Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Vance]

The LDS interpretation is not supported by the context of the whole NT or Bible.

And your interpretation is even more so.

[Vance]

The word "infinite" probably isn't used in the Bible, but it encompasses the concept of an all powerful, all knowing, ever present God, which is how he's described.

Humm.

It is apparent that you must reject Jesus as being God then.

1) Jesus didn't have "all power" because it had to be given to him. See Matt 28:18

2) Jesus didn't have "all knowledge" because He didn't know when He would return, See Matt 24:36. Neither did He know that the fig tree was barren, See Matt 21:18-19

[danielwoods]

So that I can understand., Please provide an example of a past life.

 

The biblical references have been talked about. The LDS Your interpretation is not supported by the context of the whole NT or Bible.

There I fixed it for you.

 

Past life. Any life before being born.

[ERayR]

Past life. Any life before being born.

 

Does that include reincarnation?

[danielwoods]

LOL!!!

 

Talk about adding something that isn't there.

Talk about adding something that isn't there.

Talk about adding something that isn't there.

 

Nope. The only way to interpret it as no preexistent spirit is to read into the text what isn't there.

 

Again, reading something into it that isn't there. It doesn't require a "recall", it could just as easily (and likely) have been a revelation.

And that is your assumption.

 

Why? The brain was not there.

Yet, the LDS believe that "intelligences" were able to make a choice to come to earth, right? Yet, they aren't able to remember things? Hmm…

 

Lack of evidence is not proof of absence.

It certainly can be if there is evidence to support the opposite position.

 

He did. But as shown above, you are presuming that isn't there.

It is not a false dichotomy.

Me too. That is why I have to reject "creatio ex nihilo".

Ok, so.

In spite of having no evidence.

As has been talked about. In order to support the LDS position you have to add, "previously existing spirit" was added to make Adam a living being, the text doesn't say or indicate that. 

I take what it says at face value. There's no indication that anyone of us preexisted.

 

 

 

[danielwoods]

Does that include reincarnation?

 

Yes. 

[ERayR]

Yes. 

 

Then I can say for certainty that you conceptualization of LDS pre-mortal existence is totally inaccurate.

[danielwoods]

Then I can say for certainty that you conceptualization of LDS pre-mortal existence is totally inaccurate.

 

If LDS pre-mortal existence is life, then it's life and living. If it is not, then it's death or non-existent. If it's life, then it couldn't be "totally inaccurate" because that's all I'm referencing. 

[Vance]

Yet, the LDS believe that "intelligences" were able to make a choice to come to earth, right?

Actually, it was our spirit that made the choice.

 

 

Yet, they aren't able to remember things? Hmm…

You don't remember your birth.

I guess that is evidence that it didn't happen.

 

 

It certainly can be if there is evidence to support the opposite position.

Good thing you don't have any contrary evidence. You attempt at fabricating "evidence" not withstanding.

 

 

As has been talked about. In order to support the LDS position you have to add, "previously existing spirit" was added to make Adam a living being, the text doesn't say or indicate that.

The text does indicate that. It states that God put the spirit into the body to make it live. The preexistence of the spirit is clearly implied.

 

I take what it says at face value.

If only that were true.

 

There's no indication that anyone of us preexisted.

The preexistence of the spirit is clearly implied.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Vance

[danielwoods]

Actually, it was our spirit that made the choice.

 

 

You don't remember your birth.

I guess that is evidence that it didn't happen.

 

 

Good thing you don't have any contrary evidence. You attempt at fabricating "evidence" not withstanding.

 

 

The text does indicate that. It states that God put the spirit into the body to make it live. The preexistence of the spirit is clearly implied.

 

If only that were true.

 

The preexistence of the spirit is clearly implied.

 

The statements in the biblical text don't imply any preexistence, there is not even one direct mention of it. 

 

Where does it come from if not from the Biblical text? What appears to be happening is that you are looking at these passages with an LDS viewpoint, sort of like wearing glasses that taint the color of what you see.

Edited November 10, 2014 by danielwoods

[Vance]

The statements in the biblical text don't imply any preexistence,

Yes they do.

Here is one that you studiously ignore.

John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

The whole premise of the question is the preexistence of man.

 

Where does it come from if not from the Biblical text?

The same source from which Paul got his information. Revelation.

What appears to be happening is that you are looking at these passages with an LDS viewpoint, sort of like wearing glasses that taint the color of what you see.

That is no different from what you do. Edited November 10, 2014 by Vance

[Flyonthewall]

There are many places where God references his foreknowledge, this is one of them. This isn't saying that Jeremiah existed before he was formed, only that in God's foreknowledge, he knew what Jeremiah would become.

How do you "ordain" someone? How can someone be ordained before they exist?

This scripture states that something was done to Jeremiah before his birth. This involves more that foreknowledge.

[SearchingfortheTruth]

@Flyonthewall

 

 

 

How do you "ordain" someone? How can someone be ordained before they exist?
This scripture states that something was done to Jeremiah before his birth. This involves more that foreknowledge.

 

God ordained, called and consecrated Jeremiah. However, there is no mention of Jeremiah's response before this life is there?

 

If the LDS view is correct about pre-existence, then surely the pre-mortal beings had agency. Then why is there no discussion of what they did. How do you reconcile God's discussion with Job:

 

""Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding," (Job. 38:4, NAS)

 

It seems to imply that Job was not there when the foundation of the earth was laid. Perhaps this is a reference to God's foreknowledge. Otherwise the LDS view seems to contradict Job's pre-existence.

[SearchingfortheTruth]

Yes they do.

Here is one that you studiously ignore.

John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

The whole premise of the question is the preexistence of man.

 

The same source from which Paul got his information. Revelation.

That is no different from what you do.

 

Vance, there's another way of looking at that. It may be referring to sinful nature in the being of an pre-birth infant, which some would consider a controversial doctrine. However if this view is correct, the verse can be interpreted in a different way. There's no specific reference to pre-mortal existence, but instead a general question from Jesus' disciples about who was guilty. 

 

Was it a person's inherent sin that caused congenital blindness or the sin of their parents? Jesus then disputes the idea that sin was the cause of this man's limitation. Jesus is not denying the ability of sin to be present in the infant, but perhaps denies the infant's and the parent's guilt. 

 

Where does it say pre-earth existence specifically? It doesn't.

[Anakin7]

     Read/see non LDS Scholar Hammerton Kelly's Awesome Book - Pre - Existence Wisdom Son Of Man. Do a google search for the reference.

 

In His Debt/Grace

        Anakin7

[SearchingfortheTruth]

You would only be right if you made that certain interpretations of Christ's teachings. LDS are as certain as everyone else is that our interpretations of what God's teachings are in the Bible are God's actual Words to man or as close as man has been able to come to it...which is why we need revelation to continue....God keeps talking to us and we need to keep listening and not assume that just one book, thick as it is, is all that God has to say to us.

We prefer to place our faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and all that they have shared with us, not just that which was shared with a small group in one part of the world as significant and important as it was...but all of God's words are important and it is sad that some refuse to hear him because they only accept a small potion of them written in one book.

 

Calmoriah, the point I was making is Jesus' teaching when read very simply (plain meaning). This would be without LDS, Lutheran, Baptist, Mennonite, Pentecostal, Catholic lenses. Just what it is.

 

Jesus stated very simply, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (Matt. 16:18, NIV) [italics and bolding mine]

 

If the Great Apostasy actually happened, then it's not the LDS church that is in error, but Jesus is a false prophet. He prophesied that the gates of Hades would not overcome the church, and apparently it did (according to restorationist movements such as LDS). 

 

"the kingdoms of this world made war against the kingdom of God, established eighteen centuries ago, and they prevailed against it" Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p.125, April 10, 1870 http://journalofdiscourses.com/13/16 [italics and bolding mine]

 

The only way the restoration makes any sense is if Jesus' prophecy did not happen, and the church was lost at some point. How then, can the LDS church be holding onto the teachings of Jesus the Christ? If the Great Apostasy took place, then Jesus Christ prophesied falsehood. 

 

Simple.

[Flyonthewall]

@Flyonthewall

 

 

God ordained, called and consecrated Jeremiah. However, there is no mention of Jeremiah's response before this life is there?

 

If the LDS view is correct about pre-existence, then surely the pre-mortal beings had agency. Then why is there no discussion of what they did. How do you reconcile God's discussion with Job:

 

""Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding," (Job. 38:4, NAS)

 

It seems to imply that Job was not there when the foundation of the earth was laid. Perhaps this is a reference to God's foreknowledge. Otherwise the LDS view seems to contradict Job's pre-existence.

Very simply. God was reminding Job of the Great Council in Heaven when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy. Job was one of them(we all were). The singing and shouting for joy was over the Plan of Salvation whereby we all chose to come to earth and experience the trials of mortality for our betterment and growth. The central part of this plan of salvation is the Redeemer, who was foreordained from before the foundation of the world(1 Peter 1:21).

So when Job bemoans the trials he is going through, he can keep in mind it was his own free will that chose to experience it.

Job should maintain his trust in God, not in man.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Flyonthewall

[Anakin7]

  From my LDS Kryptonian Archives -   http://www.growthingod.org.uk/PreExist.HTM

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited November 11, 2014 by Anakin7

[cdowis]

The only way the restoration makes any sense is if Jesus' prophecy did not happen, and the church was lost at some point. How then, can the LDS church be holding onto the teachings of Jesus the Christ? If the Great Apostasy took place, then Jesus Christ prophesied falsehood. 

 

 

 

Christ restored the gospel and the church in our day, in fulfillment of His promise.  Just as He lay three days in the tomb, and the gates of hell did not overcome him with the resurrection, even so this promise was fulfilled after the church also "lay in the tomb" until it was restored.

 

Christ did not give a false prophecy.  His promise was fulfilled and He showed us the way to find that out for ourselves through the Book of Mormon and receiving a personal confirmation that it is His word.

Edited November 11, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Vance, there's another way of looking at that. It may be referring to sinful nature in the being of an pre-birth infant, which some would consider a controversial doctrine. However if this view is correct, the verse can be interpreted in a different way. There's no specific reference to pre-mortal existence, but instead a general question from Jesus' disciples about who was guilty. 

 

Was it a person's inherent sin that caused congenital blindness or the sin of their parents? Jesus then disputes the idea that sin was the cause of this man's limitation. Jesus is not denying the ability of sin to be present in the infant, but perhaps denies the infant's and the parent's guilt. 

 

Where does it say pre-earth existence specifically? It doesn't.

 

The disciples clearly believed in a pre-existence.  Christ did not deny that doctrine -- only the application here in this situation.

 

But you are correct that we can interpret the Bible in many ways, so where do we find an inerrant interpretation of the Bible? 

 

The historic Christian church has replaced the living prophet with theologians and philosophers after the model of the scribes and Pharasees -- using their learning and human wisdom to argue, debate and mingle scripture  with philosophy.

 

 That is why Peter and Paul told us that the church requires apostles and prophets as a foundation of the church.  That is why the Lord speaks to living prophets today.

Edited November 11, 2014 by cdowis

[Vance]

Vance, there's another way of looking at that. It may be referring to sinful nature in the being of an pre-birth infant, which some would consider a controversial doctrine.

So, you are going to go with babies can sin in the womb?

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

And what, pray tell, was the sin committed by baby in the womb?

Lying? Stealing? Coveting? Lusting? Not keeping the Sabbath? Adultery? Murder?

Totally ridiculous.

 

However if this view is correct, the verse can be interpreted in a different way.

Occam's Razor comes to mind.

 

There's no specific reference to pre-mortal existence, but instead a general question from Jesus' disciples about who was guilty.

Ok, so we have at least two possibilities.

1) pre-mortal existence of the spirit, which has several other verses that can be used as support.

2) babies can sin in the womb, which has absolutely nothing that can be used as support.

Again, think Occam's Razor. 

 

Was it a person's inherent sin that caused congenital blindness or the sin of their parents?

Well, what did Jesus teach us about children?

Matt. 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matt. 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

Jesus then disputes the idea that sin was the cause of this man's limitation. Jesus is not denying the ability of sin to be present in the infant, but perhaps denies the infant's and the parent's guilt.

LOL!!!

And another thing that Jesus did not do was to disabuse His disciples of the notion of a pre-mortal existence.

 

Where does it say pre-earth existence specifically? It doesn't.

Neither does it deny it anywhere. Edited November 11, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

If the Great Apostasy actually happened, then it's not the LDS church that is in error, but Jesus is a false prophet.

The LDS Church is not in error and neither is Jesus a false prophet.

It is your interpretation that is in error.

He prophesied that the gates of Hades would not overcome the church, and apparently it did (according to restorationist movements such as LDS).

Well, first of all you need to accurately represent what was said. And then you need to properly analyze it.

What he said was, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Greek petros), and upon this rock (Greek petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The rock (petra) upon which He would build His church was not Peter (petros) but rather revelation.

Gates are a defensive measure not an offensive one. It was the Church that was going to assault (offensively) the gates of Hades (the world of the dead) and it would be the Church that would prevail against death.

To do so, the Church need not remain upon the earth from that time forth. But only needs to be triumph in the end.

 

the kingdoms of this world made war against the kingdom of God, established eighteen centuries ago, and they prevailed against it" Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p.125, April 10, 1870

1) Kingdoms of this world are not the gates of world of the dead.

2) The Kingdom of God has been restored, thus prevailing against the kingdoms of this world.

So, yah, it is simple.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Vance

[danielwoods]

Yes they do.

Here is one that you studiously ignore.

John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

The whole premise of the question is the preexistence of man.

Ignore? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63727-dear-evangelical-friends-can-a-mormon-be-a-christian/?p=1209437101

What I said last time:

Not sure it was Jewish custom or not, but they said to him, "34 ...Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out." (Jn.9:34)

Notice it doesn't say, "You sinned before you were born." Or it doesn't say, "You sinned in your preexistence." Rather it states that he was "born in sins." Which, in their opinion, resulted in his blindness.

My only point in quoting this verse is that the NT doesn't teach preexistence.

Again, preexistence isn't taught here either.

 

The same source from which Paul got his information. Revelation.

That is no different from what you do.

If that were true, then we'd expect to see the same teachings from Paul, that we do from the LDS church.

As far as viewing things through colored glasses. I have no church to defend. No sacred doctrine to defend. I only want the truth. IF the LDS had the truth, I'd be LDS in a heartbeat. You however, are defending the LDS position, so everything has to be interpreted in light of that position. If it makes you feel better accusing me of seeing things through tainted glasses that's fine, it doesn't matter to me.

[danielwoods]

How do you "ordain" someone? How can someone be ordained before they exist?

This scripture states that something was done to Jeremiah before his birth. This involves more that foreknowledge.

How do you know it involves more than foreknowledge? The text states

 

4 "The word of the Lord came to me, saying,

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

before you were born I set you apart;

I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”"

Notice that every action word in this verse is God doing the action. God knew, set him apart, and appointed him. Jeremiah does nothing in this exchange. It's all God, Jeremiah for all practical purposes doesn't even have to be present. And if you study predestination at all, you can see how God does this with all of us. You claim it involves more than foreknowledge, where do you see that?

[danielwoods]

Very simply. God was reminding Job of the Great Council in Heaven when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy. Job was one of them(we all were). The singing and shouting for joy was over the Plan of Salvation whereby we all chose to come to earth and experience the trials of mortality for our betterment and growth. The central part of this plan of salvation is the Redeemer, who was foreordained from before the foundation of the world(1 Peter 1:21).

So when Job bemoans the trials he is going through, he can keep in mind it was his own free will that chose to experience it.

Job should maintain his trust in God, not in man.

 

The answer to God's rhetorical questions is no. 

 

Here's a greater look at the context:

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?          [You weren't there]

Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!           [No, man doesn't know]

Who stretched a measuring line across it?                          [Not Man, only God]

6 On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone—

7 while the morning stars sang together

and all the angels shouted for joy?

8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors

when it burst forth from the womb,

9 when I made the clouds its garment

and wrapped it in thick darkness,

10 when I fixed limits for it

and set its doors and bars in place,

11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;

here is where your proud waves halt’?

12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,                     [Nope, only God]

or shown the dawn its place,

13 that it might take the earth by the edges

and shake the wicked out of it?

14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;

its features stand out like those of a garment.

15 The wicked are denied their light,

and their upraised arm is broken.

16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea                 [Nope, only God]

or walked in the recesses of the deep?

17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?

Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?             [Nope, only God]

18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?

Tell me, if you know all this.                                                [Nope, only God]

There is no indication here that Job was being reminded that he was with the Angels or even present or even alive. The rhetorical implication is that he wasn't there.