Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Vance]

Cdowis, a big difference in the argument being made.

Yes, there is. Yours is ridiculous and ours is not.

 

The discussion of the nature of God is different in a major way (the substance so to speak) is the distinction between spirit and flesh of which we are made, so like substance or same substance is where the distinction is being made for God in light of Arius' false argument concerning Jesus having a beginning,

hence not eternal Deity.

What a bunch of drivel.

 

An inconsistency in Mormonism is the use of the term, "very God" in the BofM which comes from the Nicene Creed defending against Arius and what he was teaching.

More inane drivel.

To claim that the use of "very God" in scripture is somehow consistent with the usage in the Creed is bunk.

Notice the difference between,

 

1.1 Thes. 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2.1 Ne. 19:7 For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words—they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels.

3.Morm. 3:21 And also that ye may believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, which ye shall have among you; and also that the Jews, the covenant people of the Lord, shall have other witness besides him whom they saw and heard, that Jesus, whom they slew, was the very Christ and the very God.

And,

 

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Once again you demonstrate the silliness of your arguments.

 

Jesus, Who is God in the flesh is unique (Phillipines 2 where He took on our form in order to suffer death where the spirit departs the body at death per James. Also Hebrews 2 addresses this as well.

LOL!!!!!

And yet Heb 2 declares

 

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

So, where does that "unique"ness come into play?

 

So when the term external to the text is used to make a distinction of which is in the Bible it is a different animal altogether.

You mean terms like "homoousia", "immaterial" and "trinity"?

 

In the resurrection we will have a glorified form as Jesus had (1 John 3) where we become like Him, not His Deity, but the type of glorified form He now has.

So, we will be like him, but we won't be like him.

WOW!!!! Your logic is truly dizzying.

 

Joseph's insertion of a term which is not there in the text is what is not justified in light of the rest of what Paul is arguing for.

Hypocrisy, thy name is coolrok7.

 

The context is the resurrection of the dead in which the glorified body has a glory greater than the mortal one is not justification for what Joseph Smith ended up teaching.

Sure it is. It has been explained to you several times. Your closed mindedness is not our problem. Edited October 29, 2014 by Vance

[Nofear]

Not going to get into this conversation, but thought I'd drop a driveby post.

 

About 24% of evangelicals are at least open to the possibility that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired.

 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/october-web-only/new-poll-finds-evangelicals-favorite-heresies.html?start=1

[dberrie2000]

At critical points of doctrine what this all boils down to), Mormonism is almost always at odds with Christianity which should tell you something.

 

Could you explain to us if your reference to "Christianity" is one of the Biblical text Christianity--or the faith alone theology of Protestantism, for the main?

 

If you are referring to the Christianity of faith alone theology--then it is no wonder the LDS are at odds with them--the faith alone have precious little in common with the Biblical text. What is found in the Bible--is found in the LDS church. That puts the LDS at odds with the Christianity of the faith alone theology.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I wasn't speaking to an LDS audience.   I guess you have difficulty seeing things from their point of view and speaking in their language.

 

It's so much easier to just argue, isn't it.

So saying things that are false is "speaking their language". You are not even building on a common belief. You are trying to throw them a bone for no reason. In the name of "speaking their language".

Edited October 29, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Tacenda]

Note that the idea or concept of separate kingdoms (celestial, terrestrial, etc.) are not taught by Paul. "Different glories" is not talking about kingdoms. The contextual reference is from one person looking at the different brightnesses of the sun, moon, stars, while on Earth. Separate kingdoms is a completely foreign concept to what Paul is teaching. No where does the NT teach that Heaven is separated into different parts or kingdoms. 

There is but one King, and one kingdom, praise God! 

 

 

If that is what you think I've been saying then I'm sorry I haven't done a better job at communicating. I have never said to "just perform a lip service" and you're saved. 

I wonder if there is more than one kingdom.  One with the King.  And zillions with Gods that evolve there, as asinine as this sounds.  Maybe the King is with the rest of all the religions and those that don't make it to the top tier of the CK.  I think why we have the belief that we will inhabit our own world in Mormonism is because JS or we, are looking at the Galaxy full of stars and planets.  They think these need to be inhabited just as our planet Earth has.  Could this in fact be true, as crazy as that sounds?  To a non LDS Christian that is.  Posting on a lunch break so I probably don't make any sense at all!! 

[Calm]

Or maybe the concept of territory disappears when dealing with a people of one heart, one mind.

[cdowis]

So saying things that are false is "speaking their language". You are not even building on a common belief. You are trying to throw them a bone for no reason. In the name of "speaking their language".

 

Similar to telling a joke, if you have to explain it to someone  who has no sense of humor, it loses its effect.  You just get into an argument with a individual who takes everything literally.  (Freud called them "a n a l retentive")

 

You might acquaint yourself with a rhetorical device called irony.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

Edited October 29, 2014 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

I wonder if there is more than one kingdom.  One with the King.  And zillions with Gods that evolve there, as asinine as this sounds.  Maybe the King is with the rest of all the religions and those that don't make it to the top tier of the CK.  I think why we have the belief that we will inhabit our own world in Mormonism is because JS or we, are looking at the Galaxy full of stars and planets.  They think these need to be inhabited just as our planet Earth has.  Could this in fact be true, as crazy as that sounds?  To a non LDS Christian that is.  Posting on a lunch break so I probably don't make any sense at all!!

 

One can speculate about millions of possibilities. 

 

The bible tells us that there is but one king with one kingdom. All people in other "religions" will be judged based on what they did with the truth that was revealed to them. I don't see any evidence supporting the idea that other "Earths" will be inhabited. 

Jesus said:

Matt.18:3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Matt.20:26 "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

 

[Vance]

The bible tells us that there is but one king with one kingdom.

I don't think you know the Bible as well as you think you do.

There are many kingdoms that will belong to the Lord.

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

Get that? Kingdoms!!!!

 

All people in other "religions" will be judged based on what they did with the truth that was revealed to them.

True.

 

I don't see any evidence supporting the idea that other "Earths" will be inhabited.

So? There are a lot of things you don't see.

Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

You don't see any evidence supporting the idea that this is the only planet peopled by the Lord.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Vance

[Gervin]

del

Edited October 30, 2014 by Gervin

[danielwoods]

I don't think you know the Bible as well as you think you do.

There are many kingdoms that will belong to the Lord.

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

Get that? Kingdoms!!!!

Since I'm probably wasting your time I don't usually respond to your posts. But, here it goes anyway.

A modern translation has the correct translation of this passage. Kingdom isn't in the plural in the greek.

 

True.

 

So? There are a lot of things you don't see.

Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

You don't see any evidence supporting the idea that this is the only planet peopled by the Lord.

Modern translations also understand the greek word means, "universe" not worlds, as in a plural usage of the term "world". In the KJV vernacular, "worlds" meant universe.

[cdowis]

You may be correct (I would have to check this out in my Greek NT), but ==>>

 

The LDS church accepts all of the word of God, including the Bible and modern revelation.  With living prophets on the earth today, we do not need to know how to parse out Greek and Hebrew ("private interpretation" --2 Peter 1:20) to know what the Lord teaches.

[coolrok7]

Cdowis, translation from one language to another has rules to follow, not the whims of people who think they are prophets of God but are not.

The Bible identifies these as false prophets delivering either their own thoughts or being influenced by lying spirits of which there is given ample warnings/examples.

Your "modern revelation" based on my years of reading/contemplating/considering what I've learned from Mormons, in their own setting, I think fits into the above category.

Interpretation would be more of making clear the intent of the author by the meaning of terms as chosen in context.

Edited October 30, 2014 by coolrok7

[Vance]

Since I'm probably wasting your time I don't usually respond to your posts. But, here it goes anyway.

A modern translation has the correct translation of this passage. Kingdom isn't in the plural in the greek.

Well, this translation specifically designates it as plural.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rev11.pdf

In addition to the KJV we have these translations that have it plural,

 

Revelation 11:15 YLT

Young's Literal Translation

And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, `The kingdoms of the world did become [those] of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign to the ages of the ages!'

Revelation 11:15 TYN

Tyndale

And the seventh angell blewe and therwere made great voyces in heve sayinge: the kyngdoms of this worlde are oure lordes and his christes and he shall raygne for ever more.

Revelation 11:15 WBT

The Webster Bible

And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he will reign for ever and ever.

Revelation 11:15 NKJV

New King James Version

Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!"

So, it isn't as cut and dried as you are attempting to make it.

 

Modern translations also understand the greek word means, "universe" not worlds, as in a plural usage of the term "world". In the KJV vernacular, "worlds" meant universe.

This is not a refutation of my point that, "You don't see any evidence supporting the idea that this is the only planet peopled by the Lord."

I take it that you can't refute that point.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Cdowis, translation from one language to another has rules to follow, not the whims of people who think they are prophets of God but are not.

Good thing Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

The Bible identifies these as false prophets delivering either their own thoughts or being influenced by lying spirits of which there is given ample warnings/examples.

True, but not applicable in this case.

Your "modern revelation" based on my years of reading/contemplating/considering what I've learned from Mormons, in their own setting, I think fits into the above category.

You can think what you want. It doesn't change the facts.

Interpretation would be more of making clear the intent of the author by the meaning of terms as chosen in context.

Too bad you don't follow your own advise here, as has been demonstrated several times.

[danielwoods]

You may be correct (I would have to check this out in my Greek NT), but ==>>

 

The LDS church accepts all of the word of God, including the Bible and modern revelation.  With living prophets on the earth today, we do not need to know how to parse out Greek and Hebrew ("private interpretation" --2 Peter 1:20) to know what the Lord teaches.

 

When someone claims that there is more than one kingdom (LDS), in order to determine what the NT actually teaches it's important to have access to the Greek. If a prophet states that there is more than one kingdom, and the NT clearly teaches that there is but one, who do you believe?

[cdowis]

"Kingdoms"

 

I'm afraid I have to agree with Daniel here.  I would not want to hang my hat on a grammatical technicality.  The plural of a noun may not mean what you think it means.  For example, we need to consider the differences between Greek and English grammar, the poetic nature of the scriptures, etc.

 

Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 Does that mean there were no light, no stars before the earth was created?  That one verse, literally interpreted, would totally refute the LDS account of the creation

Edited October 30, 2014 by cdowis

[Storm Rider]

When someone claims that there is more than one kingdom (LDS), in order to determine what the NT actually teaches it's important to have access to the Greek. If a prophet states that there is more than one kingdom, and the NT clearly teaches that there is but one, who do you believe?

 

So, what does it mean when it states in John 14:2, "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so I would have told you so. I go to prepare a place for you."  

[cdowis]

Heaven is big enough to accommodate everyone.

[coolrok7]

In your mind you think you have Vance,demonstrated things to me, but you operate on a different standard than me so I'm not persuaded as you are not persuaded by me.

It's your prerogative of course to disagree but I'm persuaded by Biblical teaching which was here way before Joseph Smith or you and others here came along.

It does not teach what Mormonism says it does.

Before you twist my words again as usual, ...

[Anakin7]

       coolrok7 it is imperitive that you recieve True Grace [ charis ] as was lived by the True Anchient Saints/Christians in Biblical times and that is done byTrue Faith [ pistis ] also as was lived by the True Anchient Saints/Christians.

 

In past conversations with Lutheran [ Of which room of the house where you reside ] clergy/lay members I am told that lutheranism do not believe in OSAS [ Once saved Always Saved ]. So how do you enter and stay in True Grace ?.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[Vance]

In your mind you think you have Vance,demonstrated things to me, but you operate on a different standard than me so I'm not persuaded as you are not persuaded by me.

True! I have standards of logic and reason. You don't.

It's your prerogative of course to disagree but I'm persuaded by Biblical teaching which was here way before Joseph Smith or you and others here came along.

Nah, it is ONLY your interpretation of the Bible, not what the Bible ACTUALLY teaches.

It does not teach what Mormonism says it does.

Our interpretation is as legitimate (in fact it is more so) as yours. You have absolutely no more claim to an authoritative interpretation than we do, (in fact, you have far less).

Before you twist my words again as usual, ...

What? You mean you don't like you own approach used on you? I am shocked!!! (Not really).

[cdowis]

When someone claims that there is more than one kingdom (LDS), in order to determine what the NT actually teaches it's important to have access to the Greek.

 

I think I asked this before, but please tell us how many times you have completely read the NT, and how many times in the Greek.

I have read it ten time, including twice in Greek.

 

 

If a prophet states that there is more than one kingdom, and the NT clearly teaches that there is but one, who do you believe?

 

I think we have been there before.  "The NT clearly teaches" is actually  "my interpretation and understanding of the NT".  Again, as I have pointed out to you, Paul disagrees with you, and Peter has given you a warning about giving a "private interpretation" of the scriptures.  That is the responsibility of the prophets.

 

So my choice is whether I should follow the admonition of Peter and believe your private interpretation of the scriptures (the Saul/ Pharasee model), or the words of a prophet that was called by the Lord in our day (the Paul model).  

 

Which one -- Saul the Pharasee or Paul the prophet?

 

I'm really tired of repeating myself, so let's simply agree to disagree.  I think you will agree that there is no need in continuing this discussion.

Edited October 30, 2014 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

So, what does it mean when it states in John 14:2, "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so I would have told you so. I go to prepare a place for you."

How about two other translations first.

NIV: John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

NASB: John 14:1 “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3 If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.

What does it mean? Simply what it says. In Heaven there is room enough for everyone who is going there.

[danielwoods]

Well, this translation specifically designates it as plural.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rev11.pdf

In addition to the KJV we have these translations that have it plural,

So, it isn't as cut and dried as you are attempting to make it.

Well, in 76 other occurrences of that exact word usage in the NT, it's translated singular. Even in Revelation 1:9, the exact same word is used, and it's translated singular. Why they translated 11:15 as plural is beyond me. However, to take that one verse and pit it against the other 76, and say there are multiple kingdoms based on that one isn't something I would feel comfortable doing.

http://biblehub.com/greek/basileia_932.htm

 

This is not a refutation of my point that, "You don't see any evidence supporting the idea that this is the only planet peopled by the Lord."

I take it that you can't refute that point.

There's nothing to refute. What evidence is there that there are other planets that are inhabited?

Arguing from the absence of evidence is as fool hardy as trying to prove a negative.