Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[teddyaware]

 

Ok, your claim is that this angel is one of John's fellow prophets. 

 

Is that what is stated? 

 

"I am a fellow servant..."  -   Nope , he didn't say he was a fellow prophet here. 

 

"I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets..." - Nope, not here either. Notice instead of saying he was a fellow prophet, he states that he's a fellow servant of John's brethren, not his own brethren.

"I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book."  - Not here either, and notice that the angel is describing a third group of people, not himself, but a third group of people, "those who heed the words of this book."

 

So, your conclusion isn't actually based on what is stated in the text, because from the text, all one can say is that this angel is a fellow servant with John, the prophets , and those who heed the words of this book. 

 

It doesn't say he's a prophet, or a fellow brethren or fellow prophet, or that he even keeps the words of this book (implying that he's not human). 

 

Here are a few points to ponder:

 

In Revelation 6, the word fellowservants has reverence to human beings in heaven and on earth.

 

¹⁰ And they (deceased human souls in heaven) cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

¹¹ And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. (Revelation 6)

 

So based on the above precedent, it is reasonable to believe John understood his angelic guide was a resurrected brother and human fellowservant of Christ.

 

I've done some research and learned most non-LDS Christians believe angels virtually always appear to men in the form of men. So since angels look like men, talk like men and act like men, why is it at all unreasonable for the Latter-day Saints to declare angels are men, but men who serve God in heaven. Else what was the Lord referring to when he told Job the following:

 

⁴ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

⁵ Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

⁶ Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

⁷ When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38)

 

Who are these sons of God if not the angels. Is this why whenever angels appear to men they look like male human beings? This fact may be inconsequential to you, but not to the Latter-day Saints.

 

Are you aware of the fact that the Hebrew etymology for the angel Gabriel's name is "man of God" or "strong man of God?" Now why call this angel "man of God" if he is not a man?

 

Without a second thought, you reject the Biblical testimony that the angels who appeared to Lot in Sodom were men, even though that's what the word of God calls them. Could it be that the reason why the Bible calls these angels men is because they were men, even Job's 'sons of God' who were in the similitude and image of the very Son of God Himself?

 

Of all the men who ever lived, it would seem the Apostle John was the last man in the history of the world who would be so confused by the power and glory of a so-called 'non-human' angel that he would think it was the right thing to do to bow down and worship said "non-human" angel. Twice! Could it be the reason why John was confused is because his angelic guide looked, acted and powerfully expressed himself so much like the Man Jesus Christ that he thought they were one and the same being? John knew it was forbidden to worship your so-called "non-human" angels, but this angel seemed so much like the resurrected Man Jesus Christ that he was about to do just that --  twice.

 

The angel must have seemed in every way to be just like the glorified, resurrected Man Jesus Christ, otherwise why the confusion for one who surely should have known better? Why would such a blasphemous thought even enter the mind of John (remember this incident was very late in his ministry) that he should worship one of your "non-human" angels when he knew the only being in the form of man worthy of worship was the Man Jesus Christ? As the sacred record testifies, John was in the Spirit on that momentous day when he received that great revelation. So why would a man of such profound prophetic insight and spiritual inspiration bow down to worship one of your "non-human" angels when he knew to do so was a great sin, unless the angel and the Lord are both glorious human personages of the same race of men?

Edited November 18, 2014 by teddyaware

[Flyonthewall]

Sorry, but the text doesn't state that the angel is the same as John, as a brother would be. What is says is that the angel is a fellow servant, with John and John's brothers (the prophets) and all those who heed the words of this book. This statement doesn't indicate what the nature of an angel is, it does imply however, that he's not subject to needing to heed "the words of this book" which would be expected from someone who never needed to be redeemed.

See? I knew you would do this - give an explanation as to why the text does not mean what it says.

Those dang trees keep getting in the way of seeing the forest.

As a seeker of truth, you sure ignore what is right in front of you for the sake of towing the evangelical line.

Oh well, happy hunting.

[Flyonthewall]

Correct Daniel, Hebrews 2:16 explains the nature of angels and that Jesus was made a little lower than the angels and took on our nature of flesh and blood (2:14) so that He could suffer death as a servant (Phillipians 2:7-eight).

That is right, angels are immortal. Jesus took upon himself mortality. He did not come down in power and as an immortal man, but as a mortal man, humble and meek, so he could suffer death as a servant.

Of course, this is what the angel in Revelations said he was - a fellow servant and OF his brethren.

No tumbling run required.

[coolrok7]

"Immortal" has relevance to physical/biological life forms which is what we are, not angelic beings.

Angelic beings do not have biological life forms like we have but can appear in the form of men as the Bible clearly shows. They are fellow servants of course but are not the heirs of salvation like we are.

[danielwoods]

Here are a few points to ponder:

 

In Revelation 6, the word fellowservants has reverence to human beings in heaven and on earth.

 

¹⁰ And they (deceased human souls in heaven) cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

¹¹ And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. (Revelation 6)

 

So based on the above precedent, it is reasonable to believe John understood his angelic guide was a resurrected brother and human fellowservant of Christ.

Not reasonable at all actually. What the text states is that Johns guide was an angelic being, not human and redeemed as represented by the robe washed in the blood. Remember what Jesus said, we will be like the angels in heaven, so the fact that they both have white robes shouldn't confuse people into thinking that angels are men.

 

I've done some research and learned most non-LDS Christians believe angels virtually always appear to men in the form of men. So since angels look like men, talk like men and act like men, why is it at all unreasonable for the Latter-day Saints to declare angels are men, but men who serve God in heaven.

Simple. The text doesn't state that is what they are. Rather, that they are different beings. Similar yes, but different.

 

Else what was the Lord referring to when he told Job the following:

 

⁴ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

⁵ Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

⁶ Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

⁷ When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38)

 

Who are these sons of God if not the angels. Is this why whenever angels appear to men they look like male human beings? This fact may be inconsequential to you, but not to the Latter-day Saints.

Indeed they are angels, not men.

 

Are you aware of the fact that the Hebrew etymology for the angel Gabriel's name is "man of God" or "strong man of God?" Now why call this angel "man of God" if he is not a man?

 

Without a second thought, you reject the Biblical testimony that the angels who appeared to Lot in Sodom were men, even though that's what the word of God calls them. Could it be that the reason why the Bible calls these angels men is because they were men, even Job's 'sons of God' who were in the similitude and image of the very Son of God Himself?

Even Jesus who was fully God and fully man, in his resurrected state could appear as a normal man. I have no doubt that angels have the same ability.

 

Of all the men who ever lived, it would seem the Apostle John was the last man in the history of the world who would be so confused by the power and glory of a so-called 'non-human' angel that he would think it was the right thing to do to bow down and worship said "non-human" angel. Twice! Could it be the reason why John was confused is because his angelic guide looked, acted and powerfully expressed himself so much like the Man Jesus Christ that he thought they were one and the same being? John knew it was forbidden to worship your so-called "non-human" angels, but this angel seemed so much like the resurrected Man Jesus Christ that he was about to do just that --  twice.

 

The angel must have seemed in every way to be just like the glorified, resurrected Man Jesus Christ, otherwise why the confusion for one who surely should have known better? Why would such a blasphemous thought even enter the mind of John (remember this incident was very late in his ministry) that he should worship one of your "non-human" angels when he knew the only being in the form of man worthy of worship was the Man Jesus Christ? As the sacred record testifies, John was in the Spirit on that momentous day when he received that great revelation. So why would a man of such profound prophetic insight and spiritual inspiration bow down to worship one of your "non-human" angels when he knew to do so was a great sin, unless the angel and the Lord are both glorious human personages of the same race of men?

I don't agree with your speculative position.

[danielwoods]

See? I knew you would do this - give an explanation as to why the text does not mean what it says.

Those dang trees keep getting in the way of seeing the forest.

As a seeker of truth, you sure ignore what is right in front of you for the sake of towing the evangelical line.

Oh well, happy hunting.

 

Actually, I analyzed what it actually said, not what someone else says it says. 

[ERayR]

"Immortal" has relevance to physical/biological life forms which is what we are, not angelic beings.

Angelic beings do not have biological life forms like we have but can appear in the form of men as the Bible clearly shows. They are fellow servants of course but are not the heirs of salvation like we are.

 

CFR

[teddyaware]

Not reasonable at all actually. What the text states is that Johns guide was an angelic being, not human and redeemed as represented by the robe washed in the blood. Remember what Jesus said, we will be like the angels in heaven, so the fact that they both have white robes shouldn't confuse people into thinking that angels are men.

 

Based on the following verses from the Book of Revelation, only those who have dwelt on earth as true followers of Christ will have the right to wear the white robes of the redeemed. Since John's angelic guide wore the same white robes -- which robes are emblematic of one's soul being washed pure and white in the blood of Christ -- there is good reason to believe John's angelic guide was a man who once lived on earth and availed himself of the blessings of the atonement of Christ.  

 

9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen

13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?

14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (Revelation 7)

 

Like verse 14 says, those who wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb will have the right to wear the white robes of the redeemed. Because he wore the robe of redemption, this is prima facie evidence that the angel needed the grace of Christ's atoning sacrifice in order to be saved -- this would of necessity make him a man.

 

By the way, much like you, the Latter-day Saints believe the angels are of a different nature from men on earth, because some angels have no bodies, while other angels have resurrected bodies. So we are at least in broad agreement that angels and men have different natures.

[danielwoods]

Based on the following verses from the Book of Revelation, only those who have dwelt on earth as true followers of Christ will have the right to wear the white robes of the redeemed. Since John's angelic guide wore the same white robes -- which robes are emblematic of one's soul being washed pure and white in the blood of Christ -- there is good reason to believe John's angelic guide was a man who once lived on earth and availed himself of the blessings of the atonement of Christ.  

 

9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen

13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?

14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (Revelation 7)

 

Like verse 14 says, those who wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb will have the right to wear the white robes of the redeemed. Because he wore the robe of redemption, this is prima facie evidence that the angel needed the grace of Christ's atoning sacrifice in order to be saved -- this would of necessity make him a man.

 

By the way, much like you, the Latter-day Saints believe the angels are of a different nature from men on earth, because some angels have no bodies, while other angels have resurrected bodies. So we are at least in broad agreement that angels and men have different natures.

 

And what color was the robe that Jesus was wearing? 

[Vance]

To teddyaware,

 

Both.  

 

One is the Chief Pharisee and the other is the Vindictive Goat.

 

But they are not two, but one.

 

PS

I am using a new computer and the quote function isn't working.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Vance

[teddyaware]

And what color was the robe that Jesus was wearing? 

 

Jesus wears both white and red robes. He wears white robes by virtue of his being the one and only pure and sinless sacrifice for sin. All others beings need His saving grace, otherwise no good thing could come unto them. He is the source of all goodness. If there is any goodness in an angel, that goodness exists within the angel by the power of the grace of Christ.

 

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even  in him: (Ephesians 1)

 

6 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (Colossians 1)

Edited November 20, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

Jesus wears both white and red robes. He wears white robes by virtue of his being the one and only pure and sinless sacrifice for sin. All others beings need His saving grace, otherwise no good thing could come unto them. He is the source of all goodness. If there is any goodness in an angel, that goodness exists within the angel by the power of the grace of Christ.

 

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even  in him: (Ephesians 1)

 

6 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (Colossians 1)

 

first, your conclusion, previously that white robes must indicate that they were once on earth and were redeemed by Christ is false, because Jesus has a white robe. 

 

Second, I find no evidence in the scripture that indicates that Angelic beings and creatures in heaven are redeemed or even need to be redeemed. The only redeemed class of beings are humans who sinned. Remember that being redeemed means to have one's sins forgiven. If Angels haven't ever sinned, no redemption is necessary. Indeed, it's my opinion that Angles who have fallen, can't be redeemed, since they live in God's presence. 

[teddyaware]

To teddyaware,

 

Both.  

 

One is the Chief Pharisee and the other is the Vindictive Goat.

 

But they are not two, but one.

 

PS

I am using a new computer and the quote function isn't working.

 

Is there such a thing as a Dualitarian?

Edited November 20, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

first, your conclusion, previously that white robes must indicate that they were once on earth and were redeemed by Christ is false, because Jesus has a white robe. 

 

Second, I find no evidence in the scripture that indicates that Angelic beings and creatures in heaven are redeemed or even need to be redeemed. The only redeemed class of beings are humans who sinned. Remember that being redeemed means to have one's sins forgiven. If Angels haven't ever sinned, no redemption is necessary. Indeed, it's my opinion that Angles who have fallen, can't be redeemed, since they live in God's presence. 

 

 

Jesus is the only one who wears the white robe by virtue of who He is. All others wear white robes by virtue of His grace. Just like we take upon ourselves the name of Christ, we also take upon ourselves His robes. The robes of righteousness are His to give and only His to give because they belong to Him. In fact, in a manner of speaking He is the white robe.

 

As to your second point, please explain the two verses I quoted from your point of view, especially the portions in bold,

 

Finally, the Latter-day Saints have scriptures beyond the Bible so we're not limited in our Gospel knowledge in the way you are. And I've decided that from now on I'm not going to limit myself in dialogue with you by appealing in most cases only to the Bible. From now on I will liberally quote from the other LDS scriptures, as I see no compelling reason not to. You're the one who's come to a Mormon board, so I see know reason why I should have to play by your rules. If I was to go over to an Evangelical discussion board, I would play by their rules.

Edited November 20, 2014 by teddyaware

[cksalmon]

 I am asking if it is possible for ANY Mormon to be a Christian.

 

From my perspective (and that of my ex-Mormon wife), of course. 

 

We'd say that Mormons can be Christians in the same way that all Christians are so: by God's grace (and, because I'm a Calvinist, I'd say also by God's choosing). And that in spite of any and all obstacles (including Mormonism).

 

Best.

cks

Edited November 20, 2014 by cksalmon

[Anakin7]

 Thank you for that thought.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Anakin7

[danielwoods]

Jesus is the only one who wears the white robe by virtue of who He is. All others wear white robes by virtue of His grace. Just like we take upon ourselves the name of Christ, we also take upon ourselves His robes. The robes of righteousness are His to give and only His to give because they belong to Him. In fact, in a manner of speaking He is the white robe.

right, which disproves your point about the white robes must indicate that they previously lived on the earth.

 

As to your second point, please explain the two verses I quoted from your point of view, especially the portions in bold,

I said, that angelic beings aren't redeemed, and don't need to be. You quoted:

"10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (Ephesians 1)

6 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (Colossians 1)"

Seems pretty simple to me. All things were created by him and for him. Your point?

You think that Angels need to be redeemed?

 

Finally, the Latter-day Saints have scriptures beyond the Bible so we're not limited in our Gospel knowledge in the way you are. And I've decided that from now on I'm not going to limit myself in dialogue with you by appealing in most cases only to the Bible. From now on I will liberally quote from the other LDS scriptures, as I see no compelling reason not to. You're the one who's come to a Mormon board, so I see know reason why I should have to play by your rules. If I was to go over to an Evangelical discussion board, I would play by their rules.

Fair enough. I never said you couldn't quote LDS sources. My only point has been that some of what the LDS teaches isn't found in the biblical text.

[teddyaware]

right, which disproves your point about the white robes must indicate that they previously lived on the earth.

 

I said, that angelic beings aren't redeemed, and don't need to be. You quoted:

"10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (Ephesians 1)

6 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (Colossians 1)"

Seems pretty simple to me. All things were created by him and for him. Your point?

You think that Angels need to be redeemed?

 

Fair enough. I never said you couldn't quote LDS sources. My only point has been that some of what the LDS teaches isn't found in the biblical text.

 

The point of my post is that beings other than Christ who wear the symbolic white robes can only do so by virtue of Christ. Christ is the Source of all goodness both in heaven and on earth and since the wearing of the white robe is a good thing, angels can only wear white robes by virtue of Jesus Christ. Angels have no righteousness of their own apart from Christ for He is the source of all righteousness both in heaven and on earth. That's why the angels worship Christ. The angels can not exist apart from Christ and they are wholly dependent upon Him for any goodness they possess.

 

Off to work. More later.

Edited November 20, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

The point of my post is that beings other than Christ who wear the symbolic white robes can only do so by virtue of Christ. Christ is the Source of all goodness both in heaven and on earth and since the wearing of the white robe is a good thing, angels can only wear white robes by virtue of Jesus Christ. Angels have no righteousness of their own apart from Christ for He is the source of all righteousness both in heaven and on earth. That's why the angels worship Christ. The angels can not exist apart from Christ and they are wholly dependent upon Him for any goodness they possess.

 

Off to work. More later.

 

Which isn't something we disagree about. 

[coolrok7]

CFR for ERayR concerning mortal/immortal.

2 Timothy 1, 1 Corinthians 15: concerning immortality

Hebrews 1&2: Jesus, angels, humans

1 Thessalonians 4: 2nd Coming which corresponds to 1 Corinthians 15

[LinuxGal]

Finally, the Latter-day Saints have scriptures beyond the Bible so we're not limited in our Gospel knowledge in the way you are. And I've decided that from now on I'm not going to limit myself in dialogue with you by appealing in most cases only to the Bible. From now on I will liberally quote from the other LDS scriptures, as I see no compelling reason not to. You're the one who's come to a Mormon board, so I see know reason why I should have to play by your rules. If I was to go over to an Evangelical discussion board, I would play by their rules.

 

When I dialogue with Christians I use the King James Bible, because it's something of a great common denominator.  If I was, for example, a Jehovah's Witness, and insisted on quoting from the New World Translation to argue a theological point, I shouldn't expect to get much traction because there's no common agreement with the accuracy of that version.  And if I was LDS, I shouldn't expect to get very far in a dialogue by throwing out stuff from the Book of Abraham, for example.

[Vance]

They can appear as men that is true. They can also do things that men can't do.

Ok, so you are going with "Angels deceive people" as the basis of your defense.

 

I guess if that is the best you can come up with, then that in itself is telling.

[Canadaigua]

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.

 

Is it possible for a person who is still on the LDS roster to be Christian?

 

Sure.  But the key is that they would need to accept the God of the Bible and His gospel--not the gods of Mormonism and the false LDS gospel.

 

Hope that answers your question.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is it possible for a person who is still on the LDS roster to be Christian?

 

Sure.  But the key is that they would need to accept the God of the Bible and His gospel--not the gods of Mormonism and the false LDS gospel.

 

Hope that answers your question.

You wouldn't know the God of the bible if it bit you in the butt.

[Calm]

A bit tired of the flippant criticism, Mola? Don't you just love people who condemn us to hell in under five seconds and care so little about it they wander off afterwards?