Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Flyonthewall]

Actually it can't be Satan. 

 

 

He comes "after the working of Satan" meaning he's not satan, rather he's a man, yet to be revealed, and he will claim to be God and do so in the Jerusalem temple.

A little bit more on the subject -

https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/1-thessalonians-and-2-thessalonians/chapter-46-1-thessalonians-and-2-thessalonians?lang=eng

2 Thessalonians 2:3–9. “Man of Sin” and “Son of Perdition”

In addition to the “falling away” that would take place, Paul explained that the “man of sin” or “son of perdition” would be revealed prior to the Lord’s Second Coming (2 Thessalonians 2:3). The word perdition is derived from the Latin perditionem, meaning “ruin” or “destruction,” and it is a title given to Lucifer when he was cast out of God’s presence during the premortal life (see D&C 76:26). All those who rebelled with Satan against God during the premortal existence became sons of perdition when they were cast out of God’s presence. Paul also described the “man of sin”—one who “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). The Joseph Smith Translation makes clear that in 2 Thessalonians 2:7–9 Paul was referring to Satan:

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, and he it is who now worketh, and Christ suffereth him to work, until the time is fulfilled that he shall be taken out of the way.

“And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

“Yea, the Lord, even Jesus, whose coming is not until after there cometh a falling away, by the working of Satan with all power, and signs and lying wonders” (in the Bible appendix).

With the Restoration of the gospel and modern scriptures, an accurate understanding of the adversary has been restored.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:7, Paul said that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work.” In the New Testament, the word mystery refers to those things that were hidden but have been or will be revealed (see Colossians 1:26). The hidden efforts of Satan to oppose and tear down the Church of God, therefore, will be exposed by God’s servants.

[danielwoods]

A little bit more on the subject -

https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/1-thessalonians-and-2-thessalonians/chapter-46-1-thessalonians-and-2-thessalonians?lang=eng

 

Missing is the explanation of when this happened? 

 

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-thes/2.4?lang=eng#2

 

If Satan is the man of sin, as claimed, is Satan going to come down and occupy the Jerusalem temple when it's rebuilt? Or did this event already occur? 

[Flyonthewall]

Missing is the explanation of when this happened? 

 

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-thes/2.4?lang=eng#2

 

If Satan is the man of sin, as claimed, is Satan going to come down and occupy the Jerusalem temple when it's rebuilt? Or did this event already occur?

Prior to the 2nd coming. I believe that process is going on today.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:7, Paul said that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work.” In the New Testament, the word mystery refers to those things that were hidden but have been or will be revealed (see Colossians 1:26). The hidden efforts of Satan to oppose and tear down the Church of God, therefore, will be exposed by God’s servants.

[danielwoods]

Prior to the 2nd coming. I believe that process is going on today.

 

 It's not a process, it's an event that is described. And the person described isn't satan, but a man. 

[Flyonthewall]

It's not a process, it's an event that is described. And the person described isn't satan, but a man.

Is it a literal event? or a figurative event?

To me it is very clear the Man of Sin/Son of Perdition/Mystery of Iniquity is Satan and his influence among men.

Edited to add:

With the Restoration of the gospel and modern scriptures, an accurate understanding of the adversary has been restored.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Flyonthewall

[danielwoods]

Is it a literal event? or a figurative event?

To me it is very clear the Man of Sin/Son of Perdition/Mystery of Iniquity is Satan and his influence among men.

Edited to add:

 

Let's see, Jesus said in Matt. 24:15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

 

Is that figurative?

 

When Jesus said, "as it was in the days of Noah, so also it will be when the son of man returns", is that figurative?

 

If you think that those are figurative, then this passage must be figurative as well. IF that's the case, then Jesus second coming must also be figurative, and if that's true, then the falling away must be figurative as well because they are all connected contextually.

 

The fact is that when figurative language is used in the Bible the context tells you when that is the case. And this isn't one of those. It's a direct reference to a future event, just like Jesus' second coming.

 

you quoted, "With the Restoration of the gospel and modern scriptures, an accurate understanding of the adversary has been restored."

 

If that was true, then why did that LDS Study of the 2 Thessalonians passage leave out any discussion of verse 2:4?

[coolrok7]

The Gospel was never lost and did not need to be restored. Acts 3 is grossly distorted in the Mormon interpretation concerning the times of restitution. I would tie it to the Second Coming from an (internal context) when all things (distorted through the fall) will be restored at the Second Coming.

 

None of this gets repeated as it does continually in the system of Mormonism.

 

By the way, my posting this week will not be much as I'm on vacation in Barbados this week. Don't always have access to the internet.

[ERayR]

The Gospel was never lost and did not need to be restored. Acts 3 is grossly distorted in the Mormon interpretation concerning the times of restitution. I would tie it to the Second Coming from an (internal context) when all things (distorted through the fall) will be restored at the Second Coming.

 

None of this gets repeated as it does continually in the system of Mormonism.

 

By the way, my posting this week will not be much as I'm on vacation in Barbados this week. Don't always have access to the internet.

 

On vacation in Barbados why would you want to?

[coolrok7]

Had to make the comment that I did. Still enjoying the vacation!!!

 

Got to swim with some turtles earlier. Great time!

Edited January 21, 2015 by coolrok7

[Flyonthewall]

Let's see, Jesus said in Matt. 24:15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

 

Is that figurative?

 

When Jesus said, "as it was in the days of Noah, so also it will be when the son of man returns", is that figurative?

 

If you think that those are figurative, then this passage must be figurative as well. IF that's the case, then Jesus second coming must also be figurative, and if that's true, then the falling away must be figurative as well because they are all connected contextually.

 

The fact is that when figurative language is used in the Bible the context tells you when that is the case. And this isn't one of those. It's a direct reference to a future event, just like Jesus' second coming.

I see verses 16 - 20 as figurative - descriptive of what verse 21 says - that there will be great tribulation.

 

you quoted, "With the Restoration of the gospel and modern scriptures, an accurate understanding of the adversary has been restored."

 

If that was true, then why did that LDS Study of the 2 Thessalonians passage leave out any discussion of verse 2:4?

You must have missed it -

2 Thessalonians 2:3–9. “Man of Sin” and “Son of Perdition”

In addition to the “falling away” that would take place, Paul explained that the “man of sin” or “son of perdition” would be revealed prior to the Lord’s Second Coming (2 Thessalonians 2:3). The word perdition is derived from the Latin perditionem, meaning “ruin” or “destruction,” and it is a title given to Lucifer when he was cast out of God’s presence during the premortal life (see D&C 76:26). All those who rebelled with Satan against God during the premortal existence became sons of perdition when they were cast out of God’s presence. Paul also described the “man of sin”—one who “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). The Joseph Smith Translation makes clear that in 2 Thessalonians 2:7–9 Paul was referring to Satan:

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, and he it is who now worketh, and Christ suffereth him to work, until the time is fulfilled that he shall be taken out of the way.

“And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

“Yea, the Lord, even Jesus, whose coming is not until after there cometh a falling away, by the working of Satan with all power, and signs and lying wonders” (in the Bible appendix).

With the Restoration of the gospel and modern scriptures, an accurate understanding of the adversary has been restored.

[danielwoods]

I see verses 16 - 20 as figurative - descriptive of what verse 21 says - that there will be great tribulation.

 

You must have missed it -

2 Thessalonians 2:3–9. “Man of Sin” and “Son of Perdition”

In addition to the “falling away” that would take place, Paul explained that the “man of sin” or “son of perdition” would be revealed prior to the Lord’s Second Coming (2 Thessalonians 2:3). The word perdition is derived from the Latin perditionem, meaning “ruin” or “destruction,” and it is a title given to Lucifer when he was cast out of God’s presence during the premortal life (see D&C 76:26). All those who rebelled with Satan against God during the premortal existence became sons of perdition when they were cast out of God’s presence. Paul also described the “man of sin”—one who “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). The Joseph Smith Translation makes clear that in 2 Thessalonians 2:7–9 Paul was referring to Satan:

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, and he it is who now worketh, and Christ suffereth him to work, until the time is fulfilled that he shall be taken out of the way.

“And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

“Yea, the Lord, even Jesus, whose coming is not until after there cometh a falling away, by the working of Satan with all power, and signs and lying wonders” (in the Bible appendix).

With the Restoration of the gospel and modern scriptures, an accurate understanding of the adversary has been restored.

 

Somehow I knew that you'd say that. Notice that the quote of the study above doesn't mention the event that is mentioned by Daniel, Jesus, and John in Revelation. (edited: bolded so that it can be easier to notice)

 

As I stated earlier, if the event isn't an event, but is figurative as you claim, then so also is the falling away. 

 

"2 Thessilonians 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed,the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

 

Notice, the two events are tied together. The "rebellion" or falling away happens first and then the man of lawlessness is revealed. If you are correct, that the man is figurative, then so also is the falling way, which by way of logic would undermine the whole claim to restoration of the LDS church. 

Edited January 22, 2015 by danielwoods

[Flyonthewall]

Somehow I knew that you'd say that. Notice that the quote of the study above doesn't mention the event that is mentioned by Daniel, Jesus, and John in Revelation. (edited: bolded so that it can be easier to notice)

 

As I stated earlier, if the event isn't an event, but is figurative as you claim, then so also is the falling away. 

 

"2 Thessilonians 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed,the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

 

Notice, the two events are tied together. The "rebellion" or falling away happens first and then the man of lawlessness is revealed. If you are correct, that the man is figurative, then so also is the falling way, which by way of logic would undermine the whole claim to restoration of the LDS church. 

I take it you are expecting an actual man to take up residency in a temple of God and proclaim himself God...?

Could that not be a figurative/metaphorical way to describe the rebellion/falling away?

He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped

This is a description of Satan and what he is doing.

The two events are tied together because they are to happen before the 2nd coming. The falling way HAS happened, and Satan was behind it. Along with the Restoration, the workings of Satan have been revealed, and continue to be revealed.

Simple really

[Freedom]

The Gospel was never lost and did not need to be restored. Acts 3 is grossly distorted in the Mormon interpretation concerning the times of restitution. I would tie it to the Second Coming from an (internal context) when all things (distorted through the fall) will be restored at the Second Coming.

 

None of this gets repeated as it does continually in the system of Mormonism.

 

By the way, my posting this week will not be much as I'm on vacation in Barbados this week. Don't always have access to the internet.

Of course, your interpretation is imply conjecture based on your preconceived dogma. If you could prove your point of view everyone would belong to the same church. But there are a lot of protestants who disagree with your view because they are of the belief that the catholic church is lost. And of course, you would have to explain the many apostasies of the old testament. 

[Anakin7]

       Freedom coolrok7 is Lutheran [Missouri Synod] Christian. 

 

       In His Debt/Grace

               Anakin7

Edited January 22, 2015 by Anakin7

[Freedom]

       Freedom coolrok7 is Lutheran [Missouri Synod] Christian. 

 

       In His Debt/Grace

               Anakin7

Which point to the irony of my comments. If there were no apostasy there would be no Lutherans. 

[danielwoods]

I take it you are expecting an actual man to take up residency in a temple of God and proclaim himself God...?

Could that not be a figurative/metaphorical way to describe the rebellion/falling away?

This is a description of Satan and what he is doing.

The two events are tied together because they are to happen before the 2nd coming. The falling way HAS happened, and Satan was behind it. Along with the Restoration, the workings of Satan have been revealed, and continue to be revealed.

Simple really

 

In the past the church understood many passages that referenced the temple and Israel as metaphoric, because they never thought that Israel or the temple would ever exist again. And that was a reasonable position at the time, many churches even saw the prophecies that talked about Israel specifically to be fulfilled in the Christian church in the future. Then in 1948, Israel became a nation again (Dry bones lived again), and it is no longer a reasonable position to interpret those passages as metaphorical. 

 

The question is what did the writer intend for us to understand? 

 

When you write something to me, today. How do I know you don't mean it to be metaphorical? You could be talking about airplanes and cars and how they will fall away and be restored. Hmmm? 

 

In 2 Thess. the writer gives no indication that he is talking about a metaphorical person. Rather, he's referencing the same prophecy that Jesus referenced, in Daniel 9, which again is talked about in Revelation. 

[Flyonthewall]

In the past the church understood many passages that referenced the temple and Israel as metaphoric, because they never thought that Israel or the temple would ever exist again. And that was a reasonable position at the time, many churches even saw the prophecies that talked about Israel specifically to be fulfilled in the Christian church in the future. Then in 1948, Israel became a nation again (Dry bones lived again), and it is no longer a reasonable position to interpret those passages as metaphorical.

What does it mean in Ezekiel 37:4 - 4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.

Are you suggesting that dry bones will hear the word of the Lord? Or is "dry bones" figurative for something else? Is there something that indicates this is literal or figurative?

 

The question is what did the writer intend for us to understand?

What did the author of Ezekiel intend for us to understand? dry bones will come back to life? dry bones will be able to hear? or are dry bones figurative for something else?

 

When you write something to me, today. How do I know you don't mean it to be metaphorical? You could be talking about airplanes and cars and how they will fall away and be restored. Hmmm? 

 

In 2 Thess. the writer gives no indication that he is talking about a metaphorical person. Rather, he's referencing the same prophecy that Jesus referenced, in Daniel 9, which again is talked about in Revelation.

What indication would there be that it is metaphorical? or for that matter, what would indicate that it is literal?

Prophecy is full of figurative language.

[Teancum]

The Gospel was never lost and did not need to be restored. Acts 3 is grossly distorted in the Mormon interpretation concerning the times of restitution. I would tie it to the Second Coming from an (internal context) when all things (distorted through the fall) will be restored at the Second Coming.

 

None of this gets repeated as it does continually in the system of Mormonism.

 

By the way, my posting this week will not be much as I'm on vacation in Barbados this week. Don't always have access to the internet.

 

There never was one true gospel. Rather there were competing small sects and one won out and became what we call Orthodoxy.... which by the way was not the reformed theology you believe, but rather Catholicism and perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy.  Protestants are heretics.

[danielwoods]

What does it mean in Ezekiel 37:4 - 4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.

Are you suggesting that dry bones will hear the word of the Lord? Or is "dry bones" figurative for something else? Is there something that indicates this is literal or figurative?

 

What did the author of Ezekiel intend for us to understand? dry bones will come back to life? dry bones will be able to hear? or are dry bones figurative for something else?

Lets look at it.

 

Ezekiel 37 "The hand of the Lord was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. 2 He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry. 3 He asked me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”

I said, “Sovereign Lord, you alone know.”

4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! 5 This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. 6 I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’”

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.

9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’” 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.

11 Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’”

 

How do we know it's to be understood as a metaphor?

First notice that it starts out with a setting that is nondescript, "the Spirit of the Lord set me in the middle of a valley." 

Second, notice that there is an explanation of the metaphorical statements. Verse 11, "These bones are the people of Israel." 

Third, there is a moral to the story. "I will settle you in your land." 

 

What indication would there be that it is metaphorical? or for that matter, what would indicate that it is literal?

Prophecy is full of figurative language.

Concerning the events surrounding the second coming of Christ, some descriptions are metaphorical, but some are not. 2nd Thess. 2 is an example of one that is not. The writer speaks plainly. "5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?"

[coolrok7]

A point about interpretation. It can be either right or wrong.

The question boils down to is if Joseph Smith was right in how he interpreted things. Mormons of course believe he interprets things correctly.

I believe differently. He teaches a different gospel than the one Paul preached, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 specificaly. The warning concerning another gospel and the methodology concerning this, Galatians 1:6-8.

[JLHPROF]

A point about interpretation. It can be either right or wrong.

The question boils down to is if Joseph Smith was right in how he interpreted things. Mormons of course believe he interprets things correctly.

I believe differently. He teaches a different gospel than the one Paul preached, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 specificaly. The warning concerning another gospel and the methodology concerning this, Galatians 1:6-8.

 

And Paul preached differently than Peter (at least at first).

Why does Paul get the "Cannot Be Wrong" badge?  He is a prone to make a doctrinal mistake as ANY prophet in scripture or today.

[Teancum]

A point about interpretation. It can be either right or wrong.

The question boils down to is if Joseph Smith was right in how he interpreted things. Mormons of course believe he interprets things correctly.

I believe differently. He teaches a different gospel than the one Paul preached, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 specificaly. The warning concerning another gospel and the methodology concerning this, Galatians 1:6-8.

 

 

Ah Paul. What a lovely fellow. Problem is he preached a different gospel than Jesus did, that is if you can trust the gospels.

[Anakin7]

       coolrok7 LDS Preach a different Gospel ? Martin Luther and Joseph Smith taught much the same !, lets read - www.14lds.com/luther.htm

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

            Anakin7

Edited January 25, 2015 by Anakin7

[coolrok7]

Greetings from Barbados (one more day). My point Anakin7 was specifically the Gospel in which Mormonism has a major difference at a critical point. I wasn't talking about teaching in general where we agree on things.

 

I quoted Paul wherein he gives a  specific warning concerning another Gospel and the methodology of how it might be accomplished, "though we or an angel from heaven", different from what he had already taught. Enter the "Angel Moroni" or "Gabriel" for Islam which teaches strict obedience to Sharia law.

 

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is very specific in that Jesus was dead, buried, and resurrected which proved Who He said He was. It's not, "a plan or system of laws and ordinances, by strict obedience" to quote Brigham Young in order to be exalted to godhood as taught in Mormonism, in reality the gospel of the Mormon Church (it is a given one is to be obedient in the things of God but the Law does not save anyone.

 

The shed blood of Jesus making atonement does, by grace through faith, not of works. Good works follow having faith in the Gospel to accomplish this. Justification first before God, followed by Sanctification which is being set apart unto good works as a matter of faith. The point James makes in our justification before men, as in I'll show you my faith by my works.

 

The Good News is that because of death, as it was introduced into the world through Adam and Eve's disobedience, Jesus (as prophesied in Genesis 3) made atonement in that those who believe in Him will not perish but have eternal life, not eternal punishment for those who reject Him or failed to believe things about God known from the creation itself (Romans 1 & 2).  

[ERayR]

Greetings from Barbados (one more day). My point Anakin7 was specifically the Gospel in which Mormonism has a major difference at a critical point. I wasn't talking about teaching in general where we agree on things.

 

 

And that is where each has the opportunity to choose for themselves.  Joshua 24:15 seems appropriate. 

 

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD