Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Tacenda]

The Mormon Church goes to great lengths to promote these places and restore these buildings to tell their story.

The beginning of Christianity started in Jerusalem and spread throughout the world. Its scripture has a spiritual sense to it that can be discerned by those moved by the Biblical Holy Spirit. As distinguished between the spirit of Mormonism and Christianity.

One doesn't have to visit the actual sites but it is helpful to get a visual of the surroundings one reads about.

Before going to Nauvoo, a year or two before I went to Palmyra, still in search. I can attest that the missionaries at the visitor's centers were awesome. I did notice at one visitor's center they had a museum of the history of the church. It didn't include Sidney Rigdon anywhere, unless I missed it. I thought that was strange. And when we went through the grove I wasn't expecting it to be dark and sort of spooky. And didn't get the spiritual witness I was hoping for, and that I'd heard others having.

[coolrok7]

I understand bias and I understand the Bible, based on that bias which is what I have come to trust in (everyone has a bias to contend with in my experience), it was here long before Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, each who has claims of being a restoration of a lost/distorted Christianity. This is not in dispute with what I know of history.

 

The Bible warns of the coming of false prophets/teachers coming in Jesus' name. It is there I start when considering other religious claims as I was already a believer before being confronted wit the truth claims of these others.

 

I will proceed with what I stated, assuming you are serious with giving me a fair hearing. I've read your previous posts at least wanting Christianity to be true or something to that affect.

 

There are two beginnings referenced in Genesis and John: In the beginning God and in the beginning was the word. . .My beginning was or at least out of the womb on Oct 26, 1950 (conceived more than likely earlier that year or at the end of the previous year).

 

We were a Navy family in which I was introduced to the Biblical stories in base chapels. Eventually we went to Lutheran, Missouri Synod churches. First in San Diego Ca, then in Westminster, Ca. This is where my faith blossomed so to speak. A key year being 1975.

 

The Sunday School class I began attending was in Acts 22 which is the second accounting of Paul's conversion experience, in defense in front of King Agrippa, which he was brought before by the local Jews in conflict with Paul. It had a deep impact on me at the time (already being a believer from an early age). 

Edited December 31, 2014 by coolrok7

[coolrok7]

I appreciate you sharing that Tacenda. A testimony one gains when it comes to religious truth can be different between individuals in which it is to be tested with Biblical Scripture as it teaches.

[Vance]

I have already explained that the different roles that God the Father has than Jesus, and the Holy Spirit for that matter, means that one is greater (in roles) than the other.

I notice that you didn't provide a single verse of scripture for support.  That is because there are no scriptures that support what you posted.  You are just fabricating stuff as you go along.

 

However, there is no difference in essence between the three.

Again, not a single verse of scripture can be used to support this.  You are just fabricating stuff out of thin air.

 

They all share the same co-equal substance of "Godness"

Again, not a single verse of scripture to support this.

 

What isn't taught in the text is the concept of another separate god.

That is EXACTLY what is taught in the Greek of John 1:1.  Jesus was WITH the God and He was divine, that is exactly the concept of a separate god.  The Bible says it, yet you won't believe it.  So again, you don't believe the Bible, and you don't believe Jesus, so why would I expect to be able to convince you of any truth?

[Vance]

For everyone else, this is true. For the one true God, this is not true. 

So the when the exact same language is used to describe persons, it means something totally different than when it is used to describe the three persons in the Godhead?????

 

So, clearly, you have to INJECT SPECIAL MEANING IN!!!!!

 

Well, just where does this special meaning come from, because it certainly does NOT come from scripture? 

[danielwoods]

I notice that you didn't provide a single verse of scripture for support.  That is because there are no scriptures that support what you posted.  You are just fabricating stuff as you go along.

 

 

 

Again, not a single verse of scripture can be used to support this.  You are just fabricating stuff out of thin air.

 

 

 

Again, not a single verse of scripture to support this.

 

 

 

That is EXACTLY what is taught in the Greek of John 1:1.  Jesus was WITH the God and He was divine, that is exactly the concept of a separate god.  The Bible says it, yet you won't believe it.  So again, you don't believe the Bible, and you don't believe Jesus, so why would I expect to be able to convince you of any truth?

 

Notice that the text doesn't state "Separate god." It states that the "Word was with God, and the Word was God." It could have said what you would like it to say, but it doesn't.

[bluebell]

Notice that the text doesn't state "Separate god." It states that the "Word was with God, and the Word was God." It could have said what you would like it to say, but it doesn't.

 

So it says that Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.

 

LDS agree with that completely.  

[coolrok7]

Mormonism teaches that he became a God, not that that He was God.

Edited December 31, 2014 by coolrok7

[danielwoods]

So the when the exact same language is used to describe persons, it means something totally different than when it is used to describe the three persons in the Godhead?????

 

So, clearly, you have to INJECT SPECIAL MEANING IN!!!!!

 

Well, just where does this special meaning come from, because it certainly does NOT come from scripture?

 

Indeed it does. Jesus stated plainly that, "30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (Jn 10)

 

When the LDS read this, they say it says "one in purpose" but that is not what Jesus meant, nor is it what his listeners understood. Notice their reaction. They picked up stones because his statement properly understood in context, was a claim that he was God. Not "a god" not, "one in purpose with God" but the one true God. Jesus didn't correct them either, which he could have. He didn't say, "No, that's not what I meant, I just mean one in purpose." Rather, Jesus defended his position. That "Oneness" is unique to the one true God. What we see when we study the scripture is that Jesus was claiming to be one with the Father, in a very real way, unlike anything we experience as humans, enough so that he is claiming the same essence or Godness that the Father has. 

[bluebell]

Indeed it does. Jesus stated plainly that, "30 I and the Father are one.”

 

Jesus also says how He and the Father are one, and it's clear that they are not one in the way that trinitarianism defines the term-

 

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

 

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." 

 

We are supposed to be one in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one.  According to the doctrine of the Trinity, are you one with other disciples in the same way that Christ and the Father are one?

[bluebell]

Mormonism teaches that he became a God, not that that He was God.

 

The verse you quoted does not contradict LDS theology.  You are adding meaning to it that isn't there by demanding that saying someone is God has to mean they were always God.  The bible doesn't say that though.

 

I am mom.  From the beginning of my children's lives i have been mom.  My mother was with me in the delivery room when I had each of my children so i can honestly say to my children (if i talked like they do in the scriptures) that in the beginning i was with mom, and i was mom.

 

The fact that i became a mom and wasn't created or born one does not contradict that statement.

[Vance]

Mormonism teaches that he became a God, not that that He was God.

CFR!!!!

 

Really????  Can you explain, using authoritative sources, when He was NOT a god/divine being???  Because I don't think you can.

[Vance]

 

Indeed it does. Jesus stated plainly that, "30 I and the Father are one.”

We have been over this before.   So, this is supposed to mean that the Father and Jesus are some sort of mystical "one"??

 

Really?  So if I say that my wife and I are one, that is supposed to mean some sort of mystical "one" as well.

 

How ridiculous!

 

So when the exact same phrase us used with Paul and Apollos in place of the Father and Christ, we are supposed to understand that it means some sort of mystical "one?????

 

1 Cor 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered;  . . .

  8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one:

 

Yup, Paul and Apollos are some sort of mystical "one"

 

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (Jn 10)

 

When the LDS read this, they say it says "one in purpose" but that is not what Jesus meant, nor is it what his listeners understood. Notice their reaction. They picked up stones because his statement properly understood in context, was a claim that he was God. Not "a god" not, "one in purpose with God" but the one true God. Jesus didn't correct them either, which he could have. He didn't say, "No, that's not what I meant, I just mean one in purpose." Rather, Jesus defended his position. That "Oneness" is unique to the one true God. What we see when we study the scripture is that Jesus was claiming to be one with the Father, in a very real way, unlike anything we experience as humans, enough so that he is claiming the same essence or Godness that the Father has.

Again, notice that it is English that distinguishes between "God" and "god" not Greek.  Also notice that Jesus is claiming to be the Son of God, thus making Him a divine being/a god/a God.  It is not the "I and my Father are (PLURAL) one" that caused the problem but rather the claim that God was His Father, thus making Him divine.

[Vance]

  25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.

  26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

  27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

  28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

  29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

 

That right there is sufficient to show that Jesus was claiming a divine status.

[danielwoods]

 

Jesus also says how He and the Father are one, and it's clear that they are not one in the way that trinitarianism defines the term-

 

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

 

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." 

 

We are supposed to be one in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one.  According to the doctrine of the Trinity, are you one with other disciples in the same way that Christ and the Father are one?

 

 

First, understand that this is a prayer. Jesus is praying that his disciples would be one as they are one. It doesn't state that they are actually one in the same way. 

 

Second, it states that the Father is inside Jesus ("you are in me"), and Jesus is inside the Father ("I in you"), and he's praying that his disciples will be one together in them. 

 

Third, the purpose is that the world may believe, which indicates that this isn't something that happens later at the resurrection, this is during their time on Earth. Which means that the oneness that we would achieve would be done in the Spirit. 

 

The conclusion is that our oneness is achieved by the Spirit of God. We are "in Christ" because of his Spirit.   "3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." (Colossians 3)

 

Are we one in the same way that Christ and the Father are one? No. We can only share the attributes of oneness with them, that our limited natures allow us to. Their oneness goes infinitely deeper because of their infinite nature, not being able to share with us finite and created beings. Jesus is the "only begotten" of the Father. We are not begotten, we are created. 

[Calm]

First, understand that this is a prayer. Jesus is praying that his disciples would be one as they are one. It doesn't state that they are actually one in the same way....

 

Are we one in the same way that Christ and the Father are one? No. We can only share the attributes of oneness with them, that our limited natures allow us to. Their oneness goes infinitely deeper because of their infinite nature, not being able to share with us finite and created beings. Jesus is the "only begotten" of the Father. We are not begotten, we are created.

So Jesus was lying in the prayer because when he asked that they be one as he was with his Father he knew it could never be true?

I get that one may interpret things differently, but it seems way beyond that to assume that Jesus didn't mean what he said as you are claiming here.

Did he not say "that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee?". How in any way can that be read as "that they all might only sort of be one, a bit like us, but not that much"?

Are not all things possible for God as the scriptures say?

[Vance]

So Jesus was lying in the prayer because when he asked that they be one as he was with his Father he knew it could never be true?

I get that one may interpret things differently, but it seems way beyond that to assume that Jesus didn't mean what he said as you are claiming here.

Did he not say "that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee?". How in any way can that be read as "that they all might only sort of be one, a bit like us, but not that much"?

Are not all things possible for God as the scriptures say?

Another classic danielwoodsism.

 

It doesn't mean what it says, because he doesn't believe what it says.

[Calm]

I get the confusion over a lot of verses and why a choice was made to go a certain way with them and how now so many assume this is the inspired reading through tradition, etc.

But not with this verse this way.

[danielwoods]

We have been over this before.   So, this is supposed to mean that the Father and Jesus are some sort of mystical "one"??

 

Really?  So if I say that my wife and I are one, that is supposed to mean some sort of mystical "one" as well.

 

How ridiculous!

 

So when the exact same phrase us used with Paul and Apollos in place of the Father and Christ, we are supposed to understand that it means some sort of mystical "one?????

 

1 Cor 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered;  . . .

  8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one:

 

Yup, Paul and Apollos are some sort of mystical "one"

 

 

 

Again, notice that it is English that distinguishes between "God" and "god" not Greek.  Also notice that Jesus is claiming to be the Son of God, thus making Him a divine being/a god/a God.  It is not the "I and my Father are (PLURAL) one" that caused the problem but rather the claim that God was His Father, thus making Him divine.

 

The greek doesn't say (Plural) one. It's simply one. 

 

I agree with you that the whole conversation where he claims that God is his Father, is a claim to his being God. However, the phrase ends with the statement that they are one. No qualifications. They are one. Not one in purpose. 

[danielwoods]

So Jesus was lying in the prayer because when he asked that they be one as he was with his Father he knew it could never be true?

I get that one may interpret things differently, but it seems way beyond that to assume that Jesus didn't mean what he said as you are claiming here.

Did he not say "that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee?". How in any way can that be read as "that they all might only sort of be one, a bit like us, but not that much"?

Are not all things possible for God as the scriptures say?

 

Your final question first. All things are possible with God, even the LDS believe that some will not make it to Heaven, even though It's God's will that all will be saved. Despite that, not all will. So your last question isn't really fair, because even the LDS understand that not everything goes as God would like it to, because of free will. 

 

Jesus is praying that we may be one. He's not saying that he's got all control over our situation, rather, it's dependent on our submission to his will. To that end, we are in Christ as much as we can be due to our limitations. 

 

Let me put it this way. Let's say that we are able to create an artificial intelligent computer. We are able to share with it all sorts of things. We give him/her an identity, and an ability to do all sorts of things that we do. However, we are unable to give him/her the ability to feel emotion, as we humans feel it. In this hypothetical situation, we are limited to what we can share with him/her because of the limitations that are innate in him/her. In this case that limitation prevents emotions. We were able to share many things, but emotion wasn't one of them. 

 

This same principle applies to our situation. We are limited by our human nature. God shares what he can with us, called communicable attributes. Those things he can't share with us, are called non-communicable attributes. The fullness of the Trinity's oneness is one of those non-commuicable attributes. This doesn't mean that we aren't connected with him by his Spirit in a very real, but very mystical way, it simply means that we aren't able to receive the amount of connectedness that they have because we aren't God. We aren't infinite by nature. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

[Calm]

The only reason some won't though isn't because God can't make it possible, but he chooses not to. He desires to save all, but he also desires other things, like justice and mercy and he chooses to not save those who do not desire to be saved.

I get rejecting the "one in purpose". It is not in the verse itself and thus is interpretation. But insisting being one means one thing and then refusing to allow it to mean that very thing you've just insisted it means is obviously inconsistent. Why would something be A and not A essentially in the same sentence. Maybe with a different author in another book a different meaning, but in a sentence that is specifically written to reflect repetition of the term, the relationship, it seems like nonsense to me.

He uses "even as"....I just don't see how that can be consistently interpreted as "not quite as".

PS: reading in context makes for me "one in purpose" a reasonable interpretation, I am not suggesting by saying everyone doesn't have to read it that way, that no one should.

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

The only reason some won't though isn't because God can't make it possible, but he chooses not to. He desires to save all, but he also desires other things, like justice and mercy and he chooses to not save those who do not desire to be saved.

I get rejecting the "one in purpose". It is not in the verse itself and thus is interpretation. But insisting being one means one thing and then refusing to allow it to mean that very thing you've just insisted it means is obviously inconsistent. Why would something be A and not A essentially in the same sentence. Maybe with a different author in another book a different meaning, but in a sentence that is specifically written to reflect repetition of the term, the relationship, it seems like nonsense to me.

He uses "even as"....I just don't see how that can be consistently interpreted as "not quite as".

PS: reading in context makes for me "one in purpose" a reasonable interpretation, I am not suggesting by saying everyone doesn't have to read it that way, that no one should.

 

You are right, the limitation is our nature, in this context, not our will. 

 

We are created, he is not. We are from below (that is the Earth), he is not. We had a beginning (here on Earth), he has no beginning.

 

The interpretation "one in purpose" wouldn't have evoked the response that it did, from those listening, if that is what he meant to say. It's not controversial at all to claim to be one in purpose with God. But to say that the Father and I are one. And leave it at that. That's like saying, "Before Abraham was... I AM". 

[Canadaigua]

You want to play troll, go for it.

I am simply trying to figure out what you meant when you said

 

". . . it is what experience of the Spirit tells me as I study the scriptures that matters to me, not the text itself. . ."

 

Can you help me understand what you were trying to say here?

[Flyonthewall]

You are right, the limitation is our nature, in this context, not our will. 

 

We are created, he is not. We are from below (that is the Earth), he is not. We had a beginning (here on Earth), he has no beginning.

 

The interpretation "one in purpose" wouldn't have evoked the response that it did, from those listening, if that is what he meant to say. It's not controversial at all to claim to be one in purpose with God. But to say that the Father and I are one. And leave it at that. That's like saying, "Before Abraham was... I AM".

Except...as you would say, Jesus did not put any qualifiers on his statement. So if He is using the same language for us being one with Him and God the Father as they are one, then there are no qualifiers. There is no "as much as possible" in there, that is something that is read into it or assumed.

The fact that Jesus is fully human and fully God demonstrates that it can be done.

[bluebell]

First, understand that this is a prayer. Jesus is praying that his disciples would be one as they are one. It doesn't state that they are actually one in the same way.

 

Yes, i completely get that.

 

They aren't one in the same way, but Jesus wants them to be one in the same way that He and the Father are one.

 

Given how trinitarians define the way that Jesus and the Father are one-is it possible for you to be one in the way that Jesus wants you to be in this verse?

 

Are we one in the same way that Christ and the Father are one? No. We can only share the attributes of oneness with them, that our limited natures allow us to. Their oneness goes infinitely deeper because of their infinite nature, not being able to share with us finite and created beings. Jesus is the "only begotten" of the Father. We are not begotten, we are created.

 

 

I'm fine if you believe this, but it doesn't fit what the scriptures say.  If Trinitarians are correct and every time the scriptures say or imply that Jesus and God the Father are one it means one in substance, then according to Trinitarianism in this verse Jesus is praying that His disciples can be one even as He and the Father are one-according to Trinitarians, one in substance.