Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[danielwoods]

The issue with that is that the Bible can be interpreted many different ways (hence the numerous Christian sects).  Without a prophet taught by God it becomes pretty much anyone's guess which is right.  Methodists or Lutherans?  Baptists or Presbyterians?  Hey, why not the Amish.

 

In short, the Bible is true and is the Word of God, but even God needs to continue to communicate from time to time.

 

The bible can be interpreted many different ways, this is true. And the Bible was written largely by prophets, so I'm not sure your argument escapes the problems created by mans freedom to disagree and chose a different path.

 

The system God has set up is that everything is designed to bring us directly into contact with himself on a personal level. Whether it's difficulties in life, or the Biblical text, or the stars in the sky at night, they all are put there to direct us to him.  

 

Whether some call themselves Baptists or Catholics or LDS doesn't really matter. 

Edited July 2, 2014 by danielwoods

[JLHPROF]

The bible can be interpreted many different ways, this is true. And the Bible was written largely by prophets, so I'm not sure your argument escapes the problems created by mans freedom to disagree and chose a different path.

 

The system God has set up is that everything is designed to bring us directly into contact with himself on a personal level. Whether it's difficulties in life, or the Biblical text, or the stars in the sky at night, they all are put there to direct us to him.  

 

Whether some call themselves Baptists or Catholics or LDS doesn't really matter. 

 

It might matter, but who would know without some divine communication.  I will take a prophet over the blind leading the blind.

[danielwoods]

It might matter, but who would know without some divine communication.  I will take a prophet over the blind leading the blind.

 

How many threads on here about what is really official LDS doctrine?

 

And I wouldn't ever characterize the leading of the Spirit as blindness. 

[JDave]

How many threads on here about what is really official LDS doctrine?

 

And I wouldn't ever characterize the leading of the Spirit as blindness.

Beware taking this forum as a measuring stick for the church membership at large. This is a select group of people who love to talk about / debate about all things Mormon, so discussions about "official-ness" of doctrine will be common.

And let's not pretend that such discussion never happen in other churches.  Right.... 

[danielwoods]

Beware taking this forum as a measuring stick for the church membership at large. This is a select group of people who love to talk about / debate about all things Mormon, so discussions about "official-ness" of doctrine will be common.

And let's not pretend that such discussion never happen in other churches.  Right.... 

 

General statements are always vulnerable to specific criticisms. 

 

So, generally speaking. The claim that I've heard from many here, that because we have living prophet we can just ask him, and there won't be so many different factions like with those other people, is similar to the Israelites cry for a King to lead them. 

 

The net result is the same as well, because people have free will and God deals directly with each individual, no matter if you think that a prophet is leading you or not. 

[Vance]

As for you assumptions of what would happen if the Bible was sufficient, I disagree. I'm not sure how free will would disappear as a result of the text being sufficient.

It wouldn't. Good thing I never claimed it would.

Or how we'd suddenly not need the Spirit?

Simple logic. IF the Bible is sufficient, THEN nothing else is needed, including the Spirit.

And of course your interpretation is that the Bible doesn't state that it's complete. I read that it says God has given us all we need, which includes his word in written form.

Could you share with the rest of us where, exactly, it says that?

[danielwoods]

It wouldn't. Good thing I never claimed it would.

Simple logic. IF the Bible is sufficient, THEN nothing else is needed, including the Spirit.

Could you share with the rest of us where, exactly, it says that?

 

Your logic is interesting in that it seems to ignore context. 

 

The bible is sufficient, no other books or writings are needed to lead us to God. Because in context the bible explicitly states we need to humble ourselves and come to God directly, and that this happens as the Spirit works in our hearts. 

 

So does the idea that the bible is sufficient lead to the idea that there is no need for the spirit? Not by any logical standards I'm aware of, because the Bible itself talks about the need for the Spirit in our lives. 

 

 

 

Here is one reference I was thinking of.

 

2 Peter 1:³ His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

Edited July 2, 2014 by danielwoods

[Vance]

Your logic is interesting in that it seems to ignore context. 

 

The bible is sufficient, no other books or writings are needed to lead us to God.

Ok, so now you have moved the goal posts. So now it is "no other books or writings", which is interesting because it takes other books and writings to explain YOUR interpretation.

Because in context the bible explicitly states we need to humble ourselves and come to God directly, and that this happens as the Spirit works in our hearts.

Ok, so now it is the Spirit that brings us to God (and not the Bible), at least we can agree on that. 

 

So does the idea that the bible is sufficient lead to the idea that there is no need for the spirit?

Yes, as I have demonstrated before.

Not by any logical standards I'm aware of, . . .

Your lack of awareness of logical standards seems to be the real problem here.

because the Bible itself talks about the need for the Spirit in our lives.

Which is totally counter to the concept of Bible sufficiency.

 

Here is one reference I was thinking of.

 

2 Peter 1:3 His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

And that verse could not possible be referring to the Bible because the Bible did not exist at the time of this writing.

[Carebear0411]

Your logic is interesting in that it seems to ignore context. 

 

The bible is sufficient, no other books or writings are needed to lead us to God. Because in context the bible explicitly states we need to humble ourselves and come to God directly, and that this happens as the Spirit works in our hearts. 

 

So does the idea that the bible is sufficient lead to the idea that there is no need for the spirit? Not by any logical standards I'm aware of, because the Bible itself talks about the need for the Spirit in our lives. 

 

 

 

Here is one reference I was thinking of.

 

2 Peter 1:³ His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

Peter said that all we need is "His Devine power", not that we only need one version of His word. That verse goes on to say that we need "knowledge of Him", which tells me that anything that teaches us of His Devine power is good.

The history of the Old World during the dark ages tells us how the church set about to pick and choose which of the thousands of witting of the apocryphal writings would be canonized and which wouldn't. One only has to study European history from 300 AD to the 1600's to see how corrupt and politicized the leadership of the church had become and how that corruption played a part in how The Bible was translated. Just as God doesn't interfere with mans agency in committing atrocities, He too allowed the corruption to taint His word. He also made provisions to assure His truths, in complete context, would be available to His children.

Question...if God felt it necessary to provide His children with prophets and ongoing leadership and revelation before Christ came (with the provision that all prophets teach of Christ's coming and repentance), why would he not provide that same leadership and ongoing wisdom today? We are awaiting Christ's second coming and need Heavenly wisdom today just as did they of old.

[Rob Osborn]

I am trying to be a Christian in God's eyes, but I would like to know what it would take for many of my evangelical friends to consider me so. In fact, to be completely honest, I am trying to understand on what consistent principles my exclusion is based.

A basic misunderstanding of Christianity is held by many. Many think that Christianity includes basic beliefs on the substance and material that the Godhead is composed of (are they spirit, one body, several bodies? etc.). Christianity though is entirely based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ and does not deal with these matters. For one to be Christian they must basically do two things- Believe in Jesus Christ, and- Follow what he has commanded them to do. Because LDS believe the same bible as other Christians then the real test comes down to if we as LDS follow after Christ from the NT or not. The question to be asked then is what part of Christs teachings from the NT do we not believe in or follow? I cant name one!

[JLHPROF]

A basic misunderstanding of Christianity is held by many. Many think that Christianity includes basic beliefs on the substance and material that the Godhead is composed of (are they spirit, one body, several bodies? etc.). Christianity though is entirely based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ and does not deal with these matters. For one to be Christian they must basically do two things- Believe in Jesus Christ, and- Follow what he has commanded them to do. Because LDS believe the same bible as other Christians then the real test comes down to if we as LDS follow after Christ from the NT or not. The question to be asked then is what part of Christs teachings from the NT do we not believe in or follow? I cant name one!

 

Ironically the same standard is not applied to Mormonism.  In order to be a Mormon you need to accept the Book of Mormon as scripture and follow the prophet of the restoration/Mormonism (Joseph Smith).

 

But if someone is not a member of the COJCOLDS there is instant disapproval of their using the term Mormon in case some non-member might claim to be Mormon but not support the Church.

This is why I always say that all who believe in and follow Christ are Christian and all who believe in the BOM and Joseph Smith are Mormon, and that Mormonism is now a religious grouping instead of a single church.

[danielwoods]

Ok, so now you have moved the goal posts. So now it is "no other books or writings", which is interesting because it takes other books and writings to explain YOUR interpretation.

Ok, so now it is the Spirit that brings us to God (and not the Bible), at least we can agree on that. 

 

Yes, as I have demonstrated before.

Your lack of awareness of logical standards seems to be the real problem here.

Which is totally counter to the concept of Bible sufficiency.

 

And that verse could not possible be referring to the Bible because the Bible did not exist at the time of this writing.

 

I really don't find much here to respond to. You seem to define things such as bible sufficiency in such a way as to accuse me of moving goal posts.

 

I'm not worried that you don't think that verse applies to the Bible, as I said, it depends on who you trust, and to me, "all things" means "all things" which includes the bible. 

[danielwoods]

Peter said that all we need is "His Devine power", not that we only need one version of His word. That verse goes on to say that we need "knowledge of Him", which tells me that anything that teaches us of His Devine power is good.

The history of the Old World during the dark ages tells us how the church set about to pick and choose which of the thousands of witting of the apocryphal writings would be canonized and which wouldn't. One only has to study European history from 300 AD to the 1600's to see how corrupt and politicized the leadership of the church had become and how that corruption played a part in how The Bible was translated. Just as God doesn't interfere with mans agency in committing atrocities, He too allowed the corruption to taint His word. He also made provisions to assure His truths, in complete context, would be available to His children.

Question...if God felt it necessary to provide His children with prophets and ongoing leadership and revelation before Christ came (with the provision that all prophets teach of Christ's coming and repentance), why would he not provide that same leadership and ongoing wisdom today? We are awaiting Christ's second coming and need Heavenly wisdom today just as did they of old.

 

I don't disagree, that anything that teaches us about him or helps us become connected to his divine power is good. 

 

Given that we have the original languages that the biblical text was written in, we aren't reliant on corrupt leaders from the dark ages. Too bad we can't say the same for the BoM. 

 

Your question about prophets. The net result of Christ's work on the cross was to reconnect us with God, directly. Now we all have the same access that anyone else does. From prophets to priests to anyone. All, who are believers, are the same, in Christ. Need heavenly wisdom, you have it. Now. It's available for anyone willing to get close to God. No need to go to a priest or prophet or church or Pope or anyone else. Christ has done all the work to reconnect us to God. 

 

Now because someone will likely say that we are still on Earth and still surrounded by our unresurrected bodies so all things have yet to be finished, which is true. And the church contains different people with different gifts to edify others. But no one, anywhere limits our access to God, because Christ has finished that work. 

[Vance]

I really don't find much here to respond to. You seem to define things such as bible sufficiency in such a way as to accuse me of moving goal posts.

Perhaps the meaning of the word "sufficient" is the problem here.

Sufficient

1 a : enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end <sufficient provisions for a month>

or

adjective

1. adequate for the purpose; enough: sufficient proof; sufficient protection.

2. Logic. (of a condition) such that its existence leads to the occurrence of a given event or the existence of a given thing. Compare necessary ( def 4c ) .

 

I'm not worried that you don't think that verse applies to the Bible, as I said, it depends on who you trust, and to me, "all things" means "all things" which includes the bible.

Wow!

So, if I give you "all things" that pertain to getting a college degree, that must include a book that isn't all written yet and won't be assembled for three hundred years??????

AND,

Sorry, BUT "including" the Bible is not the same saying the Bible is "sufficient" or even "necessary".

I can't even take you serious any more.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Your logic is interesting in that it seems to ignore context. 

 

The bible is sufficient, no other books or writings are needed to lead us to God. B

I disagree. There is absolutely nothing in the bible, ironically enough, that tells us this.

[danielwoods]

I disagree. There is absolutely nothing in the bible, ironically enough, that tells us this.

 

There is also nothing in there that states the opposite, that we should look for more books and writings, because it's insufficient in and of itself. 

[Flyonthewall]

There is also nothing in there that states the opposite, that we should look for more books and writings, because it's insufficient in and of itself.

The Bible does reference other books which are not included in the Bible. This indicates that there are other books that contain words of the Lord that are not in the Bible.

There are books authored by prophets that are not even identified in the Bible except for the reference to their book.

Jesus said it best that Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

And if we do not have EVERY word of God, then we should indeed seek them all.

Wouldn't you agree that the more words of God we have, the better?

[danielwoods]

The Bible does reference other books which are not included in the Bible. This indicates that there are other books that contain words of the Lord that are not in the Bible.

There are books authored by prophets that are not even identified in the Bible except for the reference to their book.

Jesus said it best that Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

And if we do not have EVERY word of God, then we should indeed seek them all.

Wouldn't you agree that the more words of God we have, the better?

 

Sure, if they are truly the word of God. 

 

Referencing other letters doesn't indicate we are missing important doctrines or words. For example, the whole new testament could be reconstructed using the letters that the early church leaders wrote. The concepts and teachings are repeated in those letters. 

[Flyonthewall]

Sure, if they are truly the word of God. 

 

Referencing other letters doesn't indicate we are missing important doctrines or words. For example, the whole new testament could be reconstructed using the letters that the early church leaders wrote. The concepts and teachings are repeated in those letters.

That is easy to say... but difficult to believe.

Do we have the prophecy referenced in Matthew that the Messiah would be a Nazarene? If not, what else are we missing.

A reference back to something that is missing does not indicate that we have what is missing, rather it would be just the opposite... but alas, without the actual missing writings, be they letters or books, we don't know what we are missing.

Of course one can argue that if all we had was "Love one another", that is the all the doctrines and teachings we need, but seems rather lacking.

[danielwoods]

That is easy to say... but difficult to believe.

Do we have the prophecy referenced in Matthew that the Messiah would be a Nazarene? If not, what else are we missing.

A reference back to something that is missing does not indicate that we have what is missing, rather it would be just the opposite... but alas, without the actual missing writings, be they letters or books, we don't know what we are missing.

Of course one can argue that if all we had was "Love one another", that is the all the doctrines and teachings we need, but seems rather lacking.

 

It's also easy to say or claim that things are missing, and difficult to prove or demonstrate exactly what is missing. 

 

That's why I focus on the fruits of the spirit. 

[Flyonthewall]

It's also easy to say or claim that things are missing, and difficult to prove or demonstrate exactly what is missing. 

 

That's why I focus on the fruits of the spirit.

You know I'm going to bring up that it is exactly the fruits of the Spirit that brought about the LDS church.

It was a pouring out of God's spirit to Joseph Smith that revealed some of the missing doctrines.(Yes, we believe there is still more to be revealed)

Those that followed Joseph did so not because it was a popular movement, but rather they too felt the fruits of the Spirit.

You have been saying that it is who you trust...and I agree. It is who you trust.

I will not say that you do not trust in God, because I believe you do.

You have said that we all have the same access to Christ, and I agree with that too, to an extent.

1 Corinthians 12 states that the body of Christ is made up of different parts... each part has its own role to fulfill - prophets, apostles, teachers, etc...

Ephesians 4 states that there are different roles within the church of Christ that fit together to make the body whole.

There are many Christians today that state we no longer need all parts of the body, or even a body at all, because all we need is Jesus.

If Jesus is all we need, where is His body as outlined in the Bible? Is there anything missing?

Who's interpretation of the scriptures do you trust?

[danielwoods]

You know I'm going to bring up that it is exactly the fruits of the Spirit that brought about the LDS church.

It was a pouring out of God's spirit to Joseph Smith that revealed some of the missing doctrines.(Yes, we believe there is still more to be revealed)

Those that followed Joseph did so not because it was a popular movement, but rather they too felt the fruits of the Spirit.

You have been saying that it is who you trust...and I agree. It is who you trust.

I will not say that you do not trust in God, because I believe you do.

You have said that we all have the same access to Christ, and I agree with that too, to an extent.

1 Corinthians 12 states that the body of Christ is made up of different parts... each part has its own role to fulfill - prophets, apostles, teachers, etc...

Ephesians 4 states that there are different roles within the church of Christ that fit together to make the body whole.

There are many Christians today that state we no longer need all parts of the body, or even a body at all, because all we need is Jesus.

If Jesus is all we need, where is His body as outlined in the Bible? Is there anything missing?

Who's interpretation of the scriptures do you trust?

 

As to the fruits of the Spirit and Joseph Smith. It is precisely that he displayed the exact opposite of the fruits of the spirit that I don't trust his interpretation or teachings. 

 

As to the different roles of people in the church. I agree with you that Christ's church is made up of different and diverse gifts, where I disagree is thinking that it is controlled by an organization on the earth. I'll give you one example. Both the catholic church and the LDS church believe that they can excommunicate members, which is somehow supposed to mean that they are no longer apart of the body of Christ. This is patently false, in my opinion. It's akin to telling people they aren't christian. No where did Christ give us that authority. Further seeking such authority is the opposite of the fruits of the Spirit. 

[Flyonthewall]

As to the fruits of the Spirit and Joseph Smith. It is precisely that he displayed the exact opposite of the fruits of the spirit that I don't trust his interpretation or teachings. 

 

As to the different roles of people in the church. I agree with you that Christ's church is made up of different and diverse gifts, where I disagree is thinking that it is controlled by an organization on the earth. I'll give you one example. Both the catholic church and the LDS church believe that they can excommunicate members, which is somehow supposed to mean that they are no longer apart of the body of Christ. This is patently false, in my opinion. It's akin to telling people they aren't christian. No where did Christ give us that authority. Further seeking such authority is the opposite of the fruits of the Spirit.

As to the fruits of the Spirit and Joseph Smith. It is precisely that he displayed the exact opposite of the fruits of the spirit that I don't trust his interpretation or teachings. 

 

As to the different roles of people in the church. I agree with you that Christ's church is made up of different and diverse gifts, where I disagree is thinking that it is controlled by an organization on the earth. I'll give you one example. Both the catholic church and the LDS church believe that they can excommunicate members, which is somehow supposed to mean that they are no longer apart of the body of Christ. This is patently false, in my opinion. It's akin to telling people they aren't christian. No where did Christ give us that authority. Further seeking such authority is the opposite of the fruits of the Spirit.

That is odd since Christ set up that organization on the earth... and He did give that authority to the Apostles.

But of course it is a matter of believing someone's interpretation.

[danielwoods]

That is odd since Christ set up that organization on the earth... and He did give that authority to the Apostles.

But of course it is a matter of believing someone's interpretation.

 

Exactly what was set up is what the early church was.

[Flyonthewall]

Exactly what was set up is what the early church was.

Could you expand upon this? I am not sure of the point you are making?