Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[JLHPROF]

The question is what does the NT teach?

It never teaches that there are different levels of heaven (where some are restricted by their location).

It never teaches that after this life, we have a chance to repent.

It never teaches that those in torment (Hell) will ever be relieved of their torment.

I'm not really interested in what's better to look at, rather what is the truth, and near as I can tell, the LDS teach things that are contradictory to what the NT teaches.

 

 

What does the NT Teach?  I'll list it again:

"Paul said he knew a man caught up to the third heaven.  He said that there would be bodies resurrected to various levels of glory - some terrestrially and some celestially.  Peter said that Christ ministered to those souls from the time of Noah who died without knowledge of him and couldn't move forward (prison symbol).  Peter taught that those in hell now would have judgement in the future.  Christ says that his fathers house consists of many mansions - I don't think this refers to houses."

 

The NT teaches all of the above which quite right refer to multiple levels of the afterlife and a judgement that occurs long after death.

If you were truly interested in the truth you would be able to see that the LDS beliefs and the NT are exactly the same.  It is only the false interpretation of the NT by many evangelicals that the LDS disagree with.  If you actually understood the NT that you claim to believe correctly you would be unable to disagree with Mormonism.

Edited October 1, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Eternal security....

 

This is a false doctrine.

[Anakin7]

       Danger Will Robinson, Danger !

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[Anakin7]

       If one does not depart from The Faith then they are Doing Something to Maintain there Salvation in Jesus Christs Atoning Blood Sacrifice on there behalf, unless you are predestined to do so or not.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited October 1, 2014 by Anakin7

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

       Danger Will Robinson, Danger !

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Yeah I know, it is one doctrine that I have little patience. I ran into it a lot in Virginia. Recite a few words in a prayer and your were eternally secure. Easy Believism.

[coolrok7]

Anakin7, see Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1:5. What do you think it means?

[coolrok7]

Look up a Don Matzat and his article on Martin Luther and the doctrine of predestination.

[danielwoods]

What does the NT Teach?  I'll list it again:

"Paul said he knew a man caught up to the third heaven. He said that there would be bodies resurrected to various levels of glory - some terrestrially and some celestially. Peter said that Christ ministered to those souls from the time of Noah who died without knowledge of him and couldn't move forward (prison symbol). Peter taught that those in hell now would have judgement in the future. Christ says that his fathers house consists of many mansions - I don't think this refers to houses."

 

The NT teaches all of the above which quite right refer to multiple levels of the afterlife and a judgement that occurs long after death.

If you were truly interested in the truth you would be able to see that the LDS beliefs and the NT are exactly the same.  It is only the false interpretation of the NT by many evangelicals that the LDS disagree with.  If you actually understood the NT that you claim to believe correctly you would be unable to disagree with Mormonism.

1) Third Heaven. What exactly did Paul mean by this statement? Did he explain it to be multiple levels in Heaven itself? Or was it a reference to a higher level of existence above the stars (the heavens)?

The LDS position is contradicted by Jesus' direct references to us (all believers) being one with the Father in Heaven (no matter what glory one has).

2) The concept that Judgement occurs long after death is contradicted by more than one passage, indicating that judgement occurs right after death, but may not be the final sentencing. The 1 Peter passage doesn't say these folks didn't have knowledge of Jesus, rather that they were in a place after death, but a good place, most likely paradise, as Jesus stated he was going there after death.

There is not even one passage in the NT that supports the LDS idea that we have a chance to repent after we die.

 

[Anakin7]

    Will look those up when time allows, thanks coolrok. I will also read what LDS Professor/ Scholar Richard LLoyd Anderson has to say in his awesome book on The Apostle Paul entitled : " Understanding Paul" Revised Edition 2007 pages 186-187, 257-261 ,257, 300. Any other observers are welcomed to comment/post there thoughts.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited October 1, 2014 by Anakin7

[JLHPROF]

There is not even one passage in the NT that supports the LDS idea that we have a chance to repent after we die.

 

 

 

That is not a Mormon teaching either.

The teaching is that those who don't have the opportunity to accept Christ as Savior (and the gospel ordinances that go with that) will have the opportunity in the next life.

 

There are those among the Church who have taken this too far - who believe that those who knew better and committed grievous sin anyway can be magically saved by work for the dead.  Work for the dead is for the righteous who missed the opportunity to "fulfill all righteousness" as Christ put it.  It is the antithesis of the classic "unbaptized babies going to hell" nonsense.

 

Joseph Smith taught that ALL must be judged on the same principles.  It is an unfair God that condemns someone to hell for not accepting a Christ he never heard about.

But knowing of Christ, and rejecting him completely while sinning your whole life?  Who said they get a get out of jail free card?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

2) The concept that Judgement occurs long after death is contradicted by more than one passage, indicating that judgement occurs right after death, but may not be the final sentencing. The 1 Peter passage doesn't say these folks didn't have knowledge of Jesus, rather that they were in a place after death, but a good place, most likely paradise, as Jesus stated he was going there after death.

There is not even one passage in the NT that supports the LDS idea that we have a chance to repent after we die.

 

What is the point of Jesus going to preach to the spirits in prison if they were already judged? To tell them they were going to a place that they already were? And you cannot say that prison is paradise. Prison is a "good" place to you?

 

And your last sentence is a straw man.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[EllenMaksoud]

I am not asking if Mormons are Christians.  I know that's  been debated ad nauseam.  I am asking if it is possible for ANY mormon to be a Christian.

 

If I accept Christ as my savior, can I be a Christian?  If I accept the Christ of the Bible as my Savior.  If I have a personal relationship with him, know that I am a sinner, and know that it is by his grace that I am saved.

 

I am very familiar with the standard arguments against this concept.  That I worship a different Jesus.  That to be Mormon I must believe in being saved by works and therefore can't receive God's grace.  What I am getting at is, is it possible for any one Mormon to be a Christian in your eyes (and presumably in the eyes of God) while still remaining a Mormon.  What would have to happen in order for this to be the case?

 

(btw - I am not baiting anyone here.  I am attending a Christian university and have been absolutely blown away by how well my Christian friends treat their Mormon classmates.  This really got me thinking about this.)

I was an Evangelical for 32 years and years later as I learn about scripture, there are some bizarre doctrines in "Christianity" that need to be corrected. Maybe we should ask, "Are Christians, Christian"?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Maybe we should ask, "Are Christians, Christian"?

Not a bad idea.

[coolrok7]

Would anyone care to comment on what Paul's argument is that he's making in 1 Corinthians 15? If one looks carefully at what is being argued, I think it could clear up a lot of the disputes Mormons have with those not Mormon in my perspective.

[danielwoods]

That is not a Mormon teaching either.

The teaching is that those who don't have the opportunity to accept Christ as Savior (and the gospel ordinances that go with that) will have the opportunity in the next life.

There are those among the Church who have taken this too far - who believe that those who knew better and committed grievous sin anyway can be magically saved by work for the dead. Work for the dead is for the righteous who missed the opportunity to "fulfill all righteousness" as Christ put it. It is the antithesis of the classic "unbaptized babies going to hell" nonsense.

Joseph Smith taught that ALL must be judged on the same principles. It is an unfair God that condemns someone to hell for not accepting a Christ he never heard about.

But knowing of Christ, and rejecting him completely while sinning your whole life? Who said they get a get out of jail free card?

The idea that one will have a chance to repent after death isn't apart of LDS doctrine? Who knew?

The concept of having the opportunity to know Christ after death is similar to what I believe. In that I believe people are judged based on the knowledge they have, God knows their heart. Even believers believe in their own "concept" of God, whether completely accurate or not is not known. It is a heart who cries out to God that he hears.

[JLHPROF]

The idea that one will have a chance to repent after death isn't apart of LDS doctrine? Who knew?

The concept of having the opportunity to know Christ after death is similar to what I believe. In that I believe people are judged based on the knowledge they have, God knows their heart. Even believers believe in their own "concept" of God, whether completely accurate or not is not known. It is a heart who cries out to God that he hears.

 

Well, if you believe people are judged on the knowledge they have, would it be heaven or hell at the moment of death for those who never were given an opportunity to hear the good news of Christ and accept him as Savior?  Those are the only two options immediately upon death?  Isn't that what you've been arguing?

 

I don't think God is that cruel.  If a person dies without the knowledge of Christ they will be taught the gospel in the hereafter and have that opportunity to accept or reject his atonement.  That is why Christ visited the spirits in prison.  That is why since we believe Baptism mandatory to salvation we perform baptisms for the dead.

 

We can't have all those poor people who never heard the name of Jesus Christ in this life, or had the opportunity to repent of their sins and accept him as Savior being sent to hell because they were never baptized in his name.

 

Take away this option, go with the heaven and hell at the moment of death option and God becomes an unreasonable tyrant with no mercy on those he withheld his gospel from.

[Flyonthewall]

Thank you.

 

Sure, I guess if you ignore the separation in Heaven.

 

God is the one who says all are without excuse. Since he is judge, he works it out. I can speculate that God Judges the heart, based on the amount of light or knowledge they have. He makes a righteous judgement, this I know.

 

If there were other NT scriptures to back up the LDS position I'm sure they'd be referenced, given that they are not, then it's safe to conclude that Peter wasn't stating a new doctrine. As Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." Jesus never went to the bad part of hades/hell, only the place described as Paradise. Proclaiming the good news. As you said above, just at death there is an initial judgement, where people go where they belong. It isn't supported by any NT teaching that once people are there, they somehow are able to get out. Even the Rich man begged to have Lazarus sent back to his brothers. The rich man didn't expect he would get out.

I have given you another scripture but you have either ignored it or dismissed it.

Acts 2:27 & 31.

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Point blank. Simple. Straight forward. David's soul is not left in hell. It was known in the OT by David, and was referenced by the Apostles in the NT. It was not new doctrine, it was know from centuries past.

 

 

Right. The argument from silence. Since it's not there, it must have been there in some form or another… Sorry, that might work if the LDS concepts weren't contradicting the NT teaching we already know.

See above.

You have been arguing from silence in that - if it is not in the Bible then it must not be true. I have shown you (again) that it is in the Bible. Now you have a choice to make - accept it, or deny it.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Flyonthewall

[coolrok7]

Flyonthewall, Romans 1&2 explains that they are without excuse as that which is known about God from general revelation and is rejected (Romans 1) is further explained in Romans 2. People are judged on what they know and how they responded to it, both Jews and Gentiles.

 

There are people who hear about Jesus but still reject the message. The same end result (eternal punishment) for all who reject general revelation which is nature, part of the world around them/specific revelation- which is Scripture there also if exposed to it in their lifetime. But eternal life for those who accept General/specific revelation meted out by a Just Judge, Jesus.

 

Not all "Scripture" is from God in which there is given warning about the coming of false prophets who come in God's name.

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall, Romans 1&2 explains that they are without excuse as that which is known about God from general revelation and is rejected (Romans 1) is further explained in Romans 2. People are judged on what they know and how they responded to it, both Jews and Gentiles.

 

There are people who hear about Jesus but still reject the message. The same end result (eternal punishment) for all who reject general revelation which is nature, part of the world around them/specific revelation- which is Scripture there also if exposed to it in their lifetime. But eternal life for those who accept General/specific revelation meted out by a Just Judge, Jesus.

 

Not all "Scripture" is from God in which there is given warning about the coming of false prophets who come in God's name.

I can agree with "People are judged on what they know and how they responded to it, both Jews and Gentiles." - that is what LDS believe.

What gets in the way is when the requirement for "salvation" is to be a "believer", and judgment occurring right at death to determine the eternal punishment or reward, without ever having the opportunity to believe.

[EllenMaksoud]

Would anyone care to comment on what Paul's argument is that he's making in 1 Corinthians 15? If one looks carefully at what is being argued, I think it could clear up a lot of the disputes Mormons have with those not Mormon in my perspective.

So, what is your opinion of the differences?

[danielwoods]

Well, if you believe people are judged on the knowledge they have, would it be heaven or hell at the moment of death for those who never were given an opportunity to hear the good news of Christ and accept him as Savior?  Those are the only two options immediately upon death?  Isn't that what you've been arguing?

 

I don't think God is that cruel.  If a person dies without the knowledge of Christ they will be taught the gospel in the hereafter and have that opportunity to accept or reject his atonement.  That is why Christ visited the spirits in prison.  That is why since we believe Baptism mandatory to salvation we perform baptisms for the dead.

 

We can't have all those poor people who never heard the name of Jesus Christ in this life, or had the opportunity to repent of their sins and accept him as Savior being sent to hell because they were never baptized in his name.

 

Take away this option, go with the heaven and hell at the moment of death option and God becomes an unreasonable tyrant with no mercy on those he withheld his gospel from.

Maybe you've been through an experience where you "see your life flash before your eyes"? I have. It's quite an experience. It's my belief, that such an experience is similar to what happens when we die. So, while it appears that you are arguing that it's unreasonable for God to seemingly make a heaven or hell decision in such a short time. Your assumptions about time and limitations of understanding are based on human constraints that we experience now. I don't think such restraints exist in that realm. 

 

Romans 1:19 "...since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

 

As it states here, people are without excuse. Plain and simple. No baptism for the dead are required. No where in the NT is it commanded, or even stated that it's needed. In fact, quite the opposite. God has it all under control. 

[coolrok7]

Differences that are between us has to do with what Joseph taught based on how his interpretations have affected the doctrinal disputes we have. The point of why I asked the question in my post #1089

Edited October 2, 2014 by coolrok7

[danielwoods]

I have given you another scripture but you have either ignored it or dismissed it.

Acts 2:27 & 31.

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Point blank. Simple. Straight forward. David's soul is not left in hell. It was known in the OT by David, and was referenced by the Apostles in the NT. It was not new doctrine, it was know from centuries past.

 

 

See above.

You have been arguing from silence in that - if it is not in the Bible then it must not be true. I have shown you (again) that it is in the Bible. Now you have a choice to make - accept it, or deny it.

 

Are you arguing that David's soul and Christ was in Gehenna? (The bad side of Hell.)

 

Because, Jesus stated to the thief, "Today you will be with me in Paradise."

[danielwoods]

What is the point of Jesus going to preach to the spirits in prison if they were already judged? To tell them they were going to a place that they already were? And you cannot say that prison is paradise. Prison is a "good" place to you?

 

And your last sentence is a straw man.

 

All I can say is that Peter wasn't being very clear. I gave the 3 main interpretations of that verse.

 

 So, I don't know why Peter would refer to Paradise as spirits in prison, but it appears that he did. As you said, why would he go to the bad side or "hell" and preach? Understanding that the word preach also means to proclaim good news. 

[Flyonthewall]

Are you arguing that David's soul and Christ was in Gehenna? (The bad side of Hell.)

 

Because, Jesus stated to the thief, "Today you will be with me in Paradise."

I am not arguing anything. I am pointing out in the scriptures where David states that his soul will not be left in hell. Logic dictates that for it not be left there, it has to go there first.

Here is an example of someone's soul going to hell and being released or let out. You stated if that were so, there would be other places in scripture that point that out. Here it is.

Peter stated that Jesus went to Spirit Prison and preached the Gospel.

Spirit Prison is part of hades/hell - the abode of the dead. Paradise is too. It is a temporary place until judgment.

Outer Darkness is a permanent place