Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Canadaigua]

Canadaigua

Do you really believe that you can follow any God you choose and any gospel and expect to be saved?

Yes, I really do.  All those who are true to the light that they are given from the God of heaven, no matter how they interpret it will be led to the true God of Heaven whether in this life or the next.  You see, we believe in the Biblical baptism for the dead.   Do you really believe that all Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus will burn?

You said that you can follow any gods and expect to be saved.  Do you realize that what you said is completely false and not supported by what the Bible says.

[Canadaigua]

Canadaigua

 

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7 )

 

Above is a quote from President Hinckley.  Do you agree or disagree with what he said?

In other words, the "traditional Christ" is the wrong perception, right God. Your getting caught up in semantics.

So do you agree or disagree with what President Hinckley stated in his quote--which is posted above--when he said that the LDS Christ is not the same Christ as Christians believe in?

[Canadaigua]

". . .Well, it's quite simple, I understand the Bible different from you.  If I am wrong, I guess I will burn...and yet I have a calm and peaceful assurance in the Spirit.  I am entirely and humbly confident in my relationship with the Lord, He has assured me that I am on the path that I need to be on.  No fear at all.  Don't worry, if your perspective is a little off, you are protected from burning under the Mormon umbrella.  We've got you covered my friend! We work diligently in the temples to make it so.  It is a work of love indeed.  And so I sleep in the grace of God and assurance of His love for ALL his creation.  He will not abandon one soul from hearing His word and having a hope in the resurrection and degree of glory for all of those that the evangelists could not reach in time. 

When you said "". . .Well, it's quite simple, I understand the Bible different from you." can you elaborate on that a little bit more for me.  Do you simply not believe what it says because you believe it is inaccurate?  Or do you believe that you simply read that exact same words that I read and come to a different conclusion?

[danielwoods]

I wasn't looking for "pithy" answers.

 

Sounds right to me.  How does he do it?

How does he guide us? By communicating to us. This can be done in many ways, and can be as personal and different for each person.

 

Also Sounds right. 

 

At times you have to trust someone.  How do you decide who to trust?

Those who bear the fruit of the spirit, and those who have shown to be wise and a history of wise counsel.

 

How do you go about getting direction and aansweres from God?

Many ways. As Jesus said, seek and you shall find.

 

 

 

How do you know you are seeing objectively ?

 

I agree it certainly is.

Ultimately no one is truly objective, only God is. All we can do is continue to seek the truth.

[danielwoods]

What do we do when the Bible contradicts itself?

 

It doesn't. If someone thinks it does, then the problem isn't a contradiction, but something else. 

[danielwoods]

Here's the deal.  My interpretation of scripture threatens your view of heaven and your interpretation threatens my view of heaven.  Neither of us can abandon our understanding of heaven without threatening our religious foundation, which I don't suspect either of us are willing to abandon on the credence of your word or my word alone.  So, perhaps this is a fruitless exercise.

I have no fear of the truth, so I don't feel threatened by yours or anyone's views. I am willing to accept the truth no matter what it ends up being.

 

I simply want to point out that no man on earth is free from the barriers that you mention and all are therefore susceptible to false interpretations.  I would therefore caution an open mind on both sides, and to not authoritatively state with certainty that the Bible does not allow for one interpretation or another.  The Bible doesn't have a say in what the bible says quite frankly, it is you and I who decide what the Bible means, and unfortunately, it is you and I who are susceptible to error. 

 

I would suggest that even God allows for any and all interpretations of the Bible.  We each have to start somewhere, and we each learn line upon line and precept upon precept.  God expects this and thus allows for us to be wrong sometimes.  The only thing that matters to Him is if we are following the light that we are each given.  He gives us more light, and our perceptions become more clear, as we heed the light we have been given.  That is the one and only thing that I am entirely confident in and certain of - that God is happy and pleased with my direction and path.  I know this as surely as I know anything.  I have no reason to suspect otherwise with you.  That is the beauty of Mormon theology - we can both be right in following the light that we have.  We are each where we are supposed to be, learning line upon line.  If we each continue in that light that we are given, we will both know the true meaning of heaven as we greet each other there someday.  If we are both humbly open to the spirit, we cannot end up anywhere else.

I agree with you 90% here, because yes, on a personal level God deals with each of us on that level.

 

What we are doing here is discussing particular doctrines of the LDS church, to see if they are derived from the Biblical text or contrary to it or not. This activity could be done by believers or non-believers and if there is enough data to analyze, the conclusions would be the same (baring personal ego and agendas).

Edited December 18, 2014 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

You should conclude it is not a reliable text nor something a person should base their entire world view and life on....

 

If the text contradicts itself, then yes, perhaps it's not reliable. But, that's not the only option. It also might not be translated correctly. Or conveyed correctly through history. 

[coolrok7]

Paul begins 1 Corinthians chapter 15 on identifying the Gospel itself, Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. The reason we can be confident in the resurrection of our bodies.

He goes on to argue for the validity of the resurrection. In doing this he asks the question concerning the type of body we will have.

He uses the contrast of the differences in the glories of the heavenlies with the difference between a mortal body and a resurrected, glorified body.

Read the whole chapter in its context.

Again, he's not talking about where the body resides which is another topic.

Edited December 18, 2014 by coolrok7

[pogi]

What we are doing here is discussing particular doctrines of the LDS church, to see if they are derived from the Biblical text or contrary to it or not. This activity could be done by believers or non-believers and if there is enough data to analyze, the conclusions would be the same (baring personal ego and agendas).

 

If the only possible explanation for conflicting interpretation between us is "personal ego and agenda" (which I completely disagree with), I for one am not going to stick around and point fingers as to who has the bigger ego and agenda.  You can accuse me if you wish, but I am bowing out.  If however you conclude that there is not enough data to analyze, then I suggest you stop with the "my interpretation is the only possible interpretation" thing. 

Edited December 18, 2014 by pogi

[danielwoods]

If the only possible explanation for conflicting interpretation between us is "personal ego and agenda" (which I completely disagree with), I for one am not going to stick around and point fingers as to who has the bigger ego and agenda.  You can accuse me if you wish, but I am bowing out.  If however you conclude that there is not enough data to analyze, then I suggest you stop with the "my interpretation is the only possible interpretation" thing. 

 

I would CFR your accusation of me, but it's not worth it. I haven't ever said my interpretation is the only possible one. 

 

My point might be better illustrated by looking at the specific passage, where Paul references the third heaven. 

 

The reference is both religious and cultural. In both of those contexts, anyone interested in the topic (believer or not) can investigate what Paul is meaning by "third" heaven. It doesn't have a hidden message, he's simply communicating the concept of where God dwells. This isn't my interpretation specifically, rather it's derived from other sources. 

 

The LDS have a different view, associating it with their concept of three separate kingdoms in heaven. 

 

Now, if we were to take a survey of people who have studied this particular issue and passage related to it, believer or not. Just looking at the facts. Would they conclude that the LDS derived their doctrine from the Biblical text, or some other source? 

 

It would seem to me rather obvious that the LDS derives their doctrine not from the Biblical text. Which is fine. But, if that's the case, then why attempt to claim that it does? Why not just triumphantly proclaim that the source for LDS doctrine is revelation that no one else has? 

Edited December 18, 2014 by danielwoods

[pogi]

I would CFR your accusation of me, but it's not worth it. I haven't ever said my interpretation is the only possible one.

I apologize if I have falsely accused, that is the impression I get, but perhaps I am confusing you with Canadaigua.

 

Now, if we were to take a survey of people who have studied this particular issue and passage related to it, believer or not. Just looking at the facts. Would they conclude that the LDS derived their doctrine from the Biblical text, or some other source?

I don't determine truth through surveys.  The fact is, LDS understanding of the kingdoms of heaven was indeed from "some other source."  It is simply our point to show that it does not contradict with the Bible.  You yourself said that there could be many kingdoms in heaven, so you agree that there is no contradiction.

 

It would seem to me rather obvious that the LDS derives their doctrine not from the Biblical text. Which is fine. But, if that's the case, then why attempt to claim that it does? Why not just triumphantly proclaim that the source for LDS doctrine is revelation that no one else has? 

That is what we have been proclaiming from the inception of our church.  The degrees of glory understanding came from a revelation, or vision, given to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon on Feb 16, 1832 and is written down in D&C 76.  Before this revelation, we interpreted the bible the same as you.  With new light, comes new understanding however.

Edited December 18, 2014 by pogi

[danielwoods]

I apologize if I have falsely accused, that is the impression I get, but perhaps I am confusing you with Canadaigua.

 

I don't determine truth through surveys.  The fact is, LDS understanding of the kingdoms of heaven was indeed from "some other source."  It is simply our point to show that it does not contradict with the Bible.  You yourself said that there could be many kingdoms in heaven, so you agree that there is no contradiction.

 

That is what we have been proclaiming from the inception of our church.  The degrees of glory understanding came from a revelation, or vision, given to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon on Feb 16, 1832 and is written down in D&C 76.  Before this revelation, we interpreted the bible the same as you.  With new light, comes new understanding however.

 

Indeed, the question of contradiction hinges on the definition of kingdom. 

 

If kingdom is just another word for room or mansion that doesn't limit our connection with God the father directly, then I don't see a contradiction. 

 

If kingdom is defined as a separate location where some are separated from God the father even still, then there is a contradiction with the very core of Jesus' message that all sin was taken by him, for the express purpose of reconciling us to God, directly. Separation would indicate that all sin wasn't taken away by him, because separation only occurs as a result of sin. 

[Kenngo1969]

It doesn't. If someone thinks it does, then the problem isn't a contradiction, but something else. 

OK.  No offense, but that seems to me to be the rough equivalent of peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining; to each, his own.

[Kenngo1969]

If the text contradicts itself, then yes, perhaps it's not reliable. But, that's not the only option. It also might not be translated correctly. Or conveyed correctly through history. 

Isn't the functional effect of "not translated correctly" or "not conveyed correctly" the same as "the text contradicts itself"?  Any way you slice it, whatever the reason, that means we don't have the correct text.  What difference does it make if we say we don't have the correct text because the Bible wasn't "translated correctly," or if we say we don't have the correct text because it wasn't "conveyed correctly," or if we say we don't have the correct text because the Bible "contradicts itself"?  And when you posit that, in some instances, the Bible wasn't "translated correctly, you realize that's consistent with LDS doctrine, right (see Article of Faith 1:12), right?  Just sayin'!  

[teddyaware]

Isn't the functional effect of "not translated correctly" or "not conveyed correctly" the same as "the text contradicts itself"?  Any way you slice it, whatever the reason, that means we don't have the correct text.  What difference does it make if we say we don't have the correct text because the Bible wasn't "translated correctly," or if we say we don't have the correct text because it wasn't "conveyed correctly," or if we say we don't have the correct text because the Bible "contradicts itself"?  And when you posit that, in some instances, the Bible wasn't "translated correctly, you realize that's consistent with LDS doctrine, right (see Article of Faith 1:12), right?  Just sayin'!  

 

It must be remembered that from the Book of Mormon point of view, the main problem with the Bible's translation is that -- according to Nephi -- whole sections of the original sacred prophetic writings were deliberately removed ("kept back") from the Bible by designing men who were under the influence of dark spiritual forces. Compare the opening chapters of the Bible's Genesis with the Book of Moses and one can catch a glimpse as to just how much original sacred writing was likely deliberately left out of the Bible. The Book of Moses makes it clear that Moses, for example, had a thorough and complete understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, an extremely important fact that could easily be missed if one were to rely only on the King James rendering of Genesis.

 

So the main problem with the Bible is not with the accuracy and truthfulness of its present contents, but with the fact that whole sections containing profound Gospel doctrine were intentionally left out of the prophetic record.

 

34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb. (1 Nephi 13)

[Kenngo1969]

It must be remembered that from the Book of Mormon point of view, the main problem with the Bible's translation is that -- according to Nephi -- whole sections of the original sacred prophetic writings were deliberately removed ("kept back") from the Bible by designing men who were under the influence of dark spiritual forces. Compare the opening chapters of the Bible's Genesis with the Book of Moses and one can catch a glimpse as to just how much original sacred writing was likely deliberately left out of the Bible. The Book of Moses makes it clear that Moses, for example, had a thorough and complete understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, an extremely important fact that could easily be missed if one were to rely only on the King James rendering of Genesis.

 

So the main problem with the Bible is not with the accuracy and truthfulness of its present contents, but with the fact that whole sections containing profound Gospel doctrine were intentionally left out of the prophetic record.

 

34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb. (1 Nephi 13)

Thanks for your response.  I wonder if danielwoods has any response to the points I raised.

[danielwoods]

Isn't the functional effect of "not translated correctly" or "not conveyed correctly" the same as "the text contradicts itself"?  Any way you slice it, whatever the reason, that means we don't have the correct text.  What difference does it make if we say we don't have the correct text because the Bible wasn't "translated correctly," or if we say we don't have the correct text because it wasn't "conveyed correctly," or if we say we don't have the correct text because the Bible "contradicts itself"?  And when you posit that, in some instances, the Bible wasn't "translated correctly, you realize that's consistent with LDS doctrine, right (see Article of Faith 1:12), right?  Just sayin'!  

 

 

Similar. Not to be offensive, but the LDS article of faith comes across to me as a blanket excuse for dismissing parts of the text, whether or not there is evidence that it wasn't translated correctly or not. 

 

The statement that the "Bible contradicts itself" indicates that there is something unreliable about the Bible itself (even if it was all intact and understood in context). So, my response is to that accusation specifically. I agree with you, that my answer is similar to yours. 

[ERayR]

Similar. Not to be offensive, but the LDS article of faith comes across to me as a blanket excuse for dismissing parts of the text, whether or not there is evidence that it wasn't translated correctly or not. 

 

 

And you would be incorrect.  Not to be offensive, but you again demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the Mormon position.

Edited December 19, 2014 by ERayR

[Canadaigua]

And you would be incorrect.  Not to be offensive, but you again demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the Mormon position.

The LDS position IS that the Bible has been corrupted as is not to be trusted in many places--especially if the passage in question contradicts the official LDS position.  Right?

[ERayR]

The LDS position IS that the Bible has been corrupted as is not to be trusted in many places--especially if the passage in question contradicts the official LDS position.  Right?

 

Are you really looking for clarification or are you simply looking to tell me what I believe?

[danielwoods]

And you would be incorrect.  Not to be offensive, but you again demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the Mormon position.

 

I'm unclear how one can "completely" misunderstand this statement?       "..as far as it is translated correctly"

What did I miss?

My reaction is more to how this statement is used by those I interact with. It's used more as a blanket statement, that covers anything that disagrees with the LDS viewpoint. And also is Teddy's above, where things were "taken out…" of the text, supposedly. 

"Following the evidence" is my modo. I will agree that sometimes things are mis-translated, and praise God we have near original copies, in the original language to double check the translations. As far as things taken out… not a whole of evidence of that. We do have evidence of things being added though.

[ERayR]

 

I'm unclear how one can "completely" misunderstand this statement?       "..as far as it is translated correctly"

What did I miss?

My reaction is more to how this statement is used by those I interact with. It's used more as a blanket statement, that covers anything that disagrees with the LDS viewpoint. And also is Teddy's above, where things were "taken out…" of the text, supposedly. 

"Following the evidence" is my modo. I will agree that sometimes things are mis-translated, and praise God we have near original copies, in the original language to double check the translations. As far as things taken out… not a whole of evidence of that. We do have evidence of things being added though.

 

". . .but the LDS article of faith comes across to me as a blanket excuse for dismissing parts of the text, whether or not there is evidence that it wasn't translated correctly or not."

 

Your conclusion is inaccurate. 

 

. . .and praise God we have near original copies, in the original language Prophets and Other revealed scripture to double check the translations

Edited December 19, 2014 by ERayR

[Calm]

Are you really looking for clarification or are you simply looking to tell me what I believe?

Given what he has posted in the past, is this an actual question or just rhetorical?

[Calm]

 

we have near original copies….

How do you know this?  Could it not that what we have are copies of some heavily edited writings of the originals?  How could you tell the difference if all the evidence one had was of copies of these copies?  

Edited December 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Having a different interpretation of the verses rarely means "dismissing the text" in my experience.  Dismissing the text would be ignoring it, not trying to find nuances or even explaining it in a contorted way (which is not what LDS do imo).

 

That you describe what LDS do as "dismissing the text" is probably indicative of why ERayR sees you as completely misunderstanding how LDS approach the scriptures….all of them.