Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[danielwoods]

What LDS person makes the argument that receiving God's glory is our "due" or is as a result of our "intrinsic nature?"  

 

Your comment, I think, highlights a key fundamental difference between Mormon theology and EV or traditional theology.  Mormonism holds that humankind is essentially good.  How could he be otherwise?  Humankind was created by God.  God don't make junk!  And what He does make He wants to receive all He has.

 

Traditional theology views the Fall and humankind's subsequent nature as inherently evil while Mormons view it as central to God's plan.  Funny how this simple difference in viewpoints can shape radically divergent theology and views of God's intent related to humankind.

 

Frankly, I think the Mormon view makes sense.  In this scenario God's commands and the ultimate Fall make sense.  Traditional views of God's original intent just aren't very persuasive, IMO.   

 

The comment about our difference in natures (God's and Humans) is because of the discussion here about how the LDS view God and man as the same "species" (for lack of a better term), which would indicate a similar nature. 

 

If you are correct, and the fall was intended by God, then God has no justification to punish mankind for doing what he intended us to do. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not sure how you are defining "gods" and I don't disagree that we become stewards of what God gives us, whether it's life or glory. 

We share in the divine nature. The sad thing is that you don't understand that we have that same nature. It was told of you that we are gods: children of the Most High. The scriptures tell us that we are joint heirs with Christ. Joint heirs in what? Tell me. If it is not all that the Father has I would love to know.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[danielwoods]

God confirms that Adam and Eve became as God.

Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

EV's ignore that Adam and Eve were as little children.

 

CFR that Adam and Eve were as little children.

[danielwoods]

I listened to a podcast from the EV side. They believe that believing we'll be Gods, is believing the way Satan did when tempting Eve to become Gods. And this was sinning and against God. And if they had stayed in the Garden they could still have families, so the test perhaps was to see if they would go against God. So by LDS saying we can progress to become Gods is blasphemous to them. They also brought up that in the scriptures, 1 Cor. 15:44 & 46 it mentions the spiritual came first not the natural and the spiritual comes later. How do we reconcile that with our having spirit children in heaven when we become Gods?

And they bring up the scripture John 6:46.

 

John 6:46    No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

[danielwoods]

We share in the divine nature. The sad thing is that you don't understand that we have that same nature. It was told of you that we are gods: children of the Most High. The scriptures tell us that we are joint heirs with Christ. Joint heirs in what? Tell me. If it is not all that the Father has I would love to know.

 

1. We don't share in the divine nature. Rather, the divine spirit is shared with us, thus we partake of that nature through the spirit, based on Jesus' sacrifice. 

 

2. It wasn't told to us that we are gods based on our being born. Rather, Jesus is the only begotten of God. We are adopted sons, based on his sacrifice. 

 

3. We are joint heirs with Christ in his glory, in that he shares it with us. 

[LittleNipper]

Can someone have complete faith in Jesus without assuming the mantle of Mormonism?

Edited January 13, 2015 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

Adam and Eve were innocent. That doesn't infer that they were immature

[Vance]

Can someone have complete faith in Jesus without assuming the mantle of Mormonism?

Define "complete faith in Jesus".

[Vance]

1. We don't share in the divine nature.

CFR

[Vance]

Not sure how you are defining "gods" . . .

Maybe the same way that Jesus does.

 

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

Referring to Ps 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

[Anakin7]

       2 Corinthians 8:9 In The Greek Please.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[LittleNipper]

Believe that God ultimately knows what is best and not try to second guess or dictate the responsibilities of others. It takes faith to accept that God is in control.

[Anakin7]

       And we we accept that byTrue Faith [pistis] not just head knowledge.

 

In His Debt?Grace

       Anakin7

Edited January 13, 2015 by Anakin7

[sethpayne]

Not sure how you are defining "gods" and I don't disagree that we become stewards of what God gives us, whether it's life or glory. 

 

So there is agreement on general ideas.  But the term(s) used is the real question.  

 

And FWIW, I think I understand why EVs and other traditional Christians would find the Mormon idea that men can become gods a bit jarring.  But when understood from an LDS perspective, within the context of LDS theology, it's not so out of place.  It makes sense.  But simply throwing that idea into a traditional Christian theology creates an absurdity.

[teddyaware]

We share in the divine nature. The sad thing is that you don't understand that we have that same nature. It was told of you that we are gods: children of the Most High. The scriptures tell us that we are joint heirs with Christ. Joint heirs in what? Tell me. If it is not all that the Father has I would love to know.

 

Of course I fully agree with you. But among the Latter-day Saints there is a poorly understood component of the "divine nature" doctrine that really needs to be understood before one can get a more complete understanding of how we humans, as Peter said, become "partakers of the divine nature."

 

Many LDS members assume our preexistent divine nature just rides along with us fully intact when we come to this fallen earth; but, believe it or not, that understanding really isn't true. In post 2830 (brace yourself) Daniel is actually correct when he says we become partakers in the divine nature by virtue of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and not because we brought an intact divine natures with us to earth. I know this sounds shocking and even heretical, but bear with me and you'll soon see I know whereof I speak...

 

You see, while it's absolutely true we existed from all eternity as what D&C 93 calls"the light of truth," and were then thereafter born to Heavenly Parents from whom we inherited our divine nature. Nevertheless, when we enter the fallen state we die spiritually and are consequently totally cut off from God and the things of the Spirit of God. So, in effect, our preexistent divine spirit and nature die as pertaining to the things of God -- and that means exactly what it says, a total and complete cutoff from the things of God. 

 

As a consequence of the fall, our divine nature dies and there is absolutely nothing left of its previous glory that can in any way help to save or empower us to even begin to ascend unto God. This death of the spirit and the death of its inherent divine nature is so complete that, if left to ourselves in that benighted condition, we would all unavoidably descend into hell and become just like the devil. The Book of Mormon prophet Jacob does a better job than I can in perfectly describing the baleful and deadly effect the fall has upon the preexistent spirit and our once-glorious divine nature:

 

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

 9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

 10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. (2 Nephi 9)

 

So if not for the infinite and eternal sacrifice of Christ, and the regenerating & vivifying effects it has upon our dead spirits and destroyed divine natures, we would have no power or light of our own that could even begin to save us from everlasting spiritual doom. How wonderful it is when one comes to realize that our noble preexistent spirits and our inherited divine natures continue with us as we sojourn on earth; but for the sake of a proper understanding of the role of the Saviour it must be understood that these great blessings are only made possible by virtue of the great atoning sacrifice of the Son of God.

 

24 ... and all things which are good cometh of Christ (including our redeemed spirits and our regenarated divine natures); otherwise men were fallen AND THERE COULD NO GOOD THING COME UNTO THEM. (Moroni 7)

Edited January 14, 2015 by teddyaware

[LittleNipper]

If Jesus  (according to the Holy Bible) is the ONLY begotten Son of God, at the ever least that means that there can be no other children of God. Now, the Children of Abraham were selected by God to be His ambassadors. They were chosen by God to represent the true nature of God -- His love, and perfection. A Christian becomes a child of God by adoption. I become. To become means that one was not always as one now is. Additional "revelation" cannot be of God were it contradicts what has already been revealed. Now, by begotten, Jesus is God. He can be nothing else but God. The "begotten" places Jesus in the very same league as God the Father. 

[Flyonthewall]

I listened to a podcast from the EV side. They believe that believing we'll be Gods, is believing the way Satan did when tempting Eve to become Gods. And this was sinning and against God. And if they had stayed in the Garden they could still have families, so the test perhaps was to see if they would go against God. So by LDS saying we can progress to become Gods is blasphemous to them. They also brought up that in the scriptures, 1 Cor. 15:44 & 46 it mentions the spiritual came first not the natural and the spiritual comes later. How do we reconcile that with our having spirit children in heaven when we become Gods?

And they bring up the scripture John 6:46.

As Thesometimesaint points out, God recognized and declared that man had become like Gods knowing good from evil, add to that Jesus' declaration in John 10:

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Perhaps Daniel is correct in needing a definition of "gods". I say look how it is used in the scriptures by Jesus.

It seems that EV's portray us, or think of us as usurping God the Father, Jesus and/or the Holy Ghost if we can become gods. This is not what we teach or say.

[teddyaware]

If Jesus  (according to the Holy Bible) is the ONLY begotten Son of God, at the ever least that means that there can be no other children of God. Now, the Children of Abraham were selected by God to be His ambassadors. They were chosen by God to represent the true nature of God -- His love, and perfection. A Christian becomes a child of God by adoption. I become. To become means that one was not always as one now is. Additional "revelation" cannot be of God were it contradicts what has already been revealed. Now, by begotten, Jesus is God. He can be nothing else but God. The "begotten" places Jesus in the very same league as God the Father. 

 

Who do you believe the Old Testament's "sons of God" were who "shouted for joy" and lived with God in heaven?

 

As far as Christ being the only begotten Son, we believe that refers to Christ being the only begotten in the flesh.

[danielwoods]

danielwoods, on 13 Jan 2015 - 3:07 PM, said:

1. We don't share in the divine nature.

 

CFR

 

 

Just one aspect of the nature of God which we don't share is his immutability, that is his unchanging nature. God doesn't progress as we do. He doesn't learn from his mistakes as we do. God is and always has been who he is. Notice below it states that God is not a man, the opposite is also true by implication, that man is not God. 

 

 

1 Samuel 15:29 - “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind” 

Psalm 102:12, 25-28 "12 But Thou, O LORD dost abide forever; And Thy name to all generations. . . 25 Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands. 26 Even they will perish, but Thou dost endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing Thou wilt change them, and they will be changed. 27 But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to an end. 28 The children of Thy servants will continue, And their descendants will be established before Thee”

Malachi 3:6 “For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed”

Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever. 9 Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings;"

James 1:17 "Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow"

[LittleNipper]

I do believe that  "sons of God" in this case is referring to the heavenly ambassadors/messengers of God who are the angels. In fact angel is often translated "messenger".  They are called sons of God because of their connection with God (carrying out His bidding) in a similar way as the Israelites became "sons of God."   That in no way is to be confused with a begotten Son, and the word "ONLY" makes that very clear Biblically. The "Son" existed eternally before His earthy incarnation by the supernatural overshadowing of the Holy Spirit

Edited January 14, 2015 by LittleNipper

[Freedom]

Just one aspect of the nature of God which we don't share is his immutability, that is his unchanging nature. God doesn't progress as we do. He doesn't learn from his mistakes as we do. God is and always has been who he is. Notice below it states that God is not a man, the opposite is also true by implication, that man is not God. 

 

 

1 Samuel 15:29 - “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind” 

Psalm 102:12, 25-28 "12 But Thou, O LORD dost abide forever; And Thy name to all generations. . . 25 Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands. 26 Even they will perish, but Thou dost endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing Thou wilt change them, and they will be changed. 27 But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to an end. 28 The children of Thy servants will continue, And their descendants will be established before Thee”

Malachi 3:6 “For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed”

Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever. 9 Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings;"

James 1:17 "Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow"

These are wonderful verses and I assume you recognize that we accept these as doctrine. There is a difficulty when you interpret these verses in absolute terms however. For example, it is very true that God is not a man that he should change his mind. In like verbiage, I am not a man that I should be unfaithful. In other words, God is saying is is not the type of man that changes his mind. That is, he is a man, just not the type that changes his mind. Of course, if you take this literary, you will have to explain why on numerous occasions God does change his mind. 

 

I think you need to read these figures of speech in context to underhand that God is not going to tell you one thing today and something different tomorrow. Clearly he changes. If you believe that at some point we did not exist, he changed and decided to create us. In evangelical doctrine, God had to make a change because he did not anticipate Adam eating the fruit of the tree. He changed the old law of Abraham by modifying it into the law of Moses and then again into the Law of the Gospel. In Evangelical doctrine, He changed from a God who revealed himself to prophets who wrote about their experiences in books of scriptures to a God who is now silent.  He changed from being one god in the old testament to being a trinity of gods. If God has not changed, why is there no evidence of the trinity in the old testament?

 

So God does change in many ways, and he is not like mortal man in many ways. We, as sinful mortals, are very different from God, but this does not preclude us from becoming like him. I asked this earlier, but perhaps you can explain for me the following:

 

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. 

[LittleNipper]

God never changes His Mind. However, He does work to change our minds. And in this regard there are events which God eventually accomplished, in His own timing, which may at first seem to us as a shift of direction. In fact they are merely placed on hold for in God's eyes a blink of an eye.

 

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestined us into the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

Edited January 14, 2015 by LittleNipper

[teddyaware]

I do believe that  "sons of God" in this case is referring to the heavenly ambassadors/messengers of God who are the angels. In fact angel is often translated "messenger".  They are called sons of God because of their connection with God (carrying out His bidding) in a similar way as the Israelites became "sons of God."   That in no way is to be confused with a begotten Son, and the word "ONLY" makes that very clear Biblically. The "Son" existed eternally before His earthy incarnation by the supernatural overshadowing of the Holy Spirit

 

And we LDS believe the spirit sons of God, spoken of, are the preexistent sons of God who will, when the time is right for each of them, come to earth and as children become partakers of flesh and blood (just as the preexistent Christ did) as a test in mortality designed to increase spiritual growth and development.

 

We also believe the adoption is necessary because as our spirits enter mortality they suffer spiritual death, and the one and only way our dead spirits can be made alive once again is through faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice. Please read my post 2840 on this thread to catch a glimpse as to why we LDS believe the adoption is necessary, even though we also believe God is the Father of our preexistent spirits.

Edited January 14, 2015 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

These are wonderful verses and I assume you recognize that we accept these as doctrine. There is a difficulty when you interpret these verses in absolute terms however. For example, it is very true that God is not a man that he should change his mind. In like verbiage, I am not a man that I should be unfaithful. In other words, God is saying is is not the type of man that changes his mind. That is, he is a man, just not the type that changes his mind. Of course, if you take this literary, you will have to explain why on numerous occasions God does change his mind. 

 

I think you need to read these figures of speech in context to underhand that God is not going to tell you one thing today and something different tomorrow. Clearly he changes. If you believe that at some point we did not exist, he changed and decided to create us. In evangelical doctrine, God had to make a change because he did not anticipate Adam eating the fruit of the tree. He changed the old law of Abraham by modifying it into the law of Moses and then again into the Law of the Gospel. In Evangelical doctrine, He changed from a God who revealed himself to prophets who wrote about their experiences in books of scriptures to a God who is now silent.  He changed from being one god in the old testament to being a trinity of gods. If God has not changed, why is there no evidence of the trinity in the old testament?

 

So God does change in many ways, and he is not like mortal man in many ways. We, as sinful mortals, are very different from God, but this does not preclude us from becoming like him. I asked this earlier, but perhaps you can explain for me the following:

 

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. 

 

The fundamental difference here is that God never progressed (according to the bible) to be who he is now. He's always been God, and immutable as he is now and forever ago and into the future. 

 

Your argument that the OT describes him as changing his mind, indicates that he does change. This is called an anthropomorphism. God is described in human terms to help us understand him. He's actually not changing his mind, rather explaining why he does what he does, he does this using human terms, but in no way does anything surprise him. 

 

You think he didn't know that Adam would eat the fruit, yet he describes Christ as slain from before the foundations of the earth. What is really going on, is God is allowing us to exercise our freewill. He's so good at letting us do this that we think he doesn't know what we are going to do. 

 

You argue that deciding to create us indicates a change in himself. I disagree. That decision has no more impact on his nature than ourselves deciding to have children changes our human nature. 

 

If God hasn't changed why isn't there evidence of the trinity in the OT? Well, I think it's there if you know what to look for. 

 

I agree with you that we become "like him" but that doesn't indicate that our nature changes to become God as he is, because that's not even possible. Rather we become like him, similar to how chimpanzees act "human" when taught to. We are able to be like him in many very important ways. Our nature remains human however, just as that of the chimpanzee remains who he is (Chimpanzee), even though he's able to imitate or share some human traits. 

 

We are joint heirs with Christ. But, it's important to understand that this doesn't involve divinity. Christ didn't inherit his divinity, so neither do we therefore being joint heirs has nothing to do with becoming gods or divinity. Rather, it has everything to do with being blessed with resurrection and sharing in his glory. 

[danielwoods]

Who do you believe the Old Testament's "sons of God" were who "shouted for joy" and lived with God in heaven?

 

As far as Christ being the only begotten Son, we believe that refers to Christ being the only begotten in the flesh.

According to the Bible, "only begotten" indicates he's the only one. His uniqueness is emphasized by that concept. Similar to:

John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

1 John 4:9 "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him."