Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[teddyaware]

Indeed that is the claim, where's the evidence? 

 

For one thing, there are no living apostles and prophets in the non-LDS churched (officers that Paul said are absolutely essential to the spiritual health of the body of Christ). Remember, in Paul's day there actually were living apostles and prophets in the Church, so his declaration that these officers (the head of the body of Christ) needed to remain in the Church, until each member had attained the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, is undeniable. But I'm fully confident you will deny the undeniable, even though Paul testified that no part of the body of Christ can say it has no need of any other part of the body of Christ.

Edited January 8, 2015 by teddyaware

[bluebell]

Indeed that is the claim, where's the evidence?

 

One of the things that I see as evidence (though you will of course disagree) is how much traditional Christianity has changed the way that God interacts with His children.

 

From Adam to Peter, (from the Beginning to 90 or so AD) God spoke to His children, through prophets typically but to others as well, and they wrote it down.  Then suddenly traditional Christianity decided that God-who they teach to be unchangeable-was done speaking to His children.  Beyond that, they go so far as to teach that it is a heresy to believe that God spoke to anyone other than those who's writings are in the bible and that it's a heresy to believe that He would speak to a prophet today.

 

When traditional Christianity says 'God has never spoken to anyone other than the writers of the books of the Bible we currently have, and He was done speaking to us after Christ' then that is evidence to me that traditional Christianity has gone off in the ditch.

[Vance]

 

Jesus called himself the "Son of man".

1. Matt. 8:  20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
2. Matt. 9:  6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
3. Matt. 10:  23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
4. Matt. 11:  19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
5. Matt. 12:  8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
         •  •  •
     32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
         •  •  •
     40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
6. Matt. 13: 37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
         •  •  •
     41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
7. Matt. 16:  13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
         •  •  •
     27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
     28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
8. Matt. 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
         •  •  •
     12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
         •  •  •
     22 ¶ And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:
9. Matt. 18: 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
10. Matt. 19: 28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
11. Matt. 20:  18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
          •  •  •
      28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
12. Matt. 24:  27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
          •  •  •
      30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
          •  •  •
      37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
          •  •  •
      39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
          •  •  •
      44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
13. Matt. 25:  13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
          •  •  •
      31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
14. Matt. 26:  2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.
          •  •  •
      24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
          •  •  •
      45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
          •  •  •
      64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

If it wasn't true, why did He teach it?

 

Daniel, you haven't answered my question.  Plus, I would like you to tell me who this "man" is, that Jesus claims to be the Son of.

[Vance]

 

One of the things that I see as evidence (though you will of course disagree) is how much traditional Christianity has changed the way that God interacts with His children.

 

From Adam to Peter, (from the Beginning to 90 or so AD) God spoke to His children, through prophets typically but to others as well, and they wrote it down.  Then suddenly traditional Christianity decided that God-who they teach to be unchangeable-was done speaking to His children.  Beyond that, they go so far as to teach that it is a heresy to believe that God spoke to anyone other than those who's writings are in the bible and that it's a heresy to believe that He would speak to a prophet today.

 

When traditional Christianity says 'God has never spoken to anyone other than the writers of the books of the Bible we currently have, and He was done speaking to us after Christ' then that is evidence to me that traditional Christianity has gone off in the ditch.

AND,

 

Jesus did claim,

Luke 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

 

Why would anyone expect a change in God's MO?

[danielwoods]

For one thing, there are no living apostles and prophets in the non-LDS churched (officers that Paul said are absolutely essential to the spiritual health of the body of Christ). Remember, in Paul's day there actually were living apostles and prophets in the Church, so his declaration that these officers (the head of the body of Christ) needed to remain in the Church, until each member had attained the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, is undeniable. But I'm fully confident you will deny the undeniable, even though Paul testified that no part of the body of Christ can say it has no need of any other part of the body of Christ.

 

Or as Peter taught, the Apostles were to lay the foundation, and they were to be with them from the beginning. As he said in Acts 1:21  "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

[danielwoods]

 

One of the things that I see as evidence (though you will of course disagree) is how much traditional Christianity has changed the way that God interacts with His children.

 

From Adam to Peter, (from the Beginning to 90 or so AD) God spoke to His children, through prophets typically but to others as well, and they wrote it down.  Then suddenly traditional Christianity decided that God-who they teach to be unchangeable-was done speaking to His children.  Beyond that, they go so far as to teach that it is a heresy to believe that God spoke to anyone other than those who's writings are in the bible and that it's a heresy to believe that He would speak to a prophet today.

 

When traditional Christianity says 'God has never spoken to anyone other than the writers of the books of the Bible we currently have, and He was done speaking to us after Christ' then that is evidence to me that traditional Christianity has gone off in the ditch.

 

It's possible that there are some "traditional" christian groups that say that. I disagree with them too. I agree with you on this point, that God still speaks to his people. Where I disagree is the idea that the church went apostate and stopped hearing from God at some point in history. There have always been a diversity among people. Some are true believers, and some are not, and it varies probably even in the LDS church as well. We're all individuals after all. 

 

The other clarification I would add, is that probably the difference between my position and the LDS position is that any new communication we have from God, won't contradict or disagree with what we have received from those Apostles from the first century. 

Edited January 8, 2015 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

Daniel, you haven't answered my question.  Plus, I would like you to tell me who this "man" is, that Jesus claims to be the Son of.

 

"Answer:Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Man” 88 times in the New Testament. A first meaning of the phrase “Son of Man” is as a reference to the prophecy ofDaniel 7:13-14, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” The description “Son of Man” was a Messianic title. Jesus is the One who was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. When Jesus used this phrase, He was assigning the Son of Man prophecy to Himself. The Jews of that era would have been intimately familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred. Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah.

A second meaning of the phrase “Son of Man” is that Jesus was truly a human being. God called the prophet Ezekiel “son of man” 93 times. God was simply calling Ezekiel a human being. A son of a man is a man. Jesus was fully God (John 1:1), but He was also a human being (John 1:14).First John 4:2tells us, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” Yes, Jesus was the Son of God—He was in His essence God. Yes, Jesus was also the Son of Man—He was in His essence a human being. In summary, the phrase “Son of Man” indicates that Jesus is the Messiah and that He is truly a human being."

From: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Son-of-Man.html

[thesometimesaint]

It's possible that there are some "traditional" christian groups that say that. I disagree with them too. I agree with you on this point, that God still speaks to his people. Where I disagree is the idea that the church went apostate and stopped hearing from God at some point in history. There have always been a diversity among people. Some are true believers, and some are not, and it varies probably even in the LDS church as well. We're all individuals after all. 

 

The other clarification I would add, is that probably the difference between my position an the LDS position is that any new communication we have from God, won't contradict or disagree with what we have received from those Apostles from the first century. 

 

There are Christians of every stripe. We still consider them Christians, even if we disagree with their sects' use of the word. The Bible itself says there will be an apostasy. Paul even remarks on it. God was still talking, but mortals stopped listening. The LDS, as well as other Christians, have a long ways to go before we all reach that unity of faith.

 

With some 50,000 different Christian sects just in the US, all of which teach different things. It is very problematic to exclude just the LDS on the basis of theology.

IE; There are Baptists that don't believe in baptism. They still are Christians.

[bluebell]

It's possible that there are some "traditional" christian groups that say that. I disagree with them too. I agree with you on this point, that God still speaks to his people. Where I disagree is the idea that the church went apostate and stopped hearing from God at some point in history. There have always been a diversity among people. Some are true believers, and some are not, and it varies probably even in the LDS church as well. We're all individuals after all. 

 

The other clarification I would add, is that probably the difference between my position and the LDS position is that any new communication we have from God, won't contradict or disagree with what we have received from those Apostles from the first century. 

 

If i misunderstood you then i apologize.  I was under the impression that one of the reasons you believe we aren't Christian is because we have the book of mormon and believe that the bible is not a closed canon.  

[ERayR]

 

The other clarification I would add, is that probably the difference between my position and the LDS position is that any new communication we have from God, won't contradict or disagree with what we have received from those Apostles from the first century. 

 

The problem is that anything we have from those Apostles of the first century comes to us through interpreters and the lens of interpretation bias. 

[JLHPROF]

The other clarification I would add, is that probably the difference between my position and the LDS position is that any new communication we have from God, won't contradict or disagree with what we have received from those Apostles from the first century. 

 

Thank goodness none of our teachings contradict the actual teachings of those apostles.

 

Since religion is just a matter of belief anyway, I believe I am Christian so I am.  No mortal man gets to decide whether my belief has merit.

[LittleNipper]

Not all people professing to be saved are. Not all "Christians" are Christian. I listen to what a church says before I get involved. There are some doctrinal differences (SOME MINOR & SOME MAJOR). I do not agree with Jehovah Witnesses on some very key issues. They for one believe Jesus was the incarnation of the Archangel Michael. They do not believe that Jesus is God. I witness to them also. Some Independent Baptists hold to water baptism as necessary. I for one feel that they are wrong because of biblical inconsistences with that view; however, is any Christian or Christian sect 100% correct? I would have to say that most have some issues. But the key is that Jesus is God and that through Him was everything made and that by Him ONLY whosoever will maybe saved.

[teddyaware]

May I have your attention please...

 

All the antis who are spending so much of their lives debating on this board have got me thinking and this is what I've concluded: I believe the reason why some of these passionate antis are drawn to debate on this board, like moths to a flame, is because in their heart of hearts (their spirit) they genuinely fear the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.

 

We will now resume with our regularly scheduled programming...

Edited January 8, 2015 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

Not all people professing to be saved are. Not all "Christians" are Christian. I listen to what a church says before I get involved. There are some doctrinal differences (SOME MINOR & SOME MAJOR). I do not agree with Jehovah Witnesses on some very key issues. They for one believe Jesus was the incarnation of the Archangel Michael. They do not believe that Jesus is God. I witness to them also. Some Independent Baptists hold to water baptism as necessary. I for one feel that they are wrong because of biblical inconsistences with that view; however, is any Christian or Christian sect 100% correct? I would have to say that most have some issues. But the key is that Jesus is God and that through Him was everything made and that by Him ONLY whosoever will maybe saved.

 

That is all well and good and you have every right to be the kind of Christian you choose but that does not bestow on you the right to tell anyone else they are not Christian.

[Vance]

"Answer:Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Man” 88 times in the New Testament. A first meaning of the phrase “Son of Man” is as a reference to the prophecy ofDaniel 7:13-14, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” The description “Son of Man” was a Messianic title. Jesus is the One who was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. When Jesus used this phrase, He was assigning the Son of Man prophecy to Himself. The Jews of that era would have been intimately familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred. Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah.

A second meaning of the phrase “Son of Man” is that Jesus was truly a human being. God called the prophet Ezekiel “son of man” 93 times. God was simply calling Ezekiel a human being. A son of a man is a man. Jesus was fully God (John 1:1), but He was also a human being (John 1:14).First John 4:2tells us, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” Yes, Jesus was the Son of God—He was in His essence God. Yes, Jesus was also the Son of Man—He was in His essence a human being. In summary, the phrase “Son of Man” indicates that Jesus is the Messiah and that He is truly a human being."

From: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Son-of-Man.html

Boom!!!

 

Jesus is a human being.  There you go Daniel.  Jesus, who you claim is the one true God, is a HUMAN BEING.  By YOUR own admission.

[Vance]

May I have your attention please...

 

All the antis who are spending so much of their lives debating on this board have got me thinking and this is what I've concluded: I believe the reason why some of these passionate antis are drawn to debate on this board, like moths to a flame, is because in their heart of hearts (their spirit) they genuinely fear the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.

 

We will now resume with our regularly scheduled programming...

They are so afraid that the only thing that even comes close to giving them comfort is to nit pick EVERY LITTLE thing they think they can find.  If they were as critical of their own doctrine/church/belief as they are of ours, they would be looking for a new religion.

[Calm]

It's possible that there are some "traditional" christian groups that say that. I disagree with them too. I agree with you on this point, that God still speaks to his people. Where I disagree is the idea that the church went apostate and stopped hearing from God at some point in history. There have always been a diversity among people. Some are true believers, and some are not, and it varies probably even in the LDS church as well. We're all individuals after all. 

 

The other clarification I would add, is that probably the difference between my position and the LDS position is that any new communication we have from God, won't contradict or disagree with what we have received from those Apostles from the first century.

So if someone wrote a book that agreed with the teachings of the Bible and announced that God told him to write it, you would accept it as scripture?

[teddyaware]

They are so afraid that the only thing that even comes close to giving them comfort is to nit pick EVERY LITTLE thing they think they can find.  If they were as critical of their own doctrine/church/belief as they are of ours, they would be looking for a new religion.

 

I really get the feeling it's very close in style and spirit to the kind of grilling the Saviour routinely got from his enemies in the Holy Land. I wonder if there are any LDS Church members who go over to EV boards and spend endless hours carrying on in the same snarky, goading and hostile way? It would seem unlikely that there are very many LDS Church members doing that because our theology and soteriolgy causes us to think of non-LDS Christians as our brothers and sisters who will gain, at very least, a decent measure of salvation and eternal happiness in the end, As a consequence, we're not obsessed with hell and an "us and them" mindset.

[danielwoods]

If i misunderstood you then i apologize.  I was under the impression that one of the reasons you believe we aren't Christian is because we have the book of mormon and believe that the bible is not a closed canon.  

 

Nope. Not me. I have stated (and I don't expect everyone to remember actually, so no worries) that it is my opinion that the LDS are going to Heaven. Who or who is not actually "Christian" is a question that is not in my power to answer. 

[danielwoods]

The problem is that anything we have from those Apostles of the first century comes to us through interpreters and the lens of interpretation bias. 

 

As does everything, even what the LDS teach. 

[Anakin7]

       Thank you !.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[danielwoods]

Boom!!!

 

Jesus is a human being.  There you go Daniel.  Jesus, who you claim is the one true God, is a HUMAN BEING.  By YOUR own admission.

 

Actually, the reason I didn't reply to your other post is because you aren't attempting to discuss this as a person understanding my position, as your statement here shows. It isn't news that we believe that Jesus put on humanity, and as a result was also fully human, with two natures. Hence, the term "Incarnation".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, the reason I didn't reply to your other post is because you aren't attempting to discuss this as a person understanding my position, as your statement here shows. It isn't news that we believe that Jesus put on humanity, and as a result was also fully human, with two natures. Hence, the term "Incarnation".

Does God the Father share in the "human" nature too? I thought the whole point of them being one ontological being was because of their unique nature.

 

It almost does not even matter that you just admitted that Christ has a human nature. Is that not enough to prove that they are separate and distinct personage? That they all don't share things co equal?

[danielwoods]

So if someone wrote a book that agreed with the teachings of the Bible and announced that God told him to write it, you would accept it as scripture?

 

No. I think this happens all the time. Godly men are are moved to write to their generation, in their language, with their idioms and vernacular. This doesn't make their writings scripture, even if it agrees with scriptures. Now you're going to ask me why this is? 

 

Well, what would rise to level of scripture? Off the top of my head I would say something similar to Peter's statement in Acts, where they choose a replacement for Judas, based on someone who was an eye-witness to the life and events of Jesus. So, on that basis, new scripture would have to be from someone with similar credentials. 

[Calm]

"So, on that basis, new scripture would have to be from someone with similar credentials. "

 

And is this possible at this time or is the possibility over with?