Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[ERayR]

Remember, it's a mystery!

 

This subject is not a mystery to an LDS.  When John said: John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent that he really meant it.  I am sorry you do not.

[danielwoods]

 

ERayR, on 30 Dec 2014 - 2:29 PM, said:

 

 

So how many are they?

 

 

Trinity= three in one.

[ERayR]

Actually, deriving my theology from the whole context of the Bible is deriving it from the biblical text. Which is the main reason I have been pointing out what the context is in this particular passage. The LDS read these words and insert their own meanings, which are completely foreign to the original hearers of these words. 

 

The interesting thing to me is how strongly the LDS argue that they are the ones who actually understand the text correctly. It's almost like they want to validate their position by this claim. 

 

Holding up a mirror:  Take a look.

[ERayR]

Teancum, no it is the foundational personal experience relating to how I've arrived at my conclusions about religious faith. There has to be a standard to measure against. Scripture, the Bible is that standard.

 

It might be helpful for you to acknowledge and understand the messages of the Bible come to us through interpretation, our own and others.  It is wise to evaluate those interpretations from time to time.

[ERayR]

Trinity= three in one.

 

You told me they were not three and you told me they are not one.  Inconsistencies much.  Make up your mind are they one or are they three?

[MiserereNobis]

This subject is not a mystery to an LDS.  When John said: John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent that he really meant it.  I am sorry you do not.

 

Trinitarians believe that scripture, too.  In eternal life, when we are in heaven and are experiencing the Beatific Vision, then we will know God in ways we cannot now in this life.  Now, we see but through a glass darkly...

 

I would also argue that the nature of God and the Godhead is a mystery to Mormons, too.  There comes a point in your theology when you also must say that you don't know and must wait until the next life.  There is nothing wrong with mysteries

[ERayR]

Trinitarians believe that scripture, too.  In eternal life, when we are in heaven and are experiencing the Beatific Vision, then we will know God in ways we cannot now in this life.  Now, we see but through a glass darkly...

 

I would also argue that the nature of God and the Godhead is a mystery to Mormons, too.  There comes a point in your theology when you also must say that you don't know and must wait until the next life.  There is nothing wrong with mysteries

 

In a sense that may be so but as of right now I think that I and most of those I know in the LDS church ave a good basic understanding of who and what God is.  However, I am also certain that there is infinitely more to learn.  No, there is nothing wrong with mysteries.  Searching for solutions to them makes things interesting.

Edited December 31, 2014 by ERayR

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Here's a good link that shows it is derived from scripture:

 

http://creation.com/jesus-christ-our-creator-a-biblical-defence-of-the-trinity

 

Or if you'd prefer a link to the writings of Tertullian, one of the Church fathers from 160-225 AD, there are plenty of scripture references there as well.

 

http://newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm

By adding in statements that are not made in scripture you derive it. Through an interpretation.

[Teancum]

Teancum, no it is the foundational personal experience relating to how I've arrived at my conclusions about religious faith. There has to be a standard to measure against. Scripture, the Bible is that standard.

 

Why is the Bible your standard?  Can you trust the Bible?  In my studies I am finding it is internally inconsistent, contradicts scientific evidences, was certainly not compiled in any way I was taught that it was and so on.  My conclusion is the Bible is a poor standard for discovering truth.  Why would you disagree?

[Calm]

There is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44: . Note that the Hebrew word for ‘one’ is echad which means composite unity — it is used in Genesis 2:24 where the husband and wife become ‘one flesh’. The word for absolute unity is yachid which is never used of God in the Scripture. [LDS would agree it is composite and like husband and wife, a couple is not one being after all, but two]

The Father is called God (John 6:27, Ephesians 4:6). [no disagreement]

The Son is called God (Hebrews 1:8. He is also called ‘I am’ in John 8:58 cf. Ex. 3:14 — see below for more biblical proof). He has always existed (John 1:1–3, 8:56–58), but took on full human nature in addition to His divine nature at the Incarnation (John 1:14, Philippians 2:5–11). [no disagreement on the first part, do not believe two natures is biblical but read into the scripture]

The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3–4), and is personal (Acts 13:2), not some impersonal force as the Jehovah’s Witness cult believes. [no disagreement]

They are distinct, e.g. at the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:16–17 all three were present and distinct. The Son is baptized, the Father speaks from Heaven, and the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, flies down and lands on the Son. See the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ Note that the word ‘name’ is singular, showing that all three Persons are one Being." [no disagreement, save for the last bit, see that as a misinterpretation, singular does not require one being, it can be a corporate unity, again requires an extra biblical concept to be read into the scriptures]

 

No mention of "two natures" that are mutually exclusive in John 1:14 or Phillippians as opposed to discussing his birth into mortality as a human.

 

So no, not just reasoning/derived purely from scripture….

 

Jesus is called ‘the firstborn of every creature’ (Colossians 1:15). However, in Jewish imagery, ‘firstborn’ means ‘having the rights and special privileges belonging to the eldest child’. It refers to pre-eminence in rank more than to priority in time. This can be shown in passages where the term ‘firstborn’ is used of the pre-eminent son who was not the eldest, e.g. Psalm 89:27, where David is called ‘firstborn’ although he was actually the youngest son.

 

Even if it is primarily about the rights and privileges of the eldest son, it is still about the eldest son and not just what comes along with it. Thus he was the Father's son as well as the Son. This does not prevent him from being eternal in nature.

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

The Son is called God (Hebrews 1:8. He is also called ‘I am’ in John 8:58 cf. Ex. 3:14 — see below for more biblical proof). He has always existed (John 1:1–3, 8:56–58), but took on full human nature in addition to His divine nature at the Incarnation (John 1:14, Philippians 2:5–11). [no disagreement on the first part, do not believe two natures is biblical but read into the scripture]

Concerning Jesus. You don't believe that he's fully human and fully God at the same time?

They are distinct, e.g. at the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:16–17 all three were present and distinct. The Son is baptized, the Father speaks from Heaven, and the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, flies down and lands on the Son. See the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ Note that the word ‘name’ is singular, showing that all three Persons are one Being." [no disagreement, save for the last bit, see that as a misinterpretation, singular does not require one being, it can be a corporate unity, again requires an extra biblical concept to be read into the scriptures]

The extra biblical concept being the trinity in your view? Yet, polytheism is clearly taught against throughout the bible.

No mention of "two natures" that are mutually exclusive in John 1:14 or Phillippians as opposed to discussing his birth into mortality as a human.

 

So no, not just reasoning/derived purely from scripture….

 

 

Even if it is primarily about the rights and privileges of the eldest son, it is still about the eldest son and not just what comes along with it. Thus he was the Father's son as well as the Son. This does not prevent him from being eternal in nature.

Not sure your point here. Maybe I'll understand what your saying when you explain your view of Christ not being fully human and divine at the same time.

[Calm]

"You don't believe that he's fully human and fully God at the same time?"

They are not mutually exclusive. One could even say to be fully human (as in fulfill the full potential of humanity) is to be fully divine.

Thus not two natures.

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Why is the Bible your standard?  Can you trust the Bible?  In my studies I am finding it is internally inconsistent, contradicts scientific evidences, was certainly not compiled in any way I was taught that it was and so on.  My conclusion is the Bible is a poor standard for discovering truth.  Why would you disagree?

Ahh, truth.  A very elusive commodity indeed.

[ERayR]

But what do you do when your beliefs contradict what is taught in the Bible--such as your belief in polytheism?

 

What do you do when your beliefs contradict what is taught in the Bible

[ERayR]

Trinity= three in one.

 

 

You told me they were three distinct persons then You told me they were not three but one and you told me they are not one.  Inconsistencies much.  Make up your mind are they one or are they three?

Edited December 31, 2014 by ERayR

[Anakin7]

       In Non LDS Christainity they [The Persons in the Western Trinity] are 3 "Who's" and 1 'What". And The term "Being" means "Nature"

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[pogi]

       In Non LDS Christainity they [The Persons in the Western Trinity] are 3 "Who's" and 1 'What". And The term "Being" means "Nature"

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

 

You are starting to sound like Abbott and Costello...and "I don't know" is on third!

[Anakin7]

       It's a MYSTERY !.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[pogi]

       It's a MYSTERY !.

 

No, he's in right field.

[MiserereNobis]

       In Non LDS Christainity they [The Persons in the Western Trinity] are 3 "Who's" and 1 'What". And The term "Being" means "Nature"

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

 

Yes, the key to approaching understanding (it's a mystery, so it can by definition never be fully understood in this life) is to realize that in Trinitarianism, there are different types of "being."  This is harder for us to understand because we live in a world dominated by scientific materialism, which says that all being is scientific matter/energy.  (Side note:  it intrigues me that Joseph Smith said that spirit is matter refined, because that view perfectly dovetails with scientific materialism).  But if you can step out of your current paradigm and think that there are different types of "being" then you will be able to approach understanding of the Trinity.  God's "being" is different from our "being".  And God's "being" is GOD.  The Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are all God because they all have the same Being, a Being which nothing else has.

 

As one goes deeper into this teaching, one finds that humans have a being that can become similar to God's, but this requires the atonement.  There are irreconcilable differences, of course, but in Catholicism there is the idea that in heaven we will partake of God's divinity, and in Mormonism there is exaltation.  I think one of the major differences is due to "being": in Mormonism, God and humans have the same being, but in Catholicism they do not.  So we cannot become God or Gods, but due to Christ's magnificent atonement we can partake of the divine nature.

[MiserereNobis]

       It's a MYSTERY !.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

 

I know it is one of my pet peeves, but Mormons sure bag on "mystery" a lot, when there are MANY mysteries in Mormonism as well.

 

It is not a negative thing to say that something is a mystery, that our mortal minds, our minds that focus soooooo much on words and language and ration and logic, that such a mind cannot grasp something that is divine and supernatural.  It elevates the divine and reminds us of our humble place.  There are many things that we simply cannot fully understand until we are in the next life.  Surely Mormons agree with this.  And if so, then there is no need to make light of the fact that other religions call them mysteries.

 

Heck, there are even mysteries in science... modern physics being a glaring example

 

/rant

[Teancum]

But what do you do when your beliefs contradict what is taught in the Bible--such as your belief in polytheism?

The Bible, especially the OT is much more polytheistic than you think. Cast off your dark glasses that you use to interpret the Bible thought your credal mid age Protestant theology. Be honesty. Do your own homework. Think for yourself. If you open up your mind you may be surprised in what you find.

[ERayR]

I know it is one of my pet peeves, but Mormons sure bag on "mystery" a lot, when there are MANY mysteries in Mormonism as well.

 

It is not a negative thing to say that something is a mystery, that our mortal minds, our minds that focus soooooo much on words and language and ration and logic, that such a mind cannot grasp something that is divine and supernatural.  It elevates the divine and reminds us of our humble place.  There are many things that we simply cannot fully understand until we are in the next life.  Surely Mormons agree with this.  And if so, then there is no need to make light of the fact that other religions call them mysteries.

 

Heck, there are even mysteries in science... modern physics being a glaring example

 

/rant

 

I am one who does not use "its a mystery".  I firmly believe that it is possible to at least get some of the mysteries answered.  The answers may be and usually are for personal consumption only.  You really ought to hear a High Priests group when I tell them there are no mysteries for those who seek.

[teddyaware]

 

You told me they were three distinct persons then You told me they were not three but one and you told me they are not one.  Inconsistencies much.  Make up your mind are they one or are they three?

 

 

What you are describing here is the mystery of the Trinity, the incomprehensible and unsolvable mystery in which the non-LDS Mormons rejoice. By admitting they do not know and understand how three separate and distinct individuals can converse with each other, and yet be one God of one substance, they have the luxury of having the controversy both ways (three personages, yet one God) without having to explain how such an oxymoron can be true. 

 

Meanwhile, we Latter-day Saints also believe there are three separate and distinct individuals in the Godhead but remove the mystery out of the equation by declaring that the one substance that unifies the three personages of the Godhead is the Eternal Spirit of Truth -- the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost each being filled with the eternal fulness of that uncreated and holy spiritual substance. Not coincidentally, the scriptures teach us that this Eternal Spirit of Truth is the same divine substance that makes the saints one with each other and also one with God.

 

Until non-LDS Christians are able to define and describe what that unifying substance of the Godhead actually is, there is no possible way to have meaningful dialogue with them as to the nature of the Trinity because by their own admission the whole thing is an incomprehensible and unsolvable mystery. For all the non-LDS Christians know, the Mormon definition and description of the unifying substance of the Godhead (the Eternal Spirit) is correct answer that brings resolution to their supposedly unsolvable mystery.

Edited December 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

I know it is one of my pet peeves, but Mormons sure bag on "mystery" a lot, when there are MANY mysteries in Mormonism as well.

 

Name one that doesn't have any answer.  There many be some with no official/canonical answer, but other than that they still have optional explanations.

 

Mormonism doesn't really accept the "can't know" answer.  At least it didn't used to.