Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Calm]

God still is a man. He always was and always will be a human as the rest of us humans always were and always will be human.

He is a divine and exalted man who is the Eternal God.

Is not Christ a man?

Don't really see the problem here.

Edited September 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

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."

Above is one of the quotes that I have given taken directly from the LDS.org website and as you can see it is from an official LDS publication. Can you tell me what it says?

 

While it is doctrine that God went through a mortal probation there was never a time when he was not a God. This does not preclude his being a man.  What is lacking is your understanding of who man is.

Edited September 2, 2014 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Why don't some posters that are LDS just admit that they believe God was once a man.  If this is not so, why have temples and why progress?  There are a lot of people that join the church for that belief specifically.  

 

Some posters do. I do not remember any LDS posters who do not.

Edited September 3, 2014 by ERayR

[Canadaigua]

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.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism--Priesthood

"THE SOURCE OF PRIESTHOOD POWER. Jesus Christ is the great High Priest of God; Christ is therefore the source of all true priesthood authority and power on this earth (Heb. 5-10). Man does not take such priesthood power unto himself; it must be conferred by God through his servants (Heb. 5:4; D&C 1:38).

Before the world was created, Jesus Christ, ***the great Jehovah and firstborn of God the Father in the spirit world, covenanted to use the power he had obtained from the Father to implement God's program for the eternal happiness of all God's children*** (cf. TPJS, p. 190)."

After looking at the above quote wouldn't you agree that Jesus did not eternally hold the priesthood?

[ERayR]

Encyclopedia of Mormonism--Priesthood

"THE SOURCE OF PRIESTHOOD POWER. Jesus Christ is the great High Priest of God; Christ is therefore the source of all true priesthood authority and power on this earth (Heb. 5-10). Man does not take such priesthood power unto himself; it must be conferred by God through his servants (Heb. 5:4; D&C 1:38).

Before the world was created, Jesus Christ, ***the great Jehovah and firstborn of God the Father in the spirit world, covenanted to use the power he had obtained from the Father to implement God's program for the eternal happiness of all God's children*** (cf. TPJS, p. 190)."

After looking at the above quote wouldn't you agree that Jesus did not eternally hold the priesthood?

 

No, emphatically No.

 

Again until you recognize that a member Of the Church probably interprets and internalizes those quotes differently than you do you will never come to understand Mormonism.  You are trying to critique what they say from your interpretation and understanding of scripture and I have already noted that we do not subscribe to all your interpretations.  Instead of trying to prove Mormonism wrong and denouncing something you do not understand spend a few years in serious study with a knowledgeable Mormon.

Edited September 3, 2014 by ERayR

[Canadaigua]

No, emphatically No.

Then your belief is that Jesus held the priesthood eternally--which would include prior to His spiritual birth to Heavenly Father and Mother--which would mean that He held His priesthood as an intelligence. Is that a fair assessment of what you believe?

[ERayR]

Then your belief is that Jesus held the priesthood eternally--which would include prior to His spiritual birth to Heavenly Father and Mother--which would mean that He held His priesthood as an intelligence. Is that a fair assessment of what you believe?

Not really.  I have no way of knowing how far back it went but certainly as far as the spirit world.

[Tacenda]

Some posters do. I do not remember any LDS posters who do not.

So it's because God is God even as a man? Therefore men now are Gods also? Is that where Gods in embryo came from? Am I speaking to a God (you)? But one who still needs exaltation? Am I late once again, to the party? Edited September 3, 2014 by Tacenda

[Canadaigua]

Again until you recognize that a member Of the Church probably interprets and internalizes those quotes differently than you do you will never come to understand Mormonism.

Help me understand what you are trying to say with your statement above.

English words have standard definitions and is the medium which you and I are communication with each other. Would you say that a written English sentence doesn't have a specified meaning but rather varies depending on who is reading it? For example if I say that the soup is hot. I read that sentence and to me it means that the soup is hot. But someone else could could come along and read the exact same sentence and to him it means that the soup is cold?

[ERayR]

So it's because God is God even as a man? Therefore men now are Gods also? Is that where Gods in embryo came from? Am I speaking to a God (you)? But one who still needs exaltation? Am I late once again, to the party?

 

Gods are men, men are of God's family.  All the same specie with some more advanced than others.  Psalms 82:6  I have said, You are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. and  John 10:34  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods?

 

Spend an hour or so pondering these.  It is worth the time.

[ERayR]

Help me understand what you are trying to say with your statement above.

English words have standard definitions and is the medium which you and I are communication with each other. Would you say that a written English sentence doesn't have a specified meaning but rather varies depending on who is reading it? For example if I say that the soup is hot. I read that sentence and to me it means that the soup is hot. But someone else could could come along and read the exact same sentence and to him it means that the soup is cold?

 

You look at all these "Mormon quotes" through the prism of your personnel sectarian understanding and teachings and interpret them from that point of view.

 

They surely do and yes that is what I am saying.  When I say baptism do you think of immersing one in water of sprinkling water on their head?  Yet the word baptize means:

907 baptízō – properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai ("sprinkle").

 

There are many such examples so if we are to discuss concepts we really need to find a common understanding for many of these concepts.  As you can see we may all speak English but not necessarily the same English.  In rural England if you want the inn keeper to wake you in the morning you ask him to knock me up.  In USA you ask for a wake up call.  So you see some serious misunderstandings can occur.

[Flyonthewall]

Encyclopedia of Mormonism--Priesthood

"THE SOURCE OF PRIESTHOOD POWER. Jesus Christ is the great High Priest of God; Christ is therefore the source of all true priesthood authority and power on this earth (Heb. 5-10). Man does not take such priesthood power unto himself; it must be conferred by God through his servants (Heb. 5:4; D&C 1:38).

Before the world was created, Jesus Christ, ***the great Jehovah and firstborn of God the Father in the spirit world, covenanted to use the power he had obtained from the Father to implement God's program for the eternal happiness of all God's children*** (cf. TPJS, p. 190)."

After looking at the above quote wouldn't you agree that Jesus did not eternally hold the priesthood?

Nope. I see that is a conclusion that you arrive at but not the only possible one. Since the priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God, and Jesus is God and has been eternally... You keep wanting us to speculate on a being that is without beginning and without end, on what happened before the beginning.

When you can come to terms with "without beginning", maybe things will be clearer for you.

[Canadaigua]

There are many such examples so if we are to discuss concepts we really need to find a common understanding for many of these concepts.  As you can see we may all speak English but not necessarily the same English.  In rural England if you want the inn keeper to wake you in the morning you ask him to knock me up.  In USA you ask for a wake up call.  So you see some serious misunderstandings can occur.

The point that you bring up certainly can be an issue. However in this case both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were from the USA and their words were written in English. The LDS manual that I quoted is also originated from the USA and it too was written in English. So in this case should not be an issue.

[Canadaigua]

Nope. I see that is a conclusion that you arrive at but not the only possible one. Since the priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God, and Jesus is God and has been eternally... You keep wanting us to speculate on a being that is without beginning and without end, on what happened before the beginning.

When you can come to terms with "without beginning", maybe things will be clearer for you.

Before the world was created, Jesus Christ, ***the great Jehovah and firstborn of God the Father in the spirit world, covenanted to use the power he had obtained from the Father to implement God's program for the eternal happiness of all God's children*** (cf. TPJS, p. 190)."

"covenanted to use the power he had obtained from the Father"

In the statement above what power did Jesus obtain from the Father?

[ERayR]

The point that you bring up certainly can be an issue. However in this case both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were from the USA and their words were written in English. The LDS manual that I quoted is also originated from the USA and it too was written in English. So in this case should not be an issue.

 

But they wrote from an LDS view not an evangelical or sectarian understanding.

 

Note:  I ask you to define salvation.  Also would you tel be what a baptism would look like to you?

[ERayR]

Before the world was created, Jesus Christ, ***the great Jehovah and firstborn of God the Father in the spirit world, covenanted to use the power he had obtained from the Father to implement God's program for the eternal happiness of all God's children*** (cf. TPJS, p. 190)."

"covenanted to use the power he had obtained from the Father"

In the statement above what power did Jesus obtain from the Father?

 

 

That would be the Priesthood power why?

[Calm]

A highly spiced soup can be both hot and cold.

[ERayR]

A highly spiced soup can be both hot and cold.

 

And Evangelicals and Mormons speak a foreign language relative to each other.

[Canadaigua]

And Evangelicals and Mormons speak a foreign language relative to each other.

That is because we define the same exact words differently. As I mentioned before English words have standard definitions and if both sides would stick with the definition of the word we would probably not talk past each other as often as we do.

[Calm]

Yes, like Christian....

[ERayR]

That is because we define the same exact words differently. As I mentioned before English words have standard definitions and if both sides would stick with the definition of the word we would probably not talk past each other as often as we do.

 

My grandmother used to have an olde fisherman's saying "If wishes were fishes we'd all swim in riches".  We all have different experiences and interpret things in relation to our experiences and understanding.  The dictionary is just a guide book.

[XXMikey007]

God has always existed; it's hard to comprehend such a concept because we are finite beings. Everything we deal with has some sort of beginning and an ending. We will only fully understand when we ourselves become infinite beings in the resurrection.

 

Once we become infinite beings (meaning we will live forever) then a beginning or ending to our existence will be irrelevant, won’t it? It's like adding a number to infinity, it equals infinity. It is always infinite no matter what you add or take away from it.
 

God is infinite, whether ultimately He had a beginning or not, is irrelevant. He is immortal, which means He no longer has a beginning or an ending.

 

What disturbs me the most about our outspoken Christian friends is that an “unessential” thought, or belief in the mind can condemn a person to hell.  For instance I really believe that Christ preferred green beans to peas.  When I stand before the judgment bar of God, and I state this, Christ will sadly say that he preferred peas.  Go my son to eternal punishment?

 

The fact is, whether or not I believe there was a “time” (the irrelevance of time again can’t be over stated) when Jesus was a “sinful” man (again I don’t actually believe this, nor has any modern Prophet stated it), is of no significant importance, it is “unessential”.

 

Mormons believe in Jesus Christ of the New Testament, period.  And if you are of the opinion that because I believe, what you think I believe, concerning something as trivial as the ultimate beginning of God, or his progression (which is not even clearly explained in the Bible), that I am without a doubt going to burn in the fiery depths.  Then please don’t ask me to join your faith.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is because we define the same exact words differently. As I mentioned before English words have standard definitions and if both sides would stick with the definition of the word we would probably not talk past each other as often as we do.

You mean like "Baptism". Some think you just can sprinkle them and that is a baptism.

 

In what ways are possibly talking past each other?

 

Often time what happens, and we are all guilty to a certain extent, is that we think we know what the other person is talking about before we even read what they wrote.

[JLHPROF]

That is because we define the same exact words differently. As I mentioned before English words have standard definitions and if both sides would stick with the definition of the word we would probably not talk past each other as often as we do.

 

This is true, but both sides think their definition is the right one and cannot be convinced.

But we should also consider the limitations of language and the fact that it has evolved.  If a prophet of God redefines a word for me then I am not bound to the old definition.  Goodness knows that Christ redefined a few words during his ministry.

[Canadaigua]

This is true, but both sides think their definition is the right one and cannot be convinced.

But we should also consider the limitations of language and the fact that it has evolved.  If a prophet of God redefines a word for me then I am not bound to the old definition.  Goodness knows that Christ redefined a few words during his ministry.

The problem is that the words when written had a specific meaning and if you simply change the meaning of that word then you distort the entire message.  You mentioned that Christ redefined specific words can you give me a few examples?