Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Flyonthewall]

I suppose when things contradictory to the bible are called "revelation" then my quoting numerous passages has to be viewed as "speculation".

 

What I said was if you know what to look for you can see the trinity in the OT. Not interested in quoting more passages only to have someone say that I'm just speculating.

This is interesting because we have said essentially the same thing about our teachings in the Bible - if you know what to look for they are all there.

However, when we say it, you claim that the scriptures do not use the specific language, so it is not there...or the words mean the total opposite of their dictionary meanings.

But when you say it, it must be so.

Bottom line - all LDS teachings are found in the Bible, either referenced or implied...just as much or more so than the Trinity being in the Bible.

[danielwoods]

They didn't know they were naked. I know plenty of young children that don't know nakedness. How many adults do you know that don't know naked when they see it?

 

Right. They were innocent adults. 

[Vance]

Right. They were innocent adults. 

And thus the wording, "Adam and Eve were as little children."

Edited January 14, 2015 by Vance

[danielwoods]

This is interesting because we have said essentially the same thing about our teachings in the Bible - if you know what to look for they are all there.

However, when we say it, you claim that the scriptures do not use the specific language, so it is not there...or the words mean the total opposite of their dictionary meanings.

But when you say it, it must be so.

Bottom line - all LDS teachings are found in the Bible, either referenced or implied...just as much or more so than the Trinity being in the Bible.

 

The difference is you are referencing something outside the bible. I agree I read the OT with a NT viewpoint, just as the Apostles all did and taught. The LDS then take it a step further, and view the whole Bible from a viewpoint, of new revelation or restoration. Essentially creating a completely new religion changing even what the Apostles taught. The claim is that it is meat not milk, that it's a restoration of the original teachings. The problem is there is no evidence to support these claims. 

[danielwoods]

Jonah said, Jonah 3:4 . . . Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. 

 

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

 

Jonah 4:1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.

  2 And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

 

Then,

5 So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city.

 

Obviously fully expecting it to be destroyed as he prophesied.

 

Was Jonah a false prophet?

 

Jonah knew God would forgive them, that's why he didn't want to go to them and preach. He was a prophet, but he hated them, so he didn't want God to save them, he wanted to see them destroyed. 

[ERayR]

Jonah knew God would forgive them, that's why he didn't want to go to them and preach. He was a prophet, but he hated them, so he didn't want God to save them, he wanted to see them destroyed. 

 

The reason Jonah didn't want to go to Nineveh was because if they didn't like you they had a habit of tying each of your limbs to different chariots and taking off in four different directions.

[Flyonthewall]

The difference is you are referencing something outside the bible.

Like the Trinity?

I agree I read the OT with a NT viewpoint, just as the Apostles all did and taught. The LDS then take it a step further, and view the whole Bible from a viewpoint, of new revelation or restoration. Essentially creating a completely new religion changing even what the Apostles taught. The claim is that it is meat not milk, that it's a restoration of the original teachings. The problem is there is no evidence to support these claims.

There is evidence, and it has been pointed out to you... over and over again, but, because it does not align with your beliefs, you simply deny it is there.

The last person in the game of "telephone" cannot tell the originator of the message that it is wrong.

[Vance]

Jonah knew God would forgive them, that's why he didn't want to go to them and preach.

CFR

 

He was a prophet, but he hated them, so he didn't want God to save them, he wanted to see them destroyed.

CFR

[teddyaware]

This is plagiarism mixed in with Joseph's own thoughts. (Teddyaware 8:51 am today)

 

Fail.

[teddyaware]

I appreciate your explanation. I've never heard that the LDS believe that "intelligences" were created. I've only heard it claimed that they were eternal, as in existed forever. 

 

Your conclusion at the end is quite the opposite of what is actually happening. What is actually happening is a reaction similar to hearing any type of error.

 

Much like our human bodies are made of preexisting earthly matter, we believe our spirits were made of a preexisting spiritual substance called intelligence.

 

A question: Could you please reference and explain to me some of the "strong meat" teachings you believe are in the Bible that could not be given to the Corinthian and Hebrew saints because they were "carnal" and "unskilful in the word of righteousness."

[danielwoods]

Like the Trinity?

There is evidence, and it has been pointed out to you... over and over again, but, because it does not align with your beliefs, you simply deny it is there.

The last person in the game of "telephone" cannot tell the originator of the message that it is wrong.

 

Since the trinity concept is taught in the NT it is in the Bible. 

 

As for evidence of the apostasy and restoration. You are correct, that what the LDS believes to be evidence has been looked at. It doesn't amount to what is claimed. Yes this is my opinion. 

[danielwoods]

CFR

 

 

 

CFR

 

When Jonah was called to preach to them, he went the opposite direction. It took a whale to persuade him to go. Once he did, he was angry that God didn't destroy them. As a prophet he knew God would forgive them, however, he didn't want them to be forgiven, rather he waited and wanted to see them destroyed. Probably because of the evil things they did to his people. 

[ERayR]

Since the trinity concept is taught in the NT it is in the Bible. 

 

As for evidence of the apostasy and restoration. You are correct, that what the LDS believes to be evidence has been looked at. It doesn't amount to what is claimed. Yes this is my opinion. 

 

I have no problem with the trinity only the incorrect interpretations of what it is.

[Vance]

When Jonah was called to preach to them, he went the opposite direction. It took a whale to persuade him to go. Once he did, he was angry that God didn't destroy them. As a prophet he knew God would forgive them, however, he didn't want them to be forgiven, rather he waited and wanted to see them destroyed.

That makes no sense.  If "he knew God would forgive them" WHY "was (he) angry that God didn't destroy them"?

 

Probably because of the evil things they did to his people.

This is just speculation. 

 

BTW you haven't provided references for your claims. So, we will conclude that you can't because there aren't any, thus making all you have said simply opinion/speculation.

[Vance]

Since the trinity concept is taught in the NT it is in the Bible.

But it isn't.  Scholars admit that it isn't.

 

As for evidence of the apostasy and restoration. You are correct, that what the LDS believes to be evidence has been looked at. It doesn't amount to what is claimed. Yes this is my opinion.

And yet you are not Catholic (or Orthodox) thus clearly indicating that you believe there was in fact an apostasy.

[danielwoods]

Much like our human bodies are made of preexisting earthly matter, we believe our spirits were made of a preexisting spiritual substance called intelligence.

 

So Jesus didn't make preexisting matter, yet you claimed you believe that the verse was correct that Jesus made all things, and without him nothing was made, in heaven or on earth. Seems your preexisting matter slipped around that discussion? 

 

 

A question: Could you please reference and explain to me some of the "strong meat" teachings you believe are in the Bible that could not be given to the Corinthian and Hebrew saints because they were "carnal" and "unskilful in the word of righteousness."

 

Below is a quote from a website studying this topic. I found it interesting. Essentially saying that the meat in the bible is the teachings about the second coming. 

 

"The above discussion is to establish the truth that the sincere milk of the Word is elementary and is for young Christians, while the solid food (meat) is the doctrine of the coming of our Lord, His ruling and reigning on the earth and all the varied events related to it.

Now let us turn again to Luke 12:42-48. Our Lord has been speaking to the disciples about having their loins girded and their lights burning as men waiting for their Lord (verses 35, 36). Then Peter asked the question, “Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?” Jesus then asked the question, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward?” and answered His own question by saying that it is the one who gives to the household their portion of solid food (meat) in due season.

Two truths appear here in connection with the giving of solid food (meat) in due season. The first one is that soon after a person is saved he should be given some solid food (meat) — that is, he should be taught the truth relative to the second coming of Christ. The apostle Paul was with the church in Thessalonica three Sundays and the days intervening. During that brief time he gave them the simple gospel of salvation (1 Thessalonians 1:5), and before the two weeks had expired, he had taught them practically every truth relative to the second coming of Christ and the end time. In 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10, three things are said of this group of newborn Christians: (1) they turned to God from idols; (2) they served the living and true God; and (3) they were waiting or watching for His Son from heaven."

 

http://www.bibleone.net/milk-meat.htm

[danielwoods]

Jonah said, Jonah 3:4 . . . Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. 

 

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

 

Jonah 4:1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.

  2 And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

 

Then,

5 So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city.

 

Obviously fully expecting it to be destroyed as he prophesied.

 

Was Jonah a false prophet?

 

 

That makes no sense.  If "he knew God would forgive them" WHY "was (he) angry that God didn't destroy them"?

 

 

 

This is just speculation. 

 

BTW you haven't provided references for your claims. So, we will conclude that you can't because there aren't any, thus making all you have said simply opinion/speculation.

 

 

I have referenced your post, which answers your question. Why was Jonah angry? He wanted them dead. He knew God would forgive them, because he knew God was merciful. Again, using quotes from scripture which you referenced, and I'm the one who is speculating? 

[danielwoods]

But it isn't.  Scholars admit that it isn't.

 

 

 

And yet you are not Catholic (or Orthodox) thus clearly indicating that you believe there was in fact an apostasy.

 

To all who don't understand the difference between a reformation and restoration. Sure. 

[thesometimesaint]

The Protestant Reformation and the Catholic reaction were bloody vicious affairs. The Restoration was not.

[Vance]

To all who don't understand the difference between a reformation and restoration. Sure. 

If there was no apostasy, then why the need for a reformation?  Duh!

[ERayR]

The Protestant Reformation and the Catholic reaction were bloody vicious affairs. The Restoration was not.

 

I would argue differently but that is for another thread.

[Vance]

I have referenced your post, which answers your question. Why was Jonah angry? He wanted them dead.

You have no basis for that claim.  There are other reasonable explanations.

 

He knew God would forgive them,

You keep saying that, yet you can't provide any evidence. Besides IF that were true then Jonah SHOULD NOT EXPECT God to destroy them when they repent.  I think a more reasonable explanation is that Jonah prophesied DOOM and so he EXPECTED DOOM.

 

because he knew God was merciful.

Irrelevant.

 

Again, using quotes from scripture which you referenced, and I'm the one who is speculating?

Yes, because it DOES NOT say what you are claiming. 

[danielwoods]

If there was no apostasy, then why the need for a reformation?  Duh!

 

Reformation was needed because of corruption. 

[ERayR]

Reformation was needed because of corruption. 

 

Corruption = apostasy.

[danielwoods]

Corruption = apostasy.

 

There are corrupt leaders on occasion, this doesn't mean the whole church has apostatized. The claim to apostasy is something lost. What was lost? And where's the evidence that it was lost?