Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[danielwoods]

Yeah, it doesn't fit.

 

You know I have said this a few time, I just don't know why Daniel has an issue with this. It's not like he has to give up anything in his current faith to accept it.

 

As I have said before. I have no fear. My interest is truth. 

[cdowis]

Peter's point was that David was speaking about Jesus, as a prophet often does, and not himself. The passage doesn't say what is claimed above. 

 

Many prophecies have double meanings/fulfillment, especially those regarding the Messiah.  That is the case here.

[teddyaware]

Many prophecies have double meanings/fulfillment, especially those regarding the Messiah.  That is the case here.

Correct. The Hebraic literary practice of pronouncing prophecies that have more than one fulfillment is called 'prophetic dualism.' The New Testament is filled with Old Testament prophecies with dual fulfillments. For instance, St. Matthew quotes Isaiah 7 to show Christ would be born of a virgin. Yet, when one reads Isaiah's prophecy in context, it's clear the prophecy would also be fulfilled during the time of Isaiah.

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you (wicked king Ahaz) a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

17 ¶The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. (Isaiah 7)

It's understood that before the child mentioned in the prophecy is old enough to know good and evil, the Assyrians will have conquered and destroyed the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

As one reads the rest of Isaiah 7 and the first part of chapter 8, it's obvious this prophecy had a fulfillment in a much earlier day than the time of Christ's earthly ministry. So why does Matthew also indicate Isaiah's prophecy has a fulfillment in the virgin birth of Christ? It's because of the Hebrew literary device known as prophetic dualism. And so it also is with David's famous psalm and the promise that his (David's) soul would not be left in hell.

 

Edited October 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[Anakin7]

 Could this apply to Ezekial 37 as well in regard to the Bof M ?.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[teddyaware]

Could this apply to Ezekial 37 as well in regard to the Bof M ?.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Yes.

[danielwoods]

After the resurrection of Christ, many of the righteous were also resurrected.  Peter made a point that David was still in the grave.  You can draw your own conclusion, but it is clear to me that David was still paying the penalty of deliberate murder.

Your claim above. David was still in the grave. David was still paying the penalty of murder.

 

CFR. Where does it state that many righteous were also resurrected, but David wasn't?

 

 

Many prophecies have double meanings/fulfillment, especially those regarding the Messiah.  That is the case here.

 

OK, here's the prophecy. ""For You will not abandon me to Sheol; You will not allow Your Faithful One to see decay." Ps. 16:10

 

First, if it's a double meaning, then David and Jesus went to Sheol, and God didn't abandon either of them. So, just as Jesus said, "it is finished" and was in the Fathers hands after that, so also was Davids spirit. That is if you are correct, that the prophecy above carries a double meaning. Neither continue to pay any penalty, according to this passage, after death, hence the words, "it is finished" just before Jesus died. 

 

Second, Peter's point was that, David's tomb was still there, and his body was still there, therefore, David actually wasn't talking about himself at all. Sorry, Peter states that there is no double meaning here. 

 

As Peter states, "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

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.

³² This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. (Acts 2).

 

So, either you have a double meaning, and your original claim is unsupported, or we take Peter's interpretation, and it's not a double meaning, and your claim is still unsupported. 

[teddyaware]

Your claim above. David was still in the grave. David was still paying the penalty of murder.

 

 

 

 

OK, here's the prophecy. ""For You will not abandon me to Sheol; You will not allow Your Faithful One to see decay." Ps. 16:10

 

First, if it's a double meaning, then David and Jesus went to Sheol, and God didn't abandon either of them. So, just as Jesus said, "it is finished" and was in the Fathers hands after that, so also was Davids spirit. That is if you are correct, that the prophecy above carries a double meaning. Neither continue to pay any penalty, according to this passage, after death, hence the words, "it is finished" just before Jesus died. 

 

Second, Peter's point was that, David's tomb was still there, and his body was still there, therefore, David actually wasn't talking about himself at all. Sorry, Peter states that there is no double meaning here. 

 

As Peter states, "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

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.

³² This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. (Acts 2).

 

So, either you have a double meaning, and your original claim is unsupported, or we take Peter's interpretation, and it's not a double meaning, and your claim is still unsupported.

The problem is, Daniel, that many Evangelicals, like you,  are willing to cut king David some slack, claiming God's mercy for him in spite of the great magnitude of his sins; while in the meantime many Evangelicals simultaneously believe millions upon millions of human beings, who have not sinned so grossly, will be consigned to an endless hell of unspeakable misery and pain, and this because God -- for some mysterious and illogical reason -- will not allow the unconverted dead in the spirit world to hear and accept the Gospel of Christ's infinite and eternal mercy prior to the final judgment.

 

I'll say it again: You're going to have a very difficult time convincing Latter-day Saints to come over to the side of a God who is far less merciful than the their LDS God. Who would want to leave a Church that teaches its members God doesn't ever give up on His children unless they become so hardened that they eternally give up on Him, and for that reason remain "filthy still?" Why would any Latter-day Saint want to abandon a truly loving and merciful God in favor of one who sends countless millions to an endless state of incomprehensible  sorrow and excruciating suffering, all because he's so unchallengably powerful that he doesn't think he has to be fair? Unless you want to take the chance of eventually ending up being converted to the LDS Church, you're genuinely wasting your time trying to get the Latter-day Saints to abandon their God of perfect love, justice and mercy.

Behold the God of perfect love, justice and mercy:

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. (D&C 138)

Edited October 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

The problem is, Daniel, that many Evangelicals, like you,  are willing to cut king David some slack, claiming God's mercy for him in spite of the great magnitude of his sins; while in the meantime many Evangelicals simultaneously believe millions upon millions of human beings, who have not sinned so grossly, will be consigned to an endless hell of unspeakable misery and pain, and this because God -- for some mysterious and illogical reason -- will not allow the unconverted dead in the spirit world to hear and accept the Gospel of Christ's infinite and eternal mercy prior to the final judgment.

 

I'll say it again: You're going to have a very difficult time convincing Latter-day Saints to come over to the side of a God who is far less merciful than the their LDS God. Who would want to leave a Church that teaches its members God doesn't ever give up on His children unless they become so hardened that they eternally give up on Him, and for that reason remain "filthy still?" Why would any Latter-day Saint want to abandon a truly loving and merciful God in favor of one who sends countless millions to an endless state of incomprehensible  sorrow and excruciating suffering, all because he's so unchallengably powerful that he doesn't think he has to be fair? Unless you want to take the chance of eventually ending up being converted to the LDS Church, you're genuinely wasting your time trying to get the Latter-day Saints to abandon their God of perfect love, justice and mercy.

Behold the God of perfect love, justice and mercy:

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. (D&C 138)

 

On topic number one. My analysis of the scriptures indicates that the LDS don't derive their doctrine from the biblical text. Hence, David's prophecy is simply another example. The LDS claim that their doctrine is not contradictory to the biblical text. This claim is false as this thread continues to demonstrate. 

 

On topic number two. Anyone can believe what they want. I certainly don't claim to have the power to persuade or change anyone's mind here. I am simply here as a lover of the truth. If that isn't what people are interested in there are many different prophets and writers of scripture that will say what ever people want to hear. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As I have said before. I have no fear. My interest is truth. 

But it isn't. You simply reject things that are right there in scripture. Oh well.

[coolrok7]

Mormonism/Mormons simply have a distorted view of the Biblical God, redfined by Joseph Smith and those who have succeeded him.

[coolrok7]

The point of the prophecy in Peter's quoting is applied to Jesus being in the grave but for a short time and then raised from the dead in His glorified form!

We'll, that is all believers, will have a glorified form as well as the sheep of Matthew 25. The rest as goats will be resurrected to eternal punishment not eternal life.

[Vance]

Vance, I'm not intentionally trying to be disagreeable but do to your often, at least to me, misunderstanding of the perspective I have, it seems that you have this wall built up that I can't get through in trying to help you understand the points I'm trying to make.

I understand the opinion you have. I just disagree with it.

If you think that if I will just see your point of view that I will suddenly "convert" to your way of thinking, you can stop. I understand your point of view, and I find that it often contradicts what I believe the Bible teaches.

I don't hate Mormons or the others that I have a strong disagreement with on the essentials.

The fact that you continue to misrepresent what we believe and what our leaders have taught does call this statement into question.

I had in mind vs 15 of 1 John 3 that I was contrasting with King David and his having one of his soldiers killed in battle while he stayed back in the city. There to me seems to be a different context for David's repentence in light of it saying hating someone makes them a murderer in that context, I think is different Than David'sin against Uriah.

David intentionally and with malice aforethought had Uriah murdered, thus making David a murderer.

[Vance]

Peter's point was that David was speaking about Jesus, as a prophet often does, and not himself. The passage doesn't say what is claimed above.

And the fact that David was still in hell helps make your point.

[Vance]

Where David is, like anyone else that is forgiven,

There is not scriptural basis for this assertion.

There are scriptures that indicate otherwise. These have been presented.

[Anakin7]

     coolrok7  Mormons do not have a "distorted view" of the Biblical God and Joseph Smith and his successors have not changed or redefined it,

 

In His Debt/Grace

    Anakin7

Edited October 8, 2014 by Anakin7

[Vance]

On topic number one. My analysis of the scriptures indicates that the LDS don't derive their doctrine from the biblical text.

Neither did Paul.

BTW, we get our doctrine from the same source that Paul had.

Hence, David's prophecy is simply another example. The LDS claim that their doctrine is not contradictory to the biblical text.

You have not and can not show this to be true. You can not show that David has been forgiven. You can't show that David has been resurrected. You can NOT show that David is not in hell.

What ever happened to your "sola scriptura"?

On topic number two. Anyone can believe what they want. I certainly don't claim to have the power to persuade or change anyone's mind here. I am simply here as a lover of the truth. If that isn't what people are interested in there are many different prophets and writers of scripture that will say what ever people want to hear.

I am very interested in truth. I have studied and do study the Bible. I don't find your theology in it, but rather I find it permeated with Mormon theology and doctrine.

[Vance]

Mormonism/Mormons simply have a distorted view of the Biblical God, redfined by Joseph Smith and those who have succeeded him.

Trinitianism/trinitarians simply have a distorted view of the Biblical God, redefined by Hellenized philosophers and those who have succeeded them.

[Vance]

The point of the prophecy in Peter's quoting is applied to Jesus being in the grave but for a short time and then raised from the dead in His glorified form!

Agreed.

We'll, that is all believers, will have a glorified form as well as the sheep of Matthew 25. The rest as goats will be resurrected to eternal punishment not eternal life.

Technically it is "damnation" not "eternal punishment".

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Was it evil for David to commit murder and adultery, and to covet?

[Rock_N_Roll]

 You're going to have a very difficult time convincing Latter-day Saints to come over to the side of a God who is far less merciful than the their LDS God. Who would want to leave a Church that teaches its members God doesn't ever give up on His children unless they become so hardened that they eternally give up on Him, and for that reason remain "filthy still?" Why would any Latter-day Saint want to abandon a truly loving and merciful God in favor of one who sends countless millions to an endless state of incomprehensible  sorrow and excruciating suffering, all because he's so unchallengably powerful that he doesn't think he has to be fair? 

 

And this is one of the main reasons I happily remain LDS. 

[coolrok7]

Was Paul an hellenist?

[Vance]

Was Paul an hellenist?

Was Paul a trinatarian?

Answer to both questions is NO!

[coolrok7]

Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a monotheist- one God not a plurality of gods as in Mormonism (polytheism).

[Anakin7]

      Mormonism is polytheistic ?,     http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Polytheism

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited October 9, 2014 by Anakin7

[danielwoods]

Neither did Paul.

BTW, we get our doctrine from the same source that Paul had.

If that were true, then LDS doctrine and the NT would agree.

You have not and can not show this to be true. You can not show that David has been forgiven. You can't show that David has been resurrected. You can NOT show that David is not in hell.

Your assertion is that he's still in hell (the bad side), if I understand the LDS position correctly. The Biblical evidence for this is zero.

My observation is that David was a prophet, and a man after God's own heart, who was forgiven, just as we all are if we seek his forgiveness. Do I have any evidence to contradict that view? No. Does scripture indicate otherwise? No. So why does the LDS think that David is in Hell (Gehenna)? Where is the Biblical evidence that his sins shouldn't be forgiven? The LDS view seems to me to be the opposite of a merciful God?

[Vance]

Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a monotheist- one God not a plurality of gods as in Mormonism (polytheism).

Not according to Paul. He recognized the existence of other gods in heaven, for so he stated.

BTW, We are not polytheist. But, then again, for you to honestly represent what we believe would be out of character for you.