Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[coolrok7]

Thanks, I do feel somewhat better Anakin7.

When I first began to learn of Joseph Smith and what he claimed for himself/was teaching (mid 1970's) I was reading literature, books, pamphlets, provided by General Authorities.

One such publication, "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder", directed internally for Mormons initially, was advertised in the Readers Digest (LDS 1980; answers more questions about Mormons than any other book we can send you) where the coupon advertising the book encourages the reader to send for: clip, fill in, mail this coupon to : "MORMON CHURCH" . . .or call toll free. . .

[Anakin7]

    They probably used that title for the church as that was what most people knew/know us as but the "Offical" Name is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[coolrok7]

The point being is they, the General Authorities, used the terminology.

Critiquing others for not using the "official" name of the Church is a bit disingenuous then isn't it.

Especially when there have been three official names of the Mormon Church within an eight year period.

[danielwoods]

No, it doesn't. It teaches that the man Jesus was divine. The difference is that there is no false dichotomy between being human and being divine.

The silliness is claiming that you believe the Bible while denying what it clearly and plainly teaches.

It says what it says. You not believing what it says is not my problem. 

No, it does not say that at all. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that.

It says that, just like us, He partook of flesh and blood. For us to partake of flesh and blood we MUST HAVE pre-existed to do the partaking.

It is OBVIOUS to anyone with an open mind.

Hebrews 2:14

KJV 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;

NIV 14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity

NASB 14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same,

Mounce Reverse-Interlinear 14 Therefore, since the children share in blood and flesh, he himself also, in the same way, shared the same things

Now, your contention is that one with an open mind can see that "children" pre-existed because they are partakers of flesh and blood, just like Jesus. The problem with this view is that isn't what the text is saying. As the other versions point out, the word used by KJV has a meaning of "have" or "share" in the sense of all humanity shares the same physical properties. There is no sense here that the "children" pre-existed like Christ did. Rather, the context is clearly stating that all of humanity has the same flesh and blood, and Christ put on that humanity to save us.

"...but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness" (Philippians 2:6-7).

 

And so are yours.

No where does it say that Jesus is the only human to pre-exist. So, you too, are arguing from silence.

A bit hypocritical don't you think?

You say that I am arguing from silence?

1 Cor. 15:46-47 says, "However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second is man is from heaven"

Notice, that Adam is from the earth, not preexistent, but from the earth. "the natural is first" not a preexistent Adam, but a natural one. 

And when Genesis calls Adam a "living being" after God breathed life into him. Before that, he wasn't a living being.

This is not an argument from silence.

[danielwoods]

Daniel,

I notice that you have studiously avoided this book. Why is that?

 

 

Didn't have time to read the whole thing, and what I did read talked about Christ's preexistence, something that isn't controversial. 

[Anakin7]

    Going by The First Official name Given By the LORD.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No where does it say that Jesus is the only human to pre-exist. So, you too, are arguing from silence.

 

I would point out that the "so, you too, are arguing from silence" is not really accurate.  There is nothing in the bible that says "Only Jesus pre existed". You can not even find anything close to that. We are not arguing from silence. Our theology is at least an interpretation of what is in the bible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

You say that I am arguing from silence?

1 Cor. 15:46-47 says, "However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second is man is from heaven"

Notice, that Adam is from the earth, not preexistent, but from the earth. "the natural is first" not a preexistent Adam, but a natural one. 

And when Genesis calls Adam a "living being" after God breathed life into him. Before that, he wasn't a living being.

This is not an argument from silence.

Talk about ripping something from context. This is not talking about how man came in to existence. This is talking about the resurrection.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[coolrok7]

So it took three try's to get it right?

[coolrok7]

To be even more specific Mola, the glory of the resurrected body as compared to the mortal body, period.

Paul was not arguing the place of residence of the glorified body or baptisms for the dead which was a practice some were doing but which was not an apostolic practice being advocated.

The differences in glory beteen the two illustrated in reference to the sun, moon, and stars as they differ in glory, that's it.

[Anakin7]

       http://:www.shields-research.org/42_Questions/ques26_Tvedtnes.htm

 

       Humm link works on google but not here.

 

In His Debt/Grace

        Anakin7

Edited November 7, 2014 by Anakin7

[Calm]

       http://www.shields-research.org/42_Questions/ques26_Tvedtnes.htm

 

       Humm link works on google but not here.

 

In His Debt/Grace

        Anakin7

works now…Anakin's had an extra : in it.

 

http://www.shields-research.org/42_Questions/ques26_Tvedtnes.htm

Edited November 7, 2014 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

by this logic we also created all things. Wow! That's cool!

 

You have stumbled upon truth.  Now that is indeed "cool".  As pre-existent spirits, some of us indeed participated in the creation process under the direction of the Father and Son (as  taught in modern revelation).

 

 

 

(too bad it's not what the NT teaches)

 

The NT teaches that only Jesus pre-existed because he was God in the flesh. It never teaches that we also pre-existed, it never references our preexistence in anyway.

 

"Yes, according to my vast and extensive knowledge of the Bible, it never references our pre-existence.  Regarding  John 9  [2] And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?  Of course I have an inerrant interpretation of this verse which completely dismisses its clear meaning."

Edited November 7, 2014 by cdowis

[Vance]

Hebrews 2:14

KJV 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;

NIV 14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity

NASB 14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same,

Mounce Reverse-Interlinear 14 Therefore, since the children share in blood and flesh, he himself also, in the same way, shared the same things

Yeah, yeah, and,

American Standard Version

Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same;

Common English Bible

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he also shared the same things in the same way.

Douay-Rheims

Therefore because the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner hath been partaker of the same:

English Standard Version

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things,

Hebrew Names Version

Since then the children have shared in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same,

Lexham English Bible

Therefore, since the children share in blood and flesh, he also in like manner shared in these [same things],

The Darby Translation

Since therefore the children partake of blood and flesh, he also, in like manner, took part in the same,

Young's Literal Translation

Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same,

The only way this can be true is if we all pre-existed. It is obvious.

Now, your contention is that one with an open mind can see that "children" pre-existed because they are partakers of flesh and blood, just like Jesus.

That is the obvious truth being stated.

The problem with this view is that isn't what the text is saying.

That is EXACTLY what the text is saying.

As the other versions point out, the word used by KJV has a meaning of "have" or "share" in the sense of all humanity shares the same physical properties.

True. But then it makes it clear that we do it in the exact same manner Jesus did it.

He pre-existed and then like us, partook of flesh and blood.

We pre-existed and then like Him, partook of flesh and blood.

The implication is obvious.

There is no sense here that the "children" pre-existed like Christ did.

That is the exact sense that is be put forth.

Rather, the context is clearly stating that all of humanity has the same flesh and blood,

And we do it in the exact same manner that Jesus did. That is the point that you refuse to acknowledge.

. . . and Christ put on that humanity to save us.

And He did it in the exact same manner that we do it. We pre-existed and then we partook of flesh and blood, just as Jesus pre-existed and then partook of flesh and blood.

The ONLY way you can "partake" of flesh and blood is to pre-exist the partaking.

[Vance]

You say that I am arguing from silence?

1 Cor. 15:46-47 says, "However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

Talking specifically about the physical body. Not the spirit.

47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second is man is from heaven"

Again, specifically talking about the physical body. Not the spirit. As the rest of the Chapter, in context, is clear.

Notice, that Adam is from the earth, not preexistent, but from the earth. "the natural is first" not a preexistent Adam, but a natural one.

Notice that it is only referring to the physical body, as the rest of the Chapter, in context, is clear.

And when Genesis calls Adam a "living being" after God breathed life into him. Before that, he wasn't a living being.

True! He was only a spirit. The only way you can be a living being is to have both a physical body and a spirit. As has been shown before.

This is not an argument from silence.

Yes, it is. No where in scripture does it say we did not pre-exist.

[Vance]

I would point out that the "so, you too, are arguing from silence" is not really accurate.  There is nothing in the bible that says "Only Jesus pre existed". You can not even find anything close to that. We are not arguing from silence. Our theology is at least an interpretation of what is in the bible.

Agreed. I am just trying to show him what happens when his logic is used against him.

Ironically, he doesn't like it.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Agreed. I am just trying to show him what happens when his logic is used against him.

Ironically, he doesn't like it.

 

Do you like it?

 

Bytheway, that is not going to help him feel the spirit, that is not preaching the gospel online. 

Edited November 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[cdowis]

Bytheway, that is not going to help him feel the spirit, that is not preaching the gospel online. 

 

This is apologetics.  "Feeling the spirit" is found in Social Hall.

[Anakin7]

      Calmoriah thanks.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[MormonFreeThinker]

This is apologetics.  "Feeling the spirit" is found in Social Hall.

 

Bible debates is bad apologetics, the Bible can be interpreted in many ways. 

[danielwoods]

I would point out that the "so, you too, are arguing from silence" is not really accurate.  There is nothing in the bible that says "Only Jesus pre existed". You can not even find anything close to that. We are not arguing from silence. Our theology is at least an interpretation of what is in the bible.

 

Nothing in the Bible? 

 

John 3:13 "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man."

So, no one except Jesus. Seems like a pretty clear statement to me. Don't you think?

John 3:31 "The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all."

Notice again, the *one* who come from above is above all. How many preexisted? One. And who are from the earth? And who are the ones who belong and speak as one from the earth? Everyone else.

No, the Bible does state rather plainly that Jesus is the only preexistent one.

 

 

Talk about ripping something from context. This is not talking about how man came in to existence. This is talking about the resurrection.

The context is resurrection, but Paul makes a connection and a correlation to what we are talking about here.

1 Cor. 15:45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

Notice it states rather clearly that Adam was from the dust of the earth. And Jesus was from heaven, the same thing that John is saying. Further, he states that everyone on the earth is not preexistent, because they are also from the earth like Adam.

 

So as far as your accusation of ripping things out of context? Not at all. 

[danielwoods]

"Yes, according to my vast and extensive knowledge of the Bible, it never references our pre-existence.  Regarding  John 9  [2] And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?  Of course I have an inerrant interpretation of this verse which completely dismisses its clear meaning."

If our preexistence was a reality, you wouldn't expect the teachings of the NT to say the opposite, now would you?

[danielwoods]

Yeah, yeah, and,

The only way this can be true is if we all pre-existed. It is obvious.

That is the obvious truth being stated.

That is EXACTLY what the text is saying.

True. But then it makes it clear that we do it in the exact same manner Jesus did it.

He pre-existed and then like us, partook of flesh and blood.

We pre-existed and then like Him, partook of flesh and blood.

The implication is obvious.

That is the exact sense that is be put forth.

And we do it in the exact same manner that Jesus did. That is the point that you refuse to acknowledge.

And He did it in the exact same manner that we do it. We pre-existed and then we partook of flesh and blood, just as Jesus pre-existed and then partook of flesh and blood.

The ONLY way you can "partake" of flesh and blood is to pre-exist the partaking.

Actually it doesn't say what you claim. It doesn't say that we partook of it "In the exact same manner that Jesus did." In fact, our preexistence isn't ever referenced, ever, and as I pointed out, elsewhere in the NT it is specifically taught that only Jesus was preexistent.

[danielwoods]

Talking specifically about the physical body. Not the spirit.

Again, specifically talking about the physical body. Not the spirit. As the rest of the Chapter, in context, is clear.

Notice that it is only referring to the physical body, as the rest of the Chapter, in context, is clear.

True! He was only a spirit. The only way you can be a living being is to have both a physical body and a spirit. As has been shown before.

Please show me where it states that you can only be a "living being" if you have both a physical body and spirit?

Yes, it is. No where in scripture does it say we did not pre-exist.

Indeed it states it here and other places where it says that we are from the Earth.

Edited November 7, 2014 by danielwoods

[Vance]

Please show me where it states that you can only be a "living being" if you have both a physical body and spirit?

1) It is consistent with what you have been claiming, that life begins when God places the (pre-existing) spirit into the body.

2) James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.