are Mormons Christians?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I've been going to an interdenominational church for 15 years, and I find questions like this very bizarre.

1) What are you asking, exactly?
2) Who is your audience?
3) What is your motive in asking?
4) Are you considering becoming a Mormon?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Mr Fresh,

are you Mormon?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Mr Fresh,

are you Mormon?

Yes.

do you mind responding to the following thread?

Since I go to an interdenominational church, I don't carry around a list of Christians sects that I consider "Christian".  But, just to show that two can play this game, let's put the shoe on the other foot and ask Mormons what their church thinks of other "Christian" sects...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As I said, the Church reads from only the authorized King James Version of the Bible.

The authorized version which Joseph Smith used to plagiarize sections into the Book of Mormon?  The authorized version which was edited on Smith's whims without any other text to translate from?

No to both.

Does that mean you believe Mormon doctrine has a basis in the Old and New Testaments of the bible?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I vote we save ourselves several headaches and shut down this thread before we have to end up debating Mormon doctrine.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Does that mean you believe Mormon doctrine has a basis in the Old and New Testaments of the bible?

Yes I do.

I vote we save ourselves several headaches and shut down this thread before we have to end up debating Mormon doctrine.

It's only going to happen if you start it...

But, if you have examined the issues for yourself and have determined your own path with full confidence, then who am I to stand in your way with questions?  What could you possibly learn from me?  I do not claim that my doctrine is perfect and I'm sure my experience is tiny compared with your church with all its teachers and study courses.

You should be the one who teaches me, for it written, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." (Pro 27:17)

But, if you teach me, I only ask you to follow the example of Jesus when he taught the Sadducees who only accepted a small portion of the canon as scripture.  Jesus was able to teach correct doctrine from the portion of scripture they accepted. So, since I only accept the Old and New Testaments, you’ll have to derive the Mormon doctrine from them and them only, for I will not accept the Book of Mormon as proof.

Agreed?  If so, you can start with whatever topic you desire.  Or, if you prefer, I will present a topic. just as the Sadducees presented a topic to Jesus.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But, if you teach me, I only ask you to follow the example of Jesus when he taught the Sadducees who only accepted a small portion of the canon as scripture.  Jesus was able to teach correct doctrine from the portion of scripture they accepted. So, since I only accept the Old and New Testaments, you’ll have to derive the Mormon doctrine from them and them only, for I will not accept the Book of Mormon as proof.

...I accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God, along with the Old and New Testaments.  They clarify each other and promote Christ-like living.  There are true doctrines (as I believe) that are found in each, and some that are not.  To separate the Book of Mormon from my canon of scriptures would not only separate me from a great strength that I draw from, but it would only almost make a debate worthless.

...Plus, I would hate you to play the part of the Sadducees.  If you want, instead of disproving each other, we could have a discussion on what each of our faiths actually believe.  I leave it to you.

You should know that I also respect the heritage of your Mormon faith.

I think our doctrinal differences stem from the differences of our approach.  If our approach was the same, our doctrines would be closer.

In the examples in the New Testament, I see Christ and the Apostles able to teach Christianity and derive Christian doctrine from the Old Testament, since that was the only scripture they could use to prove their points to their audience.  And, in the case of Sadducees, Jesus was able to derive doctrinal truth by using only the first five books of the Old Testament.

Therefore, I attempt to follow the same pattern:  I make sure I can trace every doctrine of mine throughout the length of scripture.

So, if Jesus and the Apostles were able to use the Old Testament to derive New Testament doctrine, shouldn't every Apostle of God, whether they claim to be Mormon or interdenominational, be able to do the same?  And if Jesus and the Apostles were able to do that with just the Old Testament, how much more should modern day Apostles be able to do that using both the Old and New Testaments?  After all, Christianity is suppossed to be the restoration of the early church, or at least follow the pattern of the early church, and not create a new church, right?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

good it looks like we agree.  So does that mean you can use the New and Old Testaments to derive your doctrine?  After all, seeing that Jesus and the Apostles were able to use the Old Testament exclusively, how much it is to ask of you to use the Old and/or New Testament?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

good it looks like we agree.  So does that mean you can use the New and Old Testaments to derive your doctrine?  After all, seeing that Jesus and the Apostles were able to use the Old Testament exclusively, how much it is to ask of you to use the Old and/or New Testament?

Hrm...I did state that there have been certain truths lost from the Bible.  I think there is a great majority that can be found in the Bible, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that the whole of the doctrine is.  Again, the reason for the Book of Mormon.

lost from the new testament or lost from the old testament?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

lost from the new testament or lost from the old testament?

Each, with so many different translations and therefore different interpretations I don't think this is an unreasonable position.

then when were these Mormon teachings lost from the old and new testaments and who lost them?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

then when were these Mormon teachings lost from the old and new testaments and who lost them?

Jmf, I do not want to rag on the Bible, but if we go down this road it will be seen by non-believers that I am (that's usually the nature of translation arguments).

I am more than willing to concede to you the argument that the bible was corrupted and the Mormon teachings lost from it.  I am simply trying to arrive at a point in time when you believe the bible was intact.  Do you believe the old testament was intact during the lives of Peter and Paul?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Hrmmmm, that was a hard question!    Deserving of a lot of thought.  I would have to say that I do not believe it was intact during Christ's time.  There are many books referred to in the Bible that we don't even know anything about.  Therefore, seeing that the Bible was still in a process of being complied just a few hundred years before Christ, were those lost Books there I would guess we'd see them today.

ok, but even if I shatter a plate on the floor and lose half the pieces, none of the remaining pieces are going to conflict with the orginal plate, correct?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ok, but even if I shatter a plate on the floor and lose half the pieces, none of the remaining pieces are going to conflict with the original plate, correct?

In my opinion, it's hard to make an argument that the Bible would be intact if those pieces are missing.  I do know that with the plate analogy you're referring to the correctness of the Book, ya?  On that note, I'd say that the discrepancies between the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls in itself proves that translation was a problem, even in Christ's time.

So, if pieces were missing and the pieces that remained were corrupted during Christ's time and if the Apostles were aware of the corruption, why did the Apostles dedicate themselves to the public reading of "corrupted" scripture?  And if the Apostles believed it was corrupted, why did they instruct the church to use the corrupted scripture as a litmus test for determining truth?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, if pieces were missing and the pieces that remained were corrupted during Christ's time and if the Apostles were aware of the corruption, why did the Apostles dedicate themselves to the public reading of "corrupted" scripture?  And if the Apostles believed it was corrupted, why did they instruct the church to use the corrupted scripture as a litmus test for determining truth?

Good argument.  My first point would be that, like the Bible today, they had to go with what they had.  I never said that the Bible is corrupted, but it's not perfect.  Reading the Bible, even today again, you have a rather large choice of which translations to choose from.  The existence of the Masoretic Text  and the differing Dead Sea Scrolls only shows that they had the same problem then.

Ok, there are problems with different sections of different translations of the bible.  But which translation or combination of translations of the bible did you use to validate the Book of Mormon was the restoration of what the early church taught?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ok, there are problems with the different sections of different translations of the bible.  But which translation or combination of translations of the bible did you use to validate the Book of Mormon was the restoration of what the early church taught?

I've stated we use the authorized King James Version of the Bible.  The difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon is simply the fact that they took place in different locations.  The people of the Book of Mormon didn't have the privilege of having Jesus' Mortal Ministry.  Again, going off of location, it wasn't the exact same church in the Book of Mormon, they didn't have some of the issues that the Mediterranean church had, but they had different ones.

As far as gospel teachings go, the King James Version of the Bible is closest to the true meaning.

so, then,  although the KJV lacks the full Mormon gospel, I can read the KJV and not find any contradictions between it and the Book of Mormon?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

so, then,  although the KJV lacks the full Mormon gospel, I can read the KJV and not find any contradictions between it and the Book of Mormon?

I didn't say that.  You of all people should know that the Bible is a major subject to interpretation.

granted, but, from your point of view, what source did you use to verify the doctrines of the Book of Mormon were actually what the early church taught?  Obviously, you didn't pick Joseph Smith's translation of the Book Mormon as the standard of truth and disregard any connections to what came before.  So, what was your source of comparison?  Did you compare your interpretation of the KJV with the Book of Mormon and determined there were no contradictions?

Basically, I am asking you to name the bridge (the common denominator) you used in reaching your conclusion that the Book of Mormon was what the early church taught.  Name the bridge so that I can also travel along it.   

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well first I think we would have to decide which doctrines the early church taught, as compared to contemporary religion.  I'll pick one (and I know this is the Doctrinal debate that's been coming, but do you agree to keep it a debate, and not an argument?), I posted this up in a poll that you should have seen, A Pre-Mortal existence.  This is taught by my church, and viewed as something early Christianity taught.

May I assume you do not believe in a Pre-Mortal existence?

is that a doctrine that is common to both the Book of Mormon and the Bible, or is it one that the Bible has lost?  (If it is one that is not in the Bible, then I'll concede the argument, for I have no way to determine its truth since I would be lacking a common denominator.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

May I assume you do not believe in a Pre-Mortal existence?

is that a doctrine that is common to both the Book of Mormon and the Bible, or is it one that the Bible has lost?  (If it is one that is not in the Bible, then I'll concede the argument, for I have no way to determine its truth since I would be lacking a common denominator.)

Good ol' jmf, you don't want to be preached too.   I can understand, but yes I can support this with the Bible.  I know fully well what we're headed into, I must congratulate you on successfully getting me to debate points of doctrine.  Though, I'm doing this to support my beliefs, as found in both the Bible and Book of Mormon.  I do not expect to convert you, and I do not expect you to convert me.  We will discuss points of doctrine, as we see them, yes?

if it is in the Bible, then preach away.  Just give a short description of Pre-Mortal existence and cite the verses of the Bible that support it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Mr. Fresh,

ok, what is the point in knowing that we existed prior to coming to earth?  to where does this doctrine lead?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Mr. Fresh,

ok, what is the point in knowing that we existed prior to coming to earth?  to where does this doctrine lead?

It leads to learning about the Plan of Salvation, there was indeed great reason for all the Sons of God to shout for joy once creation was finished.  This gave us a chance to come to Earth and live our lives.

and how does this knowledge of a previous life that I assume you can't remember affect your actions here on earth?  in other words, what action is prompted by this knowledge?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

and how does this knowledge of a previous life that I assume you can't remember affect your actions here on earth?  in other words, what action is prompted by this knowledge?

Wouldn't it be nice if I could?  Point is I gave scriptures that supported this in the Bible.  Were you born with the full knowledge of Jesus Christ?

Let me ask a few questions regarding this subject:

Why didn't God just create us in heaven?  Why do we have to come to this life to suffer, live in anguish, and for some to reject God?  What is the point of creating Earth?

I meant:  What is the purpose of this doctrine?  What action from you does this doctrine prompt?  If it explains the "full" plan of salvation, does knowledge of this full plan of salvation require you to do anything different?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I meant:  What is the purpose of this doctrine?  What action from you does this doctrine prompt?  If it explains the "full" plan of salvation, does knowledge of this full plan of salvation require you to do anything different?

What is the purpose of this doctrine?
What is the purpose of any doctrine?  For example, what exactly is the purpose of knowing about and believe original sin?

What action from you does this doctrine prompt?
The knowledge of the Pre-Mortal life sets clear and answers the questions that God does indeed have a plan for us on the Earth.

 If it explains the "full" plan of salvation, does knowledge of this full plan of salvation require you to do anything different?
Oh yes, it affirms the very reason we are here, it strengthens the faith and knowledge of the goodness of God.

The purpose of any doctrine (false or true) is to prompt action from the believer. 

The purpose of knowing we inhereted a sinful nature from Adam and Eve is to know:
1) Where sin originated in humans - so that we know we were born into a system of sin
2) That we cannot be sinless - thus we understand we need Grace and renewal

---

Back on the topic of Pre-Mortal Existence - from a Mormon perspective, why did you need to come to earth?  Did you fall from a previous heavenly position by sinning prior to coming to earth and your earthly life is somehow an attempt to recapture that position? 

And at what time did your heavenly life end as compared with your birthdate on earth?  Did your heavenly life end thousands of years ago and you waited in limbo to be born on earth?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The purpose of knowing we inhereted a sinful nature from Adam and Eve is to know:
1) Where sin originated in humans - so that we know we were born into a system of sin
2) That we cannot be sinless - thus we understand we need Grace and renewal

That's not provoking an action; that's providing a belief.  Same thing as what I'm saying.

belief provokes action, but we are saying the same thing

---

No, we lived in a state of not knowing good from evil, we had to come to Earth to gain knowledge.

how do you gain this knowledge on earth that you couldn't gain in your previous life?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

how do you gain this knowledge on earth that you couldn't gain in your previous life?

There was no temptation (as we were in God's presence), no way to do either good or evil.  The state can be compared to Adam and Eve before they partook of the forbidden fruit.

EDIT:  I should clarify, the state of mind of Adam and Eve, not knowing good from evil or having their eyes opened to sin.  The state can not be compared to there being no temptation..as clearly Adam and Eve had temptation.

ok, I understand your explanation why you couldn't obtain it in Heaven, but how did you gain knowledge of good and evil here on earth?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ok, I understand your explanation why you couldn't obtain it in Heaven, but how did you gain knowledge of good and evil here on earth?

Well this is pretty much the purpose of life, religion, and living a Christian life.  Trial and error, sinning and repentance, the scriptures and Jesus Christ.  These are a few things that lead people to gain that knowledge.

Let's take the first murder in the Bible, Cain murders Abel, is this a good or bad thing?  Up until that point that sort of sin had never been on Earth.  Why was Cain guilty?  Simply put because the Lord said so, murder is evil.  Since we have all experienced some sort of sin in our lives we know what good and what is evil.  Our guide to not commit those sins is Jesus Christ.

So God put you on earth so that through sin you might gain knowledge that harms you?  I don't get it.  Why was it necessary to gain this knowledge?  What benefit is there to sinning?

In any case, what kind of being were you before coming to earth?  Were you an angel or some other kind of spiritual being?