Mormons Are Christians

ContradictionsHere is why I don't think we can trust Mormon interpretations of the Scriptures -- they do the work of atheists. They actually look for contradictions because it makes supporting their Book of Mormon and other "canon" documents easier. To them, like with atheists, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent when a genuine Christian would set out to defend the Scriptures as reliable (and they are reliable). It's a wonder the Mormons accept the Bible at all. If you can't trust it in one thing, how can you trust it in anything else?Usually when there's a contradiction, the error is not in the texts but in our understanding. Remember that in 393, the Council of Hippo established the Biblical doctrine as canonical and they certainly didn't see any contradiction in the gospel of John. There are a couple of explanations we can offer to why John 1:18 says "no one has seen God at any time."In order to properly under Scripture, it must be understood in light of itself. If the Scriptures have truly been inspired by God, they cannot err since God is perfect. But one of the most important ways is in context. You can make the Bible say whatever you want by taking verses out of context. In John 1, the apostle is speaking of Jesus, the second person of the Trinity. He refers to Jesus as "the Word." When he refers to Jesus, he refers to the Word (the Second Person of the Trinity) and when he refers to God, he refers to the Father (the First Person of the Trinity). Therefore, God was seen in Exodus (and other sightings), but not the Father. They were seeing the Word before his fleshly incarnation that the entirety of John 1 speaks about. [1] Also notice that there's no indication they actually saw God. In fact, by the context in Exodus 24, only the ground underneath God's feet was described, and even "under God's feet" was probably a poetic device employed to describe what they were seeing; if we read a few verses down, God was represented by a cloud on the mountain.There's also another explanation. Remember that God once told Moses that if he saw His face, He would die (Exodus 33:20). He said "no man may see Me and live." So Moses could only see God's backside. So in John, when John said "no one has seen God at any time," he could also have meant that no one has seen God's face, because no one can see Him and live.There are plausible explanations, but like atheists, to Mormons the Bible (God's Word) is guilty until proven innocent.TrinityIt seems to me, then, that Mormons are a polytheistic religion. Pro claims that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are separate beings, yet he didn't answer my claims about them being separate gods. The Bible says there is only one God, and Jesus was quite clear that He is God, and the Holy Spirit was called God (not a god) in the Scriptures. So either they're three persons but the same God, or they're three separate gods. If they're three separate gods, then the Bible cannot be trusted.While it's true no human can be their own son, Jesus can be God's Son. There are three Persons in the Trinity, the Son being the second. In fact, Jesus wasn't God's Son as we understand procreation. God came to Earth through the virgin Mary. He was a part of humanity because he was conceived through a woman, but he was kept from Adam's sin because He was not conceived by a man, but by the Holy Spirit. God came to Earth, He didn't procreate with Mary to conceive a son.In fact, bringing in the usage of "Elohim" actually helps lend support for the doctrine of the Trinity. It is true that the word "Elohim" is plural, but the verb that accompanies it is always singular. One God, but three Persons. [2]I would ask Pro to please elaborate on the Mormon teaching of the "Godhead." Traditionally, the Godhead refers to the Trinity. Yet Pro doesn't seem to believe that God exists as three Persons, or as three separate gods. I may be misunderstanding, so please elaborate a bit more.Now, the problem with Pro's argument is that just about anyone can be considered a Christian, using his loose definition of the term. If you don't have to accept traditional Christian doctrines to be a Christian, then Jehovah's Witnesses (who use a very bad translation of the Bible to prove their doctrines), Muslims (who accept the Bible but also accept the Qu'ran, which supercedes the Bible when they conflict), or just about any religious person can be considered a Christian. Even atheists who believe we can learn a lot from Jesus could be considered Christians. The Mormons set out to find contradictions in the Scriptures, but if you can't trust the Bible in one thing (even a minor issue), how can you trust it in the larger things?Book of MormonThe example of the letters is not irrelevant. It was meant to illustrate how any errors in the translations still get the true meaning of the words across. Those who allege major errors in the translations simply haven't done their research.I never said the original manuscripts were a requirement, just that we have reliable manuscript evidence (which is more than we can say for the Book of Mormon), and for the New Testament alone most of the manuscripts date back to the second and third centuries, merely a hundred years or so after the originals. However, Joseph Smith was allegedly given the golden plates to translate in 1838, which is almost 2,000 years after the events they depict (Joseph Smith -- History, 1:2).It is true that the argument from silence is usually a fallacy, however in this case I don't believe it is. We're talking about a supernatural revelation here. There's no way to prove Joseph Smith was reading golden plates, but there is ample evidence that the Old and New Testaments are reliable, and they have been used by Jews and Christians ever since they were first written and passed around.In fact, supernatural evidence was used to support the ministries of Jesus and the apostles. When John the Baptist sent his disciples to Jesus to see if He was really the Messiah, Jesus pointed to His miracles -- the blind see, the dead are raised, lepers are healed, etc. (Luke 7:22). In fact, Jesus proved His own resurrection through "many infallible proofs" (Acts 1:1-3). In light of everything, it seems odd that Moroni would ask for the plates back so that the Book of Mormon couldn't be authenticated.The claim of Joseph Smith regarding the inscriptions on the golden plates does not authenticate the Book of Mormon, especially since we don't have the golden plates to verify them. The knowledge of golden plates was irrelevant to Joseph Smith's claims. Smith, himself, did not claim knowledge that inscribing texts on golden plates, or plates of any metal, was a common practice. As far as he knew, those could have been the only metal plates with religious texts in existence. If he had spoken of them as happening more often, then the argument could hold weight. This is telling, because in every instance that an ancient detail was describe in the Bible (such as the existence of the Hittites) was called into question, archaeology has consistently proven it correct. However, the Book of Mormon makes many claims that are disproven through archaeology and history (such as the existence of several animals, technologies, and plants that were not in America at the time these events supposedly occurred).ConclusionIt is unfortunate, but convenient, the golden plates are no longer around to substantiate any of their claims, yet ample evidence exists for the Bible, that it has not been severely mistranslated through the years. Mormons reject core Christian doctrines, and accept religious texts that have no proof as to their authenticity (unlike the Old and New Testaments). It is clear that Mormonism is not a sect of Christianity.[1] http://carm.org...;[2] http://www.answersingenesis.org...