christian beliefs.

[zerinus]

2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6 also refer to that incident. If it was good angels (or resurrected beings), then apparently producing offspring gets them thrown into hell.

That is a false doctrine that is not taught in the Bible. None of the references you have quoted teach such a doctrine.

[diglot]

I want to be sure I am understanding this correctly. The mainstream Christian belief is that these angels were created corporeal with the physical capacity to create life in a sexual manner and that it was something intended by God that they were never to exercise in any manner?

Not quite.

Mainstream Christianity believes (AFAIK) that angels (good or evil) can appear as corporeal beings. Whether angels are inherently corporeal or incorporeal is another question. But if they are all naturally incorporeal, they can appear as corpireal beings if they so desire.

There are more than a few examples of good angels appearing as corporeal beings in the Bible. I was asked if the Bible expresses this for evil angels. I believe it does in the story of the fallen angels procreating with humans.

To answer your previous question, Rob accepts the Bible as trustworthy so I assume that is the only viable standard for mainstream Christian beliefs.

Not really. The majority of mainstream Christianity accepts church traditions as equally important for doctrine and teachings.

[diglot]

That is a false doctrine that is not taught in the Bible. None of the references you have quoted teach such a doctrine.

I can elaborate on this later, but it isn't debatable as to whether Jude and 2 Peter are referring to that tradition of angels and women procreating.

This was a very prevalent tradition in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. And it is what Jude and 2 Peter are referring to.

Edited October 29, 2011 by diglot

[David T]

That is a false doctrine that is not taught in the Bible. None of the references you have quoted teach such a doctrine.

No, but it was believed by or at least familiar to most of the New Testament writers. If one is familiar with 1 Enoch, you will see gobs of references and presuppositions based on it, not only explicitly quoted as in 2 Peter and Jude, but throughout the Gospels.

For what it's worth, 1 Enoch wasn't written by the ancient Enoch, but pseudonymously/pseudepigraphically by an influential member of anti establishment Jewish sect as a deep polemic/parable against the corrupt priesthood of the day (in apocalyptic language, priests were angels - the 'fallen angels' were priests who left their holy station to fornicate - both literally and spiritually)

Edited October 29, 2011 by nackhadlow

[zerinus]

I can elaborate on this later, but it isn't debatable as to whether Jude and 2 Peter are referring to that tradition of angels and women procreating.

This was a very prevalent tradition in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. And it is what Jude and 2 Peter are referring to.

No, but it was believed by or at least familiar to most of the New Testament writers. If one is familiar with 1 Enoch, you will see gobs of references and presuppositions based on it, not only explicitly quoted as in 2 Peter and Jude, but throughout the Gospels.

I go by what is taught in the Bible and in LDS scripture, and I am satisfied that that doctrine cannot be supported by either tradition.

[Deborah]

Genesis 6 actually refers to the Covenant people marrying a non-Covenant people, not to angels intermingling with men. The Sons of God our those of the Covenant. The JST found in Moses 8 clarifies this:

13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.

14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.

15 And the Lord said unto Noah: The daughters of thy sons have sold themselves; for behold mine anger is kindled against the sons of men, for they will not hearken to my voice.

[diglot]

I go by what is taught in the Bible and in LDS scripture, and I am satisfied that that doctrine cannot be supported by either tradition.

Who do you think the Sons of God are in Genesis 6?