Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Anakin7]

    Coolrok General Authorities speak to the common individual in terms they can relate and understand, not to the Greek Hellenistic Platoist. I use those descriptions to those of a more intellectual level. Sorry to disappoint you in that. Which form/model of the Trinity do you adhere to ? Western/Eastern/Economic/Essential/Social Modalistic/Sabellian ?. Jews and Muslims see you as true polytheists and say they see through the smokescreen explanations given by Trinitarians and have produced responses to trinitarians.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[Teancum]

 

What we believe is described by Paul. "5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

  6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

This is what you call a proof text. Mormons and EV Christians do this to each other all the time. Vance Paul did not mean this passage in the way you use it. It really does not defend the Mormon idea that there could be lots and lots of gods but there is only one we worship. Sorry to burst your bubble. I used to use it too in order to defend Mormon theism.

[danielwoods]

What it means that all are not the same. What is a kingdom. That is a great question. What is heaven? Is it really a different place from where we are now? After all we are all going to be in the same place.

 

But you agree that during the resurrection that not all bodies will recieve the same glory. Not all get teh same reward. You at least admited that. That is quite a foreign concept to your evangelical way of thinking.

 

Paul speaks of a 3rd hevean. And thus we have come full circle.

 

You know exactly where we get our doctrine, the bible.

 

Your doctrine of separate locations (kingdoms/heavens) doesn't come from the bible. 

 

No matter your definition of different glories, it doesn't support or even hint of the idea that those with less are separate from those with more. Even the Moon is in the same space as the Sun. 

[danielwoods]

So, the fact that Paul actually experienced the "third heaven", as you suggest (implying that there are two others), is not evidence enough?  The fact that he shared this experience without having to teach about it (even though sharing experience is a form of teaching) suggests that it was common knowledge.  It seems as if everybody already knew that there were three heavens - no explanation required, no shock, no up-roar, no weird looks from people thinking "who is this whacko talking about three heavens!", but it was quietly accepted.  You cannot erase it.

First, let's look at the passage.

1 Cor. 12:2 "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses."

A couple of things. Paul didn't experience this third heaven, he is talking about a man he knows. Paul doesn't know all the details, however. It's vague. Paul clearly isn't teaching about separate heavens. What he is describing by a "third heaven" is simply the biblical view of where God dwelt. The first heaven was the clouds above the Earth, the second was the Stars, and the Third heaven was where God dwelt.

So, you are right, Paul was teaching something that people all knew about. It was similar to what we call NDE, similar to the story "Heaven is for Real."

Was Paul teaching anyone about separate heaven's or kingdoms as the LDS now teach? Not even close.

 

 

Not so clear to me , seems that none of the sects can agree on these verses (see link) - not the "clearest" teaching on heaven (if you can even call it that) by any means.  It was not even intended as a preview of life after death, but Christ was teaching a different lesson.  Even if it was an accurate depiction of the after-life, we believe that all spirits dwell in either paradise or hell (spirit prison) before the resurrection, which is depicted accurately in this parable and confirms our beliefs. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus#cite_note-14

Notice I didn't say, this is clear teaching based on the opinion of different people throughout history. What I stated is that it is clear based on what was taught by Jesus, in the bible. It simply illustrates that there is either Heaven or Hell. That's it. Not three heavens and an outer darkness, not four heavens. Just two places that's it.

If someone doesn't believe the bible is an accurate source for Jesus' teaching, that's ok, but not really relevant to the argument I made.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Your doctrine of separate locations (kingdoms/heavens) doesn't come from the bible. 

 

No matter your definition of different glories, it doesn't support or even hint of the idea that those with less are separate from those with more. Even the Moon is in the same space as the Sun. 

Yeah it does. Pogi, myself and other have just shown were it comes from. The 3rd heaven, the separate glories. If that does not tell us that there is more than just heaven/ hell then nothing will.

 

 

It "being in the same place" is a poor argumemt. For they do not accupy the same space. YOu have not even quanitifed what you mean by "same place" Are the in the same universe? Well then everything is in the "same place".

 

Do you really think this is a convicing arguement? Really?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is what you call a proof text. Mormons and EV Christians do this to each other all the time. Vance Paul did not mean this passage in the way you use it. It really does not defend the Mormon idea that there could be lots and lots of gods but there is only one we worship. Sorry to burst your bubble. I used to use it too in order to defend Mormon theism.

Sorry, this is not a proof texting. The very fact that he refernces heaven destroys that argument. Are there false gods in hevean?

 

The fact, from a theological point of view, is no. So they must be true and real divine gods. I can see how people think Paul is only referncing idols. The "for" also leads to the LDS ppoint of view because he goes in a different direction. He is telling us that there are lots of gods but we only have to deal with God the Father.

[danielwoods]

Yeah it does. Pogi, myself and other have just shown were it comes from. The 3rd heaven, the separate glories. If that does not tell us that there is more than just heaven/ hell then nothing will.

 

 

It "being in the same place" is a poor argumemt. For they do not accupy the same space. YOu have not even quanitifed what you mean by "same place" Are the in the same universe? Well then everything is in the "same place".

 

Do you really think this is a convicing arguement? Really?

 

The hurdle is actually quite large. To argue that this passage referencing different glories indicates different kingdoms that are separate and distinct, because there are no similarities at all when comparing the analogy to what is attempted to be argued. 

 

The three bodies are all in the same space (or universe) and can be seen by one person at the same time. 

The three bodies can all see and interact with each other (if they were alive).

The only perceptible difference between the three is location, and their brightness or glory as viewed from earth.

There is no wall or physical separation between them. 

 

The biblical texts used to support the claim are not taken as they were intended by the author. As I have stated in the past, I don't really care if the LDS view is correct or not. I'm only interested in the truth.  The LDS view is not derived from these texts, but somewhere else. These texts don't even support the LDS view. 

 

Is that a convincing argument? Well, that's a completely different question. It depends what a person holds has persuasive. What persuaded that person in the first place? I'm sure it's different for each person. I can only look at the facts. If the facts don't persuade, then that obviously wasn't a major contributing factor causing a person to take this view in the first place. 

[pogi]

As far as your interpretation of the 3 heavens goes, I will not argue that that is a reasonable interpretation.  That is the funny thing about the Bible, it allows for almost endless possibilities, none of which can be proven as the intended meaning with any degree of certainty.  Hence, the thousands of sects and bickering back and forth between sects and even within sects. 

 

Notice I didn't say, this is clear teaching based on the opinion of different people throughout history. What I stated is that it is clear based on what was taught by Jesus, in the bible.

 

If it is SO clear, why the different opinions? Were people like Martin Luther intentionally misleading people by teaching that the details of the afterlife cannot be taken literally in this passage?  The only other conclusion could be that Martin Luther was just too stupid to read the "clear" writing on the page.  Martin Luther conclluded that hell and paradise as mentioned in this passage were simply a metaphor for the human conscience (see my previous link), and is not by any means a clear depiction of the after-life.  

[pogi]

The three bodies are all in the same space (or universe) and can be seen by one person at the same time. 

 

Did anybody ever claim that the three kingdoms of heaven did not occupy the same space or universe?  LDS call them the "three kingdoms of heaven."  Yes, that is singular - "heaven." 

 

Let's assume that your understanding of the "third heaven" is the correct one.  Why cannot there be three kingdoms within the third heaven?  That would not be contrary to LDS understanding whatsoever.      

[danielwoods]

As far as your interpretation of the 3 heavens goes, I will not argue that that is a reasonable interpretation.  That is the funny thing about the Bible, it allows for almost endless possibilities, none of which can be proven as the intended meaning with any degree of certainty.  Hence, the thousands of sects and bickering back and forth between sects and even within sects.

Which is why my goal is to look try and read it as the original author intended.

 

 

If it is SO clear, why the different opinions? Were people like Martin Luther intentionally misleading people by teaching that the details of the afterlife cannot be taken literally in this passage?  The only other conclusion could be that Martin Luther was just too stupid to read the "clear" writing on the page.  Martin Luther conclluded that hell and paradise as mentioned in this passage were simply a metaphor for the human conscience (see my previous link), and is not by any means a clear depiction of the after-life.

Saying that the passage shouldn't be taken literally in no way changes the message. Luther is still acknowledging that there are only two places taught in this passage. He can call them a metaphor for human conscience if he wants, it changes nothing in the passage. I disagree with his opinion, but that's nothing new. The take away point is that neither of these views agrees with the LDS view. So, pointing it out doesn't really help disprove the idea that the passage teaches only two locations after death.

[danielwoods]

Did anybody ever claim that the three kingdoms of heaven did not occupy the same space or universe?  LDS call them the "three kingdoms of heaven."  Yes, that is singular - "heaven." 

 

Let's assume that your understanding of the "third heaven" is the correct one.  Why cannot there be three kingdoms within the third heaven?  That would not be contrary to LDS understanding whatsoever.

My understanding of the separate kingdoms is that they are separate. People in the lower kingdom don't have direct access to God in the higher kingdom. This to me is by definition, not in the same space.

The makeup of Heaven is unknown. It could be millions of kingdoms, or not, who knows. What we do know is that all have access to God. Ultimately, when the LDS refer to the Celestial kingdom, this is the same as being saved, for the evangelical.

[pogi]

Which is why my goal is to look try and read it as the original author intended.

 

To bad the original author is not around to interview!  I guess you are stuck with the same tools as the rest of us - inference. 

[pogi]

My understanding of the separate kingdoms is that they are separate. People in the lower kingdom don't have direct access to God in the higher kingdom. This to me is by definition, not in the same space.

 

"By definition" of what?  It could be that they occupy the same heaven (or universe) but are restricted by law.  By definition, that is what restricted means - they don't have access to something. 

 

The makeup of Heaven is unknown. It could be millions of kingdoms, or not, who knows. What we do know is that all have access to God. Ultimately, when the LDS refer to the Celestial kingdom, this is the same as being saved, for the evangelical.

 

 

Oh good, you acknowledge that "the makeup of Heaven is unknown" biblically speaking.  Therefore there is no Biblical opposition to the idea of different kingdoms of heaven. 

[teddyaware]

First, let's look at the passage.

1 Cor. 12:2 "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses."

A couple of things. Paul didn't experience this third heaven, he is talking about a man he knows. Paul doesn't know all the details, however. It's vague. Paul clearly isn't teaching about separate heavens. What he is describing by a "third heaven" is simply the biblical view of where God dwelt. The first heaven was the clouds above the Earth, the second was the Stars, and the Third heaven was where God dwelt.

So, you are right, Paul was teaching something that people all knew about. It was similar to what we call NDE, similar to the story "Heaven is for Real."

Was Paul teaching anyone about separate heaven's or kingdoms as the LDS now teach? Not even close.

 

 

Notice I didn't say, this is clear teaching based on the opinion of different people throughout history. What I stated is that it is clear based on what was taught by Jesus, in the bible. It simply illustrates that there is either Heaven or Hell. That's it. Not three heavens and an outer darkness, not four heavens. Just two places that's it.

If someone doesn't believe the bible is an accurate source for Jesus' teaching, that's ok, but not really relevant to the argument I made.

 

I'm wondering if you're aware of the fact that most non-LDS Christian scholars believe the man in Christ who was taken up to the third heaven is the Apostle Paul himself. It is almost universally believed by these scholars that for reasons of modesty and humility Paul refers to himself in the third person so as to not appear to be boasting of his great visions and spiritual experiences. 

 

While no Latter-day Saint will ever be able to persuade you to believe that heaven has three degrees of glorification (only the Spirit can do that), we can demonstrate why we are very comfortable with the teaching. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul testifies to the following:

 

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead... (1 Corinthians 15)

 

So we Latter-day Saints believe Paul is testifying to the fact that just as one star is brighter than another star in power of illumination, so also there will be varying degrees of illumination to glory in the resurrection. Such an arrangement makes perfect sense, as some believers are more valiant and faithful to the Lord than others. So God in His wisdom and mercy blesses His children in the resurrection according to the faithfulness and heed paid to Him. This is why the Saviour said there are many mansions of glory in heaven and not just one mansion. And this is also why He promised that those who not only believe in Him but overcome the world will be permitted to occupy the throne of His power, glory and dominion; while those who only hear but do not heed John's admonition in Revelation chapter 3 to overcome the world will be saved but not be permitted to occupy the throne of Christ. That right is only conferred upon those who believe AND overcome through living faith.

 

As an aside, in one of the verses you cite in 1 Corithians 12, Paul informs us that that there are great pearls of knowledge pertaining to the things of God that are not recorded in the Bible. Therefore, the Bible cannot contain all the knowledge of God that has been given to mankind because some men, like Paul, were made privy to godly knowledge beyond that which is recorded in the Bible. The Bible doesn't contain what Paul calls the harder to digest "meat" of the Gospel. 

 

4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (1 Corinthians 12)

Edited December 16, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

"By definition" of what?  It could be that they occupy the same heaven (or universe) but are restricted by law.  By definition, that is what restricted means - they don't have access to something. 

 

 

 

Oh good, you acknowledge that "the makeup of Heaven is unknown" biblically speaking.  Therefore there is no Biblical opposition to the idea of different kingdoms of heaven.

We do know that there is no separation between God and those who are in Heaven. God's presence is what makes it Heaven.

[pogi]

We do know that there is no separation between God and those who are in Heaven. God's presence is what makes it Heaven.

 

"We" know that?  News to me!  If you admit that we don't know from the Bible if there are different kingdoms in heaven, how can you possibly suggest that the Bible teaches that God is present in all the kingdoms of heaven? 

[danielwoods]

.

Edited December 16, 2014 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

I'm wondering if you're aware of the fact that most non-LDS Christian scholars believe the man in Christ who was taken up to the third heaven is the Apostle Paul himself. It is almost universally believed by these scholars that for reasons of modesty and humility Paul refers to himself in the third person so as to not appear to be boasting of his great visions and spiritual experiences. 

 

While no Latter-day Saint will ever be able to persuade you to believe that heaven has three degrees of glorification (only the Spirit can do that), we can demonstrate why we are very comfortable with the teaching. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul testifies to the following:

 

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead... (1 Corinthians 15)

 

So we Latter-day Saints believe Paul is testifying to the fact that just as one star is brighter than another star in power of illumination, so also there will be varying degrees of illumination to glory in the resurrection. Such an arrangement makes perfect sense, as some believers are more valiant and faithful to the Lord than others. So God in His wisdom and mercy blesses His children in the resurrection according to the faithfulness and heed paid to Him. This is why the Saviour said there are many mansions of glory in heaven and not just one mansion. And this is also why He promised that those who not only believe in Him but overcome the world will be permitted to occupy the throne of His power, glory and dominion; while those who only hear but do not heed John's admonition in Revelation chapter 3 to overcome the world will be saved but not be permitted to occupy the throne of Christ. That right is only conferred upon those who believe AND overcome through living faith.

 

As an aside, in one of the verses you cite in 1 Corithians 12, Paul informs us that that there are great pearls of knowledge pertaining to the things of God that are not recorded in the Bible. Therefore, the Bible cannot contain all the knowledge of God that has been given to mankind because some men, like Paul, were made privy to godly knowledge beyond that which is recorded in the Bible. The Bible doesn't contain what Paul calls the harder to digest "meat" of the Gospel. 

 

4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (1 Corinthians 12)

Which is why I asked what does "Glory" mean? When Moses hid his face because the glory of the lord made it too bright.

So, we agree that glory is simply another word for brightness. Yet nothing in that passage indicates that those with different degrees of glory are separated from those with a lessor degree of glory. In fact, it would be the complete opposite of God's nature to think that only those with the same degree of glory can associate with each other, and only those with the highest degree of glory can associate with God the Father.

Whether it was Paul or someone else doesn't change the fact that the third heaven is referring to God's dwelling place not a separate level of heaven where only those with the correct amount of glory can go.

Edited December 16, 2014 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

"We" know that?  News to me!  If you admit that we don't know from the Bible if there are different kingdoms in heaven, how can you possibly suggest that the Bible teaches that God is present in all the kingdoms of heaven?

Because separation is caused by sin. In heaven there is no sin. Hence, no separation.

[pogi]

Because separation is caused by sin. In heaven there is no sin. Hence, no separation.

 

If all the people in heaven are free from any guilt, and are therefore perfect - how can you explain the different degrees of glory:

 

So, we agree that glory is simply another word for brightness. Yet nothing in that passage indicates that those with different degrees of glory are separated from those with a lessor degree of glory. 

 

Glory is not just brightness, it means honor, light, power, which have clear and significant divisions in the Bible.  Which leads me to wonder, how and why would there be different degrees of glory in the resurrection if all are perfect and sinless and therefore on equal standing before God?  If they are equally guiltless before God, why are they not equally glorified?

 

Would not the glory of the dimmest star simply vanish and become invisible in the presence of the glory of the sun as happens with sunrise? They would shrink from His presence in shame and vanish in invisibility.  So out of mercy, God created another kingdom for them as His presence would be intolerable to them.

Edited December 16, 2014 by pogi

[danielwoods]

If all the people in heaven are free from any guilt, and are therefore perfect - how can you explain the different degrees of glory:

The different degrees of glory is another way of saying different degrees of rewards in heaven.

All are in heaven because of Jesus, no one feels guilt or shame because all have the same righteousness, that is the righteousness of Christ which is given to all who have accepted it. The difference is what those people have done with the light given to them while on Earth. The parable of the talents comes to mind here. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

 

 

Glory is not just brightness, it means honor, light, power, which have clear and significant divisions in the Bible.  Which leads me to wonder, how and why would there be different degrees of glory in the resurrection if all are perfect and sinless and therefore on equal standing before God?  If they are equally guiltless before God, why are they not equally glorified?

Equally resurrected, but not equally rewarded. In some cases I think we will be surprised. Those who are first will be last, those who we look up to as leaders today will be less than those who we know nothing about, and have had hardship all their lives.

There is no evidence that there will be divisions in heaven, in the sense of separations as the LDS teach. All are one in Christ.

 

Would not the glory of the dimmest star simply vanish and become invisible in the presence of the glory of the sun as happens with sunrise? They would shrink from His presence in shame and vanish in invisibility.  So out of mercy, God created another kingdom for them as His presence would be intolerable to them.

Not sure what you mean by "intolerable". Our glory comes from him. Everything that we are comes from him. He is the source of all energy. To be with him will be to be 100% complete and fulfilled.

[pogi]

The different degrees of glory is another way of saying different degrees of rewards in heaven.

 

Yep, as in the Celestial kingdom, terrestrial kingdom...

 

The difference is what those people have done with the light given to them while on Earth. 

 

Agreed again.  I would swear you were a Mormon by that comment (taken out of context of course)!  

 

There is no evidence that there will be divisions in heaven, in the sense of separations as the LDS teach. All are one in Christ.

 

There is no evidence contrary either.  We acknowledge other evidences however, that you neglect. 

Edited December 16, 2014 by pogi

[danielwoods]

Yep, as in the Celestial kingdom, terrestrial kingdom...

 

 

Agreed again.  I would swear you were a Mormon by that comment (taken out of context of course)!  

 

 

There is no evidence contrary either.  We acknowledge other evidences however, that you neglect. 

 

 

What is missing is evidence that there would be a need or justification for any division, when Christ himself stated that we would all be one, as he is one with the Father. 

 

Or the fact that there is no teaching about any other kingdoms in heaven, every time heaven is mentioned, it is "The kingdom..." singular. 

[Teancum]

Sorry, this is not a proof texting. The very fact that he refernces heaven destroys that argument. Are there false gods in hevean?

 

The fact, from a theological point of view, is no. So they must be true and real divine gods. I can see how people think Paul is only referncing idols. The "for" also leads to the LDS ppoint of view because he goes in a different direction. He is telling us that there are lots of gods but we only have to deal with God the Father.

Yea it is a proof text. But If it helps you to deny it more power to you.

[teddyaware]

What is missing is evidence that there would be a need or justification for any division, when Christ himself stated that we would all be one, as he is one with the Father. 

 

Or the fact that there is no teaching about any other kingdoms in heaven, every time heaven is mentioned, it is "The kingdom..." singular. 

 

The scriptures are full of evidence but you will not receive any of it. We are told that in the resurrection there is one glory that can be compared with the brightness of the stars, another state of resurrected glory that can be compared to the brightness of the moon, and a final crowning state of resurrected glory that can be compared to the brightness of the sun. But you simply explain this and all evidences away with a mind that seems to be totally closed.

 

If I were a betting man, I would bet that if some of the meat of the Gospel not contained in the Bible were to be revealed to you that you would instantly reject those things out of hand because they wouldn't conform to your preconceived and utterly dogmatic notions. In your mind you have it all figured out, even though Paul twice testified his epistles contain only Gospel milk.

 

One of the reasons why I'm no longer participating on this board as much as I used to is because I've come to realize most of the blathering that goes on here is an exercise in frustration. I believe and accept much of what you believe because I have an open mind and can see truth in what you believe. But it seems there's nary a teaching of the LDS Church that you can support or agree with. So what's the use in trying to dialogue when it's only a one way street.

Edited December 17, 2014 by teddyaware