Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Vance]

Don't you guys know? The bible interprets it's self.

Apparently it doesn't do a very good job.

[coolrok7]

I said I would get to the questions being asked of me but I would like to emphasize how I began answering the thread question as I was indirectly asked to do. There are to me some really ridiculous statements being made, things I don't believe or never said that I'm not responsible for that are being implied.

 

Anakin7, you were the first to answer the thread question offering what one would say (more to it than that) as an Evangelical. It wasn't until post #8 when the first responding Evangelical, danielwoods, offered his perspective.

 

My initial response was post #13 (2 Corinthians 11 can also be used to expand on the "another Gospel" to "another Jesus/Spirit"). The specific question of the thread in my perspective is already answered in light of Paul's writings (Biblical Scripture, not other so-called "Scripture"), other Biblical writers as well. Paul was chosen by Jesus, appearing to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) and confirmed by Peter (2 Peter 3) in his calling.

 

 

[Anakin7]

    Coolrok7 which of the 50 + translations/versions [There are probably more] of The Bible [some have scriptures that the others do not and other problems] is the word of God ?. What version do you use ?.

 

in His Debt/grace

     Anakin7

Edited August 19, 2014 by Anakin7

[coolrok7]

My confirmation Bible was the KJV which I still have. I also use the NASB, ESV plus the many others available online.

Remember, the originals were first from which the different families of manuscripts all translations come from.

The Word of God is Jesus and the source for the writing of Biblical Scripture is through the Holy Spirit inspiring those who wrote the originals.

We don't have them but we do have the historical copies that remain throughout the world.

[Anakin7]

       Thank you coolrok7. I use KJV at church, have NASB,NIV,NKJV. I plan to obtain a Jerusalem Bible,New Revised Standard Version and the New Oxford Annointed Bible which I hear is awesome. Originals yes are no longer available,copies of copies of copies we have with hundreds of thousands of varient readings. We have portions and fragments to search from.

 

In His Debt/Grace

      Anakin7

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bible.shtml#lost

 

For one thing, because there are obviously missing sacred writings which the Bible refers to that are no longer known or no longer contained in the Bible. Mike Parker has compiled the following well known examples of lost sacred writings mentioned in the Old Testament:

• The book of the covenant, through which Moses instructed Israel (Exodus 24:7).
• The book of the wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14).
• The book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18).
• The book of the manner of the kingdom (1 Samuel 10:25).
• Possible books containing three thousand proverbs, a thousand and five songs, a treatise on natural history by Solomon (1 Kings 4:32,33).
• The acts or annals of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41).
• The book of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29).
• The book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29).
• The prophecy of Ahijah, the Shilonite (2 Chronicles 9:29).
• The visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 9:29).
• The book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15).
• The story of the prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22).
• The book of Jehu (2 Chronicles 20:34).
• The Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chronicles 26:22)
• Sayings of the Seers (2 Chronicles 33:19)

The New Testament also refers to the Book of Enoch in Jude 14; a missing epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); a missing Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); and a missing Epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16). These writings were important enough to quote or refer to in subsequent writings preserved now as scripture. In addition, Matthew 2:23 cites a now fulfilled prophecy from "the prophets" that Christ would be a Nazarene (someone from Nazareth), but this prophecy is not found anywhere in any existing Old Testament canon. Matthew was citing scripture which is missing now. Another example of missing scripture is the text containing the words of Christ that Paul quotes in Acts 20:35: "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." This saying of Christ appears in none of the Gospels. Here Paul was writing to foreign converts who were not around to hear Christ preach, so how were they to "remember" those words? Paul obviously must have been citing it from a sacred writing that they had. We no longer have that writing. Something is missing.

[Anakin7]

 Lets explore a little -   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations

 

in His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited August 20, 2014 by Anakin7

[cdowis]

 Paul was chosen by Jesus, appearing to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) and confirmed by Peter (2 Peter 3) in his calling.

 

That's an interesting coincidence.  Except for the Damascus part, does that qualify one to be a prophet?

 

I know, just another question you won't answer.

[coolrok7]

In regards to the so-called "missing" books of the Bible, note what Mormons themselves appeal to as the, "standard works of the Church" (which also doesn't include these "missing" books):

 

As Latter-day Saint we accept the following scriptures as the standard works of the Church: the Bible (consisting of the Old Testament and the New Testament), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and official statements made by our leaders. Regarding the Bible: There is a misconception that the Bible is one book instead of a collection of sixty-six books, thirty-nine of which comprise the Old Testament and twenty-seven of which constitute the New Testament  (The Ensign, Church magazine-contains official statements of leaders-Church Conference, Elder Henry D. Taylor, p. Nov. 1976, p.63)

 

 

There is also the following concerning The KJV, the official translation used by the Mormon church:

 

. . .Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members. . . .Many versions of any portion of the Bible are available today for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has clearly revealed the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any Biblical passages is not by comparing different texts but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations. (First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible, The Ensign, August 1992, p.80)

 

Note the methodology to "measure the accuracy of any Biblical passages".

 

[coolrok7]

cdowis, I said I would answer the various questions as I can't do it all at once. You also gave me an option of answering or not, didn't you?

 

And Vance, not being "rude" by quoting your General Authorities tracts provided by the church. Like you tell me what I believe when I actually don't?

Edited August 20, 2014 by coolrok7

[Storm Rider]

In regards to the so-called "missing" books of the Bible, note what Mormons themselves appeal to as the, "standard works of the Church" (which also doesn't include these "missing" books):

 

 

 

There is also the following concerning The KJV, the official translation used by the Mormon church:

 

 

Note the methodology to "measure the accuracy of any Biblical passages".

 

I am curious to know where you see the conflict between what the Book of Mormon and teaches and what the Bible teaches?  If the Book of Mormon is going to the the standard, and it causes a problem, what are the problems other than it being the Book of Mormon.  

[coolrok7]

I will get to that too Storm Rider.

[cdowis]

cdowis, I said I would answer the various questions as I can't do it all at once. You also gave me an option of answering or not, didn't you?

 

 

 

No criticism intended, just an observation.

 

People ask me questions and I don't always answer them.  So consider them as rhetorical questions, something to think about, because we don't have all the answers.  

 

Some questions may take a very long time to think through and even then we can only find a partial answer.

[cdowis]

In regards to the so-called "missing" books of the Bible, note what Mormons themselves appeal to as the, "standard works of the Church" (which also doesn't include these "missing" books):

 

If someone is a "sola scriptura", it is a fundamental assumption that the bible contains everything necessary for a correct understanding of salvation.  Let me suggest a simple answer to this issue:  "The Lord has ensured that we have in our Bible everything necessary for us to have the complete Gospel".

 

That's why I don't use the "missing text" argument, and my questions are based on the assumption that the bible is inerrant.

 

(I've been in apologetics for over 30 years, so I've been down this road)

Edited August 20, 2014 by cdowis

[Anakin7]

    In practice the Bible is closed but in theory it's open.

 

In His Debt/Grace

        Anakin7

[Vance]

And Vance, not being "rude" by quoting your General Authorities tracts provided by the church.

You are rude when you tell us what we believe while getting it WRONG. Which you specifically did in the post I was referring too.

Like you tell me what I believe when I actually don't?

Please feel free to provide a reference to back up this claim.

[coolrok7]

Vance, in answer to your post 310, the first part, there are two specific posts 224/259 where I address the idea of meriting vs. the gift of eternal life. In post #224, I give a brief specific address in which I was addressing the Biblical teaching of the gift of eternal life vs. the idea of meriting eternal life as taught by Mormon General Authorities (salvation is resurrection whereas exaltation in Mormonism is earned/merited/worked for). Post #259 elaborates further on what I stated in post # 224. Your statement above appears to come from post #.259.

 

The second part I'll modify what I said a bit as it was off the top of my head when I made the comment (in passing) with no specific post in my mind. In my experience in dialoging with you/others over the years what I stated was in reaction to my general experience more than to any specific statement of yours/others in this particular thread.

 

Once again, this is in answering the thread question. 

 

Back later as I'm going on vacation today with my wife up to Big Bear Lake (for our 35th anniversary on the 25th).

 

Earlier that year, the year we were married, I had visited the Institute of Religion across from Golden West college in Huntington Beach, Ca. where I had been attending, had my first conversation with a Mormon concerning their teachings. The director later had the missionaries come by for a "discussion" as they were referred to at the time.

Edited August 22, 2014 by coolrok7

[cdowis]

Enjoy yourself.

 

We appreciate your patience, and we have enjoyed this discussion with you.  Hopefully we have come to understand each other better.

[coolrok7]

Yes, thanks cdowis, so far so good. Just had a quick dip in The jacuzzi. It's so beautiful up in the mountains.

[thesometimesaint]

In regards to the so-called "missing" books of the Bible, note what Mormons themselves appeal to as the, "standard works of the Church" (which also doesn't include these "missing" books):

 

 

 

There is also the following concerning The KJV, the official translation used by the Mormon church:

 

 

Note the methodology to "measure the accuracy of any Biblical passages".

 

Those listed are what the Bible itself says were there. While we do wish we had them today, we don't have them today.

 

We use the KJV in English speaking countries as a matter of convenience and commonality. Additional we're open to new Scripture. Something KJV Only folks are opposed to,

[cdowis]

We use the KJV in English speaking countries as a matter of convenience and commonality. Additional we're open to new Scripture. Something KJV Only folks are opposed to,

 

"If the King James Bible was good enough for Peter, then it's good enough for me."

[coolrok7]

"Sola Scriptura" (not an actual term in the Bible but the principle is there in the various books I would argue like Luther did) is that this is where doctrine resides from which we take instruction, as if from Jesus and those who wrote that which is in the New Testament; which was preceded by the Old Testament in which it is appealed to as the "it is written" by Jesus. This is their "Testimony"!

 

Peter makes reference to the writing of: "our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you. . ." in which certain people "twist to their own destruction as they do also of the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:14-16) which is not to be taken lightly.

 

From my post # 309: "and official statements made by our leaders". The Mormon version of "Sola Scriptura" (in actuality the "twist" of Scripture) "in addition" to the Bible which I don't accept as "Scripture" has the three other books and the "official statements" of the General Authorities:

 

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. (Gospel Principles manual, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1988, pp.49-51)

 

In the present Gospel Principles manual:

 

Words of Our Living Prophets   In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. . . .(1978, 2009, p.48)

 

From an another earlier General Authority, James Talmage:

 

The Standard Works of the Church constitute the written authority of the Church in doctrine. . . .We rely therefore on the teachings of the living oracles of God as of equal validity with the doctrines of the written word. . . .Of the doctrines treated in the authorized standards , the Articles of Faith may be regarded as a fair though but partial summary. (The Articles of Faith, p.7)

 

Another point to make here is the following in house letter of correction from Bruce R. McConkie to an erring Church member (Eugene England) but made public through its spreading at BYU:

 

Dear brother England: This may well the most important letter you have or ever will receive (p.1). . . .It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what its doctrine shall be. . . .This means among other things, that it is in my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray that is my responsibility, but the fact remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest to do so. The appointment is not given to the faculty at Brigham Young University or to any of the members of the Church. . . .And those at (p.eight) the head of the Church have the obligation to teach that which is n harmony with the Standard Works (p.9)

    

Those that don't like this principle have in their scheme of things the addition of non-Biblical doctrine which was written against in both the Old/New Testaments. The Vedas, the Qu'ran, and the writings of many others as well are those that the principle of Sola Scriptura would identify since before and including the first century, up to the present.

Edited August 23, 2014 by coolrok7

[Vance]

"Sola Scriptura" (not an actual term in the Bible but the principle is there in the various books I would argue like Luther did) is that this is where doctrine resides from which we take instruction, as if from Jesus and those who wrote that which is in the New Testament; which was preceded by the Old Testament in which it is appealed to as the "it is written" by Jesus. This is their "Testimony"!

LOL!!!

It was Luther that fabricated this doctrine ex nihilo. He ended up having to wrest the scriptures to get it. Such wresting was specifically warned against by Peter.

 

Peter makes reference to the writing of: "our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you. . ." in which certain people "twist to their own destruction as they do also of the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:14-16) which is not to be taken lightly.

Too bad Luther did not heed this warning when he fabricated "sola scriptura".

[captainoutofhere]

It wasn't until I left the LDS church that my eyes and heart were reopened. Mormonism & Christianity are very different. Most "members" I know say that they believe in Christ, hence they are Christians (and I believe many do as the Lord is working on their hearts). However, the Christian world defines Christianity as the Trinity. Believing in God the Father (Spirit), his Only Son, and the Spirit as One Eternal God.

[Calm]

Kind of circular: the Christian world defines Christianity as a belief in the Trinity (extra biblical standard), what defines the Christan world? Let me guess: a belief in the Trinity.

Funny thing is "Christian" seems to me to point to a belief in Christ, not some extra biblical tradition that wasn't defined until centuries after Christ's death. I guess all those who thought they were Christians before the Trinity was made into a creed weren't really Christians at all, like Peter, James, John, Paul, Matthew, etc.

Edited August 30, 2014 by calmoriah