Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Vance]

Can you tell me what is President Hinckley meant when he said "For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the dispensation of the fullness of times"?

 

Go back and read your own statement again and perhaps you will realize that the Mormon Jesus is not the same as the Biblical Jesus.

You need to go back and read post 363.  You obviously missed its content.

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2004/12/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

[Rain]

Coolrok - you keep referring to answer the question in the OP. I'm assuming you are talking about the assurance that the OP isn't baiting anyone. I hope you and others don't feel you gave been baited.

While I disagree with things said and I think many don't have a good understanding of how we believe, I appreciate when others are truthful on that question without malice. I can deal with other people not believing we are Christian because we are not Trinitarian etc. After all, there are similar beliefs we have such as who has been given priesthood authority.

A lot of the reason we tend to jump on others for telling us what our beliefs are is because we have a long history of people doing it and being terribly wrong when they do it. Things as simple as we don't belief in Christ at all and that we don't realize that because we are brainwashed, naive or stupid. Obviously, we should try to act Christlike even when this happens, but it might help you in future conversations with lds to be wary on saying, "you believe..." or other similar things.

[Canadaigua]

You need to go back and read post 363.  You obviously missed its content.

No I didn't miss its content.  If fact your own words you said that the Biblical Jesus is different than the Mormon Jesus.  As I said before just read your own words and think about what they actually mean.

[Flyonthewall]

Psalm 90

1 1. Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations.

2 2. Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

 

Perhaps you could answer my question.  Do you believe that Jesus and the Father have not always been God (or a God)?

LDS believe Jesus was the creator of this world under the direction of the Father. Nothing in that scripture refutes or contradicts LDS teachings.

I believe God the Father and Jesus were always God.

Do you have anything better than that? Something that actually refutes or contradicts LDS teachings?

[Canadaigua]

False. The doctrine of the trinity was established by the Catholic Church.  It is nowhere found in the Bible.

Actually you are wrong on this one.  The basis for the Trinity IS in the Bible and that is why Christians believe it.  And this is the perfect thread to discuss this because this is one of the major reasons Christians consider Mormons outside of Christianity.  One aspect of the Trinity is the belief in one God (monotheism), compare this to the LDS position which is the belief in many gods which by definition is polytheism.

[Canadaigua]

I believe God the Father and Jesus were always God.

Do you have anything better than that? Something that actually refutes or contradicts LDS teachings?

King Follett Sermon  Ensign April 1971

 

". . .God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . ."

 

I think that a lot of LDS would disagree with your position but you are certainly entitled to your own beliefs.  Would you say that according to the words of Joseph Smith in the above sermon he believed that God has always been God?

[Canadaigua]

I believe God the Father and Jesus were always God.

Do you believe that "intelligences"--such as Jesus prior to his spiritual birth to a heavenly mother--eternally held the priesthood?

[Flyonthewall]

Can you tell me what is President Hinckley meant when he said "For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the dispensation of the fullness of times"?

Think of the 5 blind men and the elephant. Each has their own belief of what an elephant is and will quarrel and argue with the others that he is right and the others are wrong.

"Traditional Christianity" has been arguing for centuries that the elephant is a tree, wall, rope, snake, or spear. LDS claim that the elephant has been revealed.

Basically, we believe we have a more accurate view of the Biblical Jesus.

[Flyonthewall]

King Follett Sermon  Ensign April 1971

 

". . .God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . ."

 

I think that a lot of LDS would disagree with your position but you are certainly entitled to your own beliefs.  Would you say that according to the words of Joseph Smith in the above sermon he believed that God has always been God?

Maybe, maybe not. But then again you are not LDS. Jesus was a man like we are today. Does that mean He was not always God? No. Edited September 1, 2014 by Flyonthewall

[Flyonthewall]

Do you believe that "intelligences"--such as Jesus prior to his spiritual birth to a heavenly mother--eternally held the priesthood?

We have not been given much information about intelligences, so any answer I can give is speculation.

Funny how you think you know enough about intelligences to frame a question like this.

[Storm Rider]

Actually you are wrong on this one.  The basis for the Trinity IS in the Bible and that is why Christians believe it.  And this is the perfect thread to discuss this because this is one of the major reasons Christians consider Mormons outside of Christianity.  One aspect of the Trinity is the belief in one God (monotheism), compare this to the LDS position which is the belief in many gods which by definition is polytheism.

 

I would be curious to have you define your meaning of the Trinity.  

 

LDS believe in God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  All are God; three distinct personages that form one Godhead.  

 

The Trinity, the standard you attached to it, is not found in the Bible.  Jesus, nor the first apostles, taught or inferred that one must believe in a specific doctrine to be saved, to be called his disciple, or to be called a Christian.  To be called Christian in the Bible one only had to follow after Jesus.  

[Canadaigua]

Think of the 5 blind men and the elephant. Each has their own belief of what an elephant is and will quarrel and argue with the others that he is right and the others are wrong.

"Traditional Christianity" has been arguing for centuries that the elephant is a tree, wall, rope, snake, or spear. LDS claim that the elephant has been revealed.

Basically, we believe we have a more accurate view of the Biblical Jesus.

Which means that you believe in a Jesus that is different than the Jesus taught in the Bible.  And that is exactly why Christians place Mormons outside of Christianity.  Bottom line Mormons believe in a different God (gods) than Christians believe in and follow a different gospel.

[Canadaigua]

We have not been given much information about intelligences, so any answer I can give is speculation.

Funny how you think you know enough about intelligences to frame a question like this.

So how can you make the determination that Jesus and the Father have always been God (or a God) if you are not sure about whether or not they have eternally held the priesthood?  Unless of course you believe that God can function as God without ever holding the priesthood. 

[Canadaigua]

Maybe, maybe not. But then again you are not LDS. Jesus was a man like we are today. Does that mean He was not always God? No.

I have given you a quote from Joseph Smith from the King Follett Sermon that says that God has not always been God. But you seem to take a different view.  Here is another reference from an LDS manual.  The quote can be found in the bullet points under the Suggestions for Study section.  Take a look at it and tell me what you think.

 

 

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, (1997), 28–35

 

•The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church.

[Canadaigua]

I would be curious to have you define your meaning of the Trinity.  

 

LDS believe in God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  All are God; three distinct personages that form one Godhead.  

 

"LDS believe in God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  All are God {Gods}; three distinct personages that form one Godhead {But many Gods}."

 

Your definition is pretty close to how Christians would define God with the major distinction of one God as taught in Christianity verses many Gods as taught in Mormonism.  However there are many other differences between the Christian God and the Gods of Mormonism that you did not mention--which are also important distinctions.

[Storm Rider]

King Follett Sermon  Ensign April 1971

 

". . .God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . ."

 

I think that a lot of LDS would disagree with your position but you are certainly entitled to your own beliefs.  Would you say that according to the words of Joseph Smith in the above sermon he believed that God has always been God?

 

 

The King Follet discourse is not accepted as doctrine of the Church.  You can quote it all you want, but it still remains non-doctrinal.  What is the benefit of discussing or arguing about that which is not doctrine?  

[Storm Rider]

"LDS believe in God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  All are God {Gods}; three distinct personages that form one Godhead {But many Gods}."

 

Your definition is pretty close to how Christians would define God with the major distinction of one God as taught in Christianity verses many Gods as taught in Mormonism.  However there are many other differences between the Christian God and the Gods of Mormonism that you did not mention--which are also important distinctions.

 

Please identify the "many gods" outside of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that you say we believe in?

 

Do you believe that the Trinity is composed of three distinct persons?  A simple yes or no will do.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Storm Rider

[captainoutofhere]

In the apostles creed...LDS doctrine us that the Savior was not a product of the Spirit, but of the Father. And that Mary wasn't a "virgin". Look it up. I can also give many LDS references from the prophets. That was one of the many things that cracked my ".shelf"

[Tacenda]

The King Follet discourse is not accepted as doctrine of the Church. You can quote it all you want, but it still remains non-doctrinal. What is the benefit of discussing or arguing about that which is not doctrine?

Don't ever go to Nauvoo then. As recent as last year it had a vignette of the entire speech in the spot it took place. Pretty sure it's a held belief and doctrine, or else our church doesn't believe in becoming as God in a literal sense. And why would they dramatize the speech if they no longer believe in it? Edited September 1, 2014 by Tacenda

[Vance]

Actually you are wrong on this one.  The basis for the Trinity IS in the Bible and that is why Christians believe it.  And this is the perfect thread to discuss this because this is one of the major reasons Christians consider Mormons outside of Christianity. 

Actually you are the one that is wrong on this one.

 

This from just one of the many results of a google search.

 

Surprising admissions that the Trinity isn't in the Bible!

Notice these admissions from a number of reputable sources and authors who, while themselves affirming the Trinity, acknowledge that the word "Trinity" and the doctrine is not found in the Bible.

 

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that "'trinity' is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement" (1988, Vol. 4, "Trinity," p. 914). It further states that "church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries"—long after the apostles had passed from the scene.

 

The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary tells us, "The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT [New Testament]" (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, "Trinity").

 

The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism states: "Today, however, scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the OT [ Old Testament ] or the NT [ New Testament ] .   .   . It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the OT to suppose that a late-fourth-century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there . . . Likewise, the NT does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity" (Richard McBrien, general editor, 1995, "God," pp. 564-565).

 

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, in its article on the Trinity, explains: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons" (1985 edition, Micropaedia, Vol. 11, p. 928).

 

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology points out that "primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church" (Colin Brown, editor, Vol. 2, 1976, "God," p. 84).

 

Historian and science fiction writer H.G. Wells, in his noted work The Outline of History, points out, "There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity—at any rate from him" (1920, Vol. 2, p. 499).

 

Martin Luther, the German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation, conceded, "It is indeed true that the name 'Trinity' is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man" (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406).

 

The Oxford Companion to the Bible states: "Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon [i.e., actual Scripture]" (Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, editors, 1993, "Trinity," p. 782).

 

Professor Charles Ryrie, in his respected work Basic Theology, writes: "Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity .   .   . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three persons" (1999, p. 89).

Ryrie goes on to state: "The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results . . . If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity" (p. 90).

 

Millard Erickson, research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that the Trinity "is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.

"In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble" ( God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995,p. 12).

Professor Erickson further states that the Trinity teaching "is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God" (p. 20).

Professor Erickson later points out: "It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity's uniqueness . . . how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? . . . For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.

"Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion" (pp. 108-109). Later in this booklet we will consider various scriptures often used to support the Trinity doctrine.

 

Shirley Guthrie, Jr., professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, writes: "The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word 'trinity' itself nor such language as 'one-in-three,' 'three-in-one,' one 'essence' (or 'substance'), and three 'persons,' is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy" ( Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76-77)."

 

So, should we take the word of an anonymous poster or these scholars?

 

Now given that the trinity is a post-bilblical invention, it directly shows that the first Christians did NOT accept it as doctrine.

 

THEREFORE, it is a fools errand to use belief in the trinity as a requirement to be called a Christian.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

 

 One aspect of the Trinity is the belief in one God (monotheism), compare this to the LDS position which is the belief in many gods which by definition is polytheism.

This statement shows that you don't know about what is actually in the Bible.

 

Josh 22:22 The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)

 

Deut 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

 

Ps. 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

 

Dan 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

 

Dan 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

 

These many "gods" that are subservient and obedient to God, are they true gods or are they false gods?

Edited September 1, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

In the apostles creed...LDS doctrine us that the Savior was not a product of the Spirit, but of the Father. And that Mary wasn't a "virgin". Look it up. I can also give many LDS references from the prophets. That was one of the many things that cracked my ".shelf"

You are the one that needs to look it up.  It is getting more obvious that you are clueless when it comes to LDS doctrine.

 

1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

      •  •  •

  20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

 

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

 

Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

[Vance]

Well, the Biblical Jesus, the one you supposedly believe in, didn't always have "all power".  For the Bible says,(Matt 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

 

So, If Jesus did not progress in some way, why did he need to be given "all power".  Why didn't he always have it? And what separate Divine Being had to give it to him?

Crickets chirping in the background.

[Flyonthewall]

Which means that you believe in a Jesus that is different than the Jesus taught in the Bible.  And that is exactly why Christians place Mormons outside of Christianity.  Bottom line Mormons believe in a different God (gods) than Christians believe in and follow a different gospel.

No. You are wrong. This is a simple concept, yet it eludes many who do not want LDS to be Christian.

We believe in the Jesus taught in the Bible. We simple understand more about Him.

Do you understand that different people can hold different beliefs and understandings about the very same person?

Every 4 years in America we hold a presidential election. There are candidates from each party. Candidate A, and those that follow him/her will say he is right for the job. Other people think he or she is wrong for the job. According to you, there are two different Candidate A's - one that is right for the job and one that is not.

Do you see how totally off the wall that sounds?

Mark 9

38 ¶And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

Do you see that even Jesus included those that did not follow exactly after "them".

Traditional Christianity tries to forbid other followers of Christ from being Christian. LDS include all followers of Christ as Christian. Which do you think acted as a follower of Christ? those that forbid or those that include?