Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[danielwoods]

If you don't acknowledge that your interpretation might be wrong in light of new information (BoM) and spirit, then you are no better then the Jews who refused to accept new information because it "contradicted" their scripture.

 

Do you see the problem with that?  You cannot gain new knowledge if you judge "new information" against your interpretation of the bible instead of through the spirit - which may cause you to adjust your interpretation over time.  The early Jewish converts never would have been converted if they were like you, because their interpretation (like yours) could be the only right one, and Paul's teachings would have clearly contradicted their scripture. 

 

You have to acknowledge like the early Jewish converts, that there may be more than one possible interpretation, or you will falsely judge new information just like the non-believing Jews did.  You judge everything through the filter of your interpretation, which history has demonstrated with the Jews, may cause you to be blind to the truth.  You MUST keep an open mind and an open heart.   

 

Also note, that the early Jewish converts actually listened to, considered, and thought much about the teachings of Paul.  They did not reject him outright because his teachings "contradicted" their scripture.   Have you done the same with the Book of Mormon?  Or do you dismiss the Book of Mormon like the Jews dismissed Paul because it "contradicts" your scripture?  Trust in the spirit, trust that you don't know everything there is to know about scripture, trust that you may not interpret all scripture accurately - this is the honest and only way to truth.

 

Your analogy is that the BoM is similar to the teachings of Christ coming thru Paul to the Jews of that time, as Paul preached to them. 

 

Here's a couple of points where your analogy doesn't work. 

 

First, Paul's preaching was based on historical events. "The Christ whom you crucified, died and was raised again, demonstrating that he was actually the Messiah who the prophets have spoke about." The LDS claims are not verifiable. There is no way to verify or not that the BoM is historical or even talks about historical events. Even the locations are not known. 

 

Second, Paul's message was that based on this historical event, these OT scriptures now make sense in ways we didn't understand before. The LDS message is one of restoration, the argument is that the Church fell into apostasy, and needed to be restored. Missing is both evidence for the historicity of this claim, and the actual need for restoration.  

 

So, the argument that my position, that the teachings of the Biblical text are inconsistent with many teachings of the LDS, is similar to the Pharisees who rejected Christ, and persecuted the early church, is false. 

 

You see, I am open and humble and honest as I can be. I agree with you that it's the only way to find truth. I have said many times. If the LDS version is accurate and true, then I want to know. Because, I don't care who's right or who wins, all I care about is the truth. I don't come here with an agenda to push a certain theology or churches teachings. I don't even come here to destroy anyone's belief in the LDS church, if that's what they are happy with. 

 

When confronted with new teachings that contradict what I have been taught, my attitude is to check it out. To study, as the Boreans did, and as Paul exhorted Timothy to do as well. 

[pogi]

First, Paul's preaching was based on historical events. "The Christ whom you crucified, died and was raised again, demonstrating that he was actually the Messiah who the prophets have spoke about." The LDS claims are not verifiable. There is no way to verify or not that the BoM is historical or even talks about historical events. Even the locations are not known. 

 

I see, the BoM cannot be true because it is not verifiable.  Let me ask you this, if the resurrection was verifiable, why were not all of the Jews baptized?  Why is not the whole world Christian?  How can you personally verify this history?  All you have is the testimony of men written in a book, well, I too have the testimony of men written in a book.  If you require verifiable evidence of me before you will believe, I will require the same from you.  All you have is a book...well, I have a book too.  You see, the resurrection was only verifiable to the witnesses.  We too have witnesses of Christ's resurrection in the later day, which serves as both evidence for the resurrection and restoration.  I suppose that this evidence will not convince you, well neither does yours.  you see, none of these claims are verifiable without a personal witness of the spirit.   

 

Second, Paul's message was that based on this historical event, these OT scriptures now make sense in ways we didn't understand before. The LDS message is one of restoration, the argument is that the Church fell into apostasy, and needed to be restored. Missing is both evidence for the historicity of this claim, and the actual need for restoration.  

 

History is replete with evidence for an apostasy, even you acknowledge the need for a "reformation."  Why reform if no apostasy?

 

When confronted with new teachings that contradict what I have been taught, my attitude is to check it out. To study, as the Boreans did, and as Paul exhorted Timothy to do as well. 

 

There are two ways to "check out" something.  The Pharisees like the Boreans also "checked out" Paul's teachings.  They "checked out" Christ's teachings with the same heart that you "check out" Mormon teachings - with the intent to find holes rather than to find reason.  You study what we believe, not with a pure heart, but to trip us up with scripture as the Pharisees did to Christ.  I don't believe that you have ever studied the restoration as the Boreans did with an open heart, open mind, and free of confrontation and accusation.  You don't try to see our perspective as the Boreans, instead you try to prove your own as the Pharisees. 

Edited January 4, 2015 by pogi

[Anakin7]

       LittleNipper there are between 200,000 and 400,000 [Depending on the person doing the counting] varient readings of N.T Manuscripts.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[bluebell]

The Christian life is all about walking in the Spirit, walking with Christ. We get to know him by studying the scriptures, first.

 

Why?  Why does it HAVE to be that way?

We get to know his words, how he speaks, his heart through studying his word. As we grow then we are able to listen to his words directly to us.

 

 

Why do we have to put our trust in the bible more than we put our trust in the Holy Spirit?

 

Why is praying to ask God for wisdom second best to studying His word without such prayer?

 

And lastly, where does the bible teach this?

[Teancum]

Bart isn't a reliable source. I'm not sure I have time to refute every point of his (actually I'm certain I don't). But, we could take one point that you think he makes that is really strong and analyze it.

Bart Ehrman is one of the foremost NT scholars in the country, but he is just one of many.

Their research clearly demonstrates the innacruacy of your claims that the Bible supports your theological version of the credal trinitrianis God on its own. Historical research also demonstrates that the earliest Christians believed a variety of thngs about God but not what started 300 years after

Jesus in the the historical councils and took hundreds of more years to develop.

Your theology has no more or less Bibile basis that that of the LDS Church and relies on extra biblical sources to get there just as does Mormomism.

Except Moromonism is honest about that. You are not nor are some of the other EVs posting here.

As for Ehrman tell me what books of his you have read and what footnotes he provides that your have pursued and why you think he is innacurate. Then I will decide whether further discussion on this with you is worth it.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

CFR that man is infinite as Gods nature is.

D&C 93:29-34

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

D&C 93:29-34

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng

[Teancum]

Just curious. What is my agenda and a priori assumptions?

I think you understand my point.

[Teancum]

Have you ever seen an unflattering Mormon painting of Joseph Smith? In the History of the Church 4:461 --- Joseph Smith claims The Book of Mormon to be the most correct book on earth. And yet --- more changes have been made to that book in 170 years than to all the over 2000 year old manuscripts from the entire Bible combined illustrate.

Nope your post is innacurate. While there have been changes to the BOM, There are mor changes to the NT in all the variations of manuscripts that exist than there are words in the NT.

[thesometimesaint]

Have you ever seen an unflattering Mormon painting of Joseph Smith? In the History of the Church 4:461 --- Joseph Smith claims The Book of Mormon to be the most correct book on earth. And yet --- more changes have been made to that book in 170 years than to all the over 2000 year old manuscripts from the entire Bible combined illustrate. 

 

Here is what Prophet Joseph Smith actually said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

 

About the changes http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/Why_were_these_changes_made

[danielwoods]

I see, the BoM cannot be true because it is not verifiable.  Let me ask you this, if the resurrection was verifiable, why were not all of the Jews baptized?  Why is not the whole world Christian?  How can you personally verify this history?  All you have is the testimony of men written in a book, well, I too have the testimony of men written in a book.  If you require verifiable evidence of me before you will believe, I will require the same from you.  All you have is a book...well, I have a book too.  You see, the resurrection was only verifiable to the witnesses.  We too have witnesses of Christ's resurrection in the later day, which serves as both evidence for the resurrection and restoration.  I suppose that this evidence will not convince you, well neither does yours.  you see, none of these claims are verifiable without a personal witness of the spirit.

First, your claim is all I have (really we have) is a book to rely on. This is categorically false. The Bible is a collection of many documents. The NT is made up of letters, and a 4 biographies, and one written first hand, as an eye-witness.  All we have is a book? Not even close.

Second, are the numerous documents and evidences not contained in the cannon of the bible. Some of the most compelling stories, to me, are of skeptics such as James (the brother of Jesus). Who was a disbeliever until Jesus appeared to him in person. Not only that, the numerous references to dates, people, and places are also verifiable with what we know about ancient history. Paul's message, was based on this history. However, just because 100% didn't believe his message doesn't indicate that it didn't happen or that it wasn't the basis for Paul's message.

 

 

History is replete with evidence for an apostasy, even you acknowledge the need for a "reformation."  Why reform if no apostasy?

The difference is found in the definition. There was no apostasy, there was a need for a reformation. Many true believers were still alive, and the teaching was there, but the leaders (at least some) were corrupt. The claim for a need of Restoration, includes a loss of things that there's no evidence Jesus ever taught.

 

 

There are two ways to "check out" something.  The Pharisees like the Boreans also "checked out" Paul's teachings.  They "checked out" Christ's teachings with the same heart that you "check out" Mormon teachings - with the intent to find holes rather than to find reason.  You study what we believe, not with a pure heart, but to trip us up with scripture as the Pharisees did to Christ.  I don't believe that you have ever studied the restoration as the Boreans did with an open heart, open mind, and free of confrontation and accusation.  You don't try to see our perspective as the Boreans, instead you try to prove your own as the Pharisees.

Your accusation is that I am not checking out Mormon teachings with a pure heart. I'm curious how you would claim to know this?

Your note about the Boreans isn't accurate either. They studied the scriptures to verify what Paul was teaching was true. It doesn't say they attempted to see things from Paul's perspective, rather simply studied the scripture.

Which is all I've been doing here. We've talked about a couple of different LDS teachings, and I've been asking what the sources are for these teachings. And as we've seen time and again, the source isn't the Biblical text, but something else.

Edited January 4, 2015 by danielwoods

[LittleNipper]

It must be understood that Mormons have sole control of printings of The Book of Mormon. The Bible has various translations by various organizations from ancient existing Hebrew & Greek text. Sometimes this is done to make the Bible more understandable. Sometimes it has been done to try and make the Bible fit a liberal mentality. However, we still have the original tongue to compare with. In the case of The Book of Mormon, there exists only Mr. Smith's "transcripts" and a few of his friends say so. There is no way to critique any of Mr. Smith's translations because no text of the original tongue exists.

 

Personally, I see absolutely no reason why some angel would carry away the original plates (if they ever existed on earth for all those years), since this is the only real proof of their authenticity. However, we do have centuries and a millennial of the various books of the Bible which are the foundation for all copies that exist today and comparison with honest translations demonstrate well over a 97% accuracy. And none of the differences affect the message of salvation. The Ark of the Covenant was either destroyed or is still hidden. No angel carried it off to heaven. Records found in heaven were made in heaven. God possesses His own text and doesn't need man's copies it would seem.

[ERayR]

Your accusation is that I am not checking out Mormon teachings with a pure heart. I'm curious how you would claim to know this?

 

Your totally inaccurate and false claims about Mormonism. 

[pogi]

First, your claim is all I have (really we have) is a book to rely on. This is categorically false. The Bible is a collection of many documents. The NT is made up of letters, and a 4 biographies, and one written first hand, as an eye-witness.  All we have is a book? Not even close.

 

In other words, all you have is a book.

 

We have multiple "first hand" eye-witness accounts of the restoration.  What have you more than we?  Where is the proof that Christ was resurrected?

[LittleNipper]

I have a question... I cannot seem to copy and paste or quote anything.  What needs to be done to quote another's comment? I've hit Quote, MultiQuote, and the green arrow. Nothing seems to work.

[danielwoods]

Why?  Why does it HAVE to be that way?

 

Why do we have to put our trust in the bible more than we put our trust in the Holy Spirit?

 

Why is praying to ask God for wisdom second best to studying His word without such prayer?

 

And lastly, where does the bible teach this?

First, trusting in the bible, is trusting in the Holy Spirit, who is the author. 

 

Second, there are few exceptions to this pattern. We learn to know who people are by listening to what they say. Relationships are developed by listening and understanding what people say and what they think. 

 

When Jesus was tempted by the devil, Jesus said, that man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. In this statement he reiterates the principle of the OT, that learning and studying God's word is very important to our lives. This isn't to say that prayer isn't replaced by study, nor can study be replaced by prayer. They aren't mutually exclusive, but work together in all things. As I said, we pray without ceasing. 

[danielwoods]

Bart Ehrman is one of the foremost NT scholars in the country, but he is just one of many.

Their research clearly demonstrates the innacruacy of your claims that the Bible supports your theological version of the credal trinitrianis God on its own. Historical research also demonstrates that the earliest Christians believed a variety of thngs about God but not what started 300 years after

Jesus in the the historical councils and took hundreds of more years to develop.

Your theology has no more or less Bibile basis that that of the LDS Church and relies on extra biblical sources to get there just as does Mormomism.

Except Moromonism is honest about that. You are not nor are some of the other EVs posting here.

As for Ehrman tell me what books of his you have read and what footnotes he provides that your have pursued and why you think he is innacurate. Then I will decide whether further discussion on this with you is worth it.

 

There are many of his colleagues that disagree with his conclusions. I agree with them. 

 

Haven't read his books, and have no interest in doing so. His arguments are hardly worth reading about. However, like I said, if you want to discuss one of his best arguments, we could do that. 

[danielwoods]

D&C 93:29-34

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

D&C 93:29-34

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng

 

Right, it's not taught in the Bible, and is contrary to what the Bible teaches. 

[danielwoods]

I think you understand my point.

 

Yeah, you think I have an agenda. 

[Teancum]

There are many of his colleagues that disagree with his conclusions. I agree with them. 

 

Haven't read his books, and have no interest in doing so. His arguments are hardly worth reading about. However, like I said, if you want to discuss one of his best arguments, we could do that. 

 

 

How the heck can I discuss this with someone that is totally ignorant about what the man writes?  You have never read any of his books yet you think he is factually inaccurate?  The fact that you say this speaks loudly as to why I should trust you in nothing else you post here.

 

This is when I start agreeing with the atheist that argue the fundamental mindset is a danger to our world.

 

His conclusions are honest and based on well researched facts..... something you are clearly not interested in.

 

But I will indulge your ignorance.

 

Provide me a list of 3-5 of his colleagues that "disagree with his conclusions."  

[Teancum]

First, trusting in the bible, is trusting in the Holy Spirit, who is the author. 

 

Second, there are few exceptions to this pattern. We learn to know who people are by listening to what they say. Relationships are developed by listening and understanding what people say and what they think. 

 

When Jesus was tempted by the devil, Jesus said, that man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. In this statement he reiterates the principle of the OT, that learning and studying God's word is very important to our lives. This isn't to say that prayer isn't replaced by study, nor can study be replaced by prayer. They aren't mutually exclusive, but work together in all things. As I said, we pray without ceasing. 

 

 

Demonstrate your a priori assumption that God or the Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible.  If God is the author he has done a poor job.  The book is internally inconsistent and the original manuscripts were not preserved.  What a weak God who cannot even preserve His own book so we can check out what we have today against the originals.

 

The Bible simply cannot be trusted.

[danielwoods]

In other words, all you have is a book.

 

We have multiple "first hand" eye-witness accounts of the restoration.  What have you more than we?  Where is the proof that Christ was resurrected?

 

 

All the apostles based their message on events in history that was witnessed by everyone at that time, not just a few. 

 

 

When looking for the truth, one of the things I do is look for verification. People down through history have made all sorts of claims of visitations and visions, and had followers and made up teachings. This isn't new or remarkable. The NT is different, in that it is verified on numerous levels, as I mentioned in my previous post. 

 

Now you ask for "proof" that christ was resurrected? Are you thinking that I'm making a scientific claim, because nothing in History can be proved as in repeated in a scientific sense. 

[Teancum]

Right, it's not taught in the Bible, and is contrary to what the Bible teaches. 

 

 

You asked for a reference. It you know anything about Mormons you should know they do not claim all their doctrine is in the Bible. 

 

Nor does your precious inconsistent Bible claim it is a closes canon.  Never, ever does it claim that. The largest Christian Church in the worlds rejects a closes canon though they do not add new scripture but they have other methods for teaching extra biblical teachings they claim are from God.

 

When the books that are in the Bible were written there was no Bible.... not for many long years after.   So the fact that it is not in the Bible has no meaning for Mormons.  They believe God is powerful enough to speak to men today.  Apparently your God is too weak to do so.

[Teancum]

Yeah, you think I have an agenda. 

 

 

Yes and clearly you do in spite of your claims not to have one.

[bluebell]

First, trusting in the bible, is trusting in the Holy Spirit, who is the author. 

 

Second, there are few exceptions to this pattern. We learn to know who people are by listening to what they say. Relationships are developed by listening and understanding what people say and what they think. 

 

When Jesus was tempted by the devil, Jesus said, that man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. In this statement he reiterates the principle of the OT, that learning and studying God's word is very important to our lives. This isn't to say that prayer isn't replaced by study, nor can study be replaced by prayer. They aren't mutually exclusive, but work together in all things. As I said, we pray without ceasing. 

 

But revelation is also part of every word that comes from the mouth of God.  The words of the bible were revelation from God after all.

 

You didn't answer my last question though.  Where does the bible teach that studying the itself (and only itself) is better than relying on revelation from God?

[danielwoods]

How the heck can I discuss this with someone that is totally ignorant about what the man writes?  You have never read any of his books yet you think he is factually inaccurate?  The fact that you say this speaks loudly as to why I should trust you in nothing else you post here.

 

This is when I start agreeing with the atheist that argue the fundamental mindset is a danger to our world.

 

His conclusions are honest and based on well researched facts..... something you are clearly not interested in.

 

But I will indulge your ignorance.

 

Provide me a list of 3-5 of his colleagues that "disagree with his conclusions."  

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus

By: Timothy Paul Jones 

The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman & Daniel Wallace in Dialogue

Edited By: Robert B. Stewart 

What Have They Done with Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History 

Ben Witherington III 

Scholars Distort the Gospels 

Craig A. Evans