Mormons Are Christians

I will begin this round addressing Con's remarks.Contradictions - Con makes an unsupported claim that Mormons actively look for contradictions in the Bible, but as this is unsupported, it cannot be considered a trait of Mormonism. As I pointed out before, Mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. Con has admitted that there are errors in the Bible, the only argument is as to the scope of the errors. However, it is impossible to claim that something with errors is error-free, and Con asserts that the Bible, having errors, is still error-free as to doctrine.Can God Be Seen? Con states that 'there are a couple of explanations we can offer'... and this is the core of the resolution. The Bible can be interpreted to have different meanings. Con can claim that John 1:18 is referring to the Father only, but I can claim it refers to God. Furthermore, if the Trinity is one being, then seeing the Son would be seeing the Father.The same applies to Exodus. Con can claim that it was only a figurative representation, and I can claim that it is a literal statement. The fact is, it says 'They saw the God of Israel', so it is impossible for Con to state that it couldn't possibly mean that they saw God. As I said, this is the issue at the core of the resolution. Being Christian doesn't mean agreeing to what others think the Bible means, it means being a follower of Christ and pursuing the truth and discipleship yourself. Furthermore, in Genesis 32:30, Jacob states that he has seen God face to face and lived, while Exodus 33:20 states that 'no man can see me, and live'. Any assertion that these sightings are only of the Son is just a matter of interpretation. This also counter's Con's assertion that perhaps it refers only to seeing God's face, as Jacob saw God face to face.Concluding this point, Con says 'there are plausible explanations'. This is true, there are different ways to interpret the scriptures, and no group has the sole right of interpretation. Con's assertion that to Mormons the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, is not only unfounded, but nothing more than libel, as I have provided the official Mormon declaration that they believe the Bible.Trinity - Con misrepresents the Mormon position. Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, together, are God. They only believe in one God, so they are absolutely not a polytheistic religion. Just as with the concept of the Trinity, there are three characters, and one God. Disagreeing with the interpretation does mean that Mormons don't believe in the Bible.Con seems to believe that the concept of the Trinity is the only possible 'Christian' interpretation, but I assert that it is only one possible explanation, and all attempts at understanding scripture should be considered equal. Otherwise, there could only be one possible true religion, and possibly no true religion at all. Since we don't look at whether or not a denomination's interpretation is correct to call them Christian, we shouldn't look at whether or not Mormon theology is 'correct' to call them Christians. They have just as much right to disagree as to the meaning of the Bible as do Catholics and Protestants.As to the word 'Elohim', the word supports the idea of Trinity just as well as it supports the Mormon theology of the Godhead. One Godhead would be treated with singular verbs. Consider the following sentence: "The board meets today at 3." Speaking of a board of directors, 'the board' is treated as a singular, and the corresponding verb is singular as well. He meets, she meets. Compared to the plural 'we meet, they meet'. Similarly, God is treated with singular verbs.I did provide a link to the Mormon belief of God, or the Godhead.[1] Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct, separate personages, who together are God. It is only important that they believe in only one God, and that fits with the teachings of the Bible.Can Anyone be Christian? First, I will point out the problem with Con saying my argument would support Muslims as Christians. Muslims do not believe in the Bible as written. They do not believe that Jesus is God, that he died and resurrected. They believe he was a promised prophet. This does not parallel Mormon beliefs in the Bible and the Mormon belief that Jesus is the Son of God and savior of mankind.Similarly, atheists would not be considered Christians in this sense either. They would have to believe in what Christ taught, including the gospel, Christ as God and Son of God, and his death and resurrection.If someone uses, however, a different translation of the Bible, who are we to denounce them for it? Which version of the Bible is the correct one? This isn't the issue. The issue is intent and sincerity in following Christ, not whether a person is correct.I would ask Con to cease repeating that Mormons actively seek contradictions in the Scriptures. Mormons believe in the Bible, but are sincere seekers of truth. As such, when they come across contradictory scriptures, they strive to find the real meaning behind it. Con's question about trusting the Bible would apply to himself. If you can't trust the Bible in a minor thing(the age of King Ahaziah, to take an example from Con's argument), how can you trust it in bigger things?Book of Mormon- Just as we don't have original letters for the Bible, we don't have original transcripts(the Golden Plates) of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon also has transcripts from different versions and different languages from the time it was first written, so there is no difference except for Con's double standard. The time period is irrelevant, as neither set of scripture is supported by original manuscripts.Con states that we can prove the Old and New Testaments to be true, but not the Book of Mormon(after all, the Book of Mormon came from supernatural revelation... as did the Bible). If this were true, there would be no reason for anyone to not believe in the Bible. The Bible cannot be proven to be factual and accurate any more than the Book of Mormon. It can only be proven to be consistent with itself since a couple hundred years after the time period about which it writes. This however, is circular logic, trying to prove something with itself. Again, a double standard.The same applies to Con's statement about the plates being taken back. If God would give us the Golden Plates to prove the authenticity, wouldn't He give us the original manuscripts the Bible is based on?The claim of inscribing on metal.Joseph did claim that this was a common practice. The book of Mormon speaks of other sets of metal books[2]. The fact is, a claim that was ridiculous at the time, which has been shown to have been a relatively common practice, is evidence(although not undeniable proof) of Joseph's claim.Con goes on to claim that archaeology has disproven the Book of Mormon, but again, lack of evidence isn't evidence to the contrary. Archaeology used to think that there was no iron worked in the Americas at the time, but we know the Olmecs made iron ore beads. Archaeology used to think that copper wasn't smelted in the Americas at the time, but we know it to be true. The Book of Mormon refers to Barley, and we now know that there was a member of the barley family at the time in the Americas which also has edible seeds. Many things that were at one point 'disproven' have now been proven. This is why lack of evidence doesn't work as proof of absense.ConclusionMormon beliefs line up with biblical scriptures. The only issue Con has is that Mormons don't agree with 'traditional dogma', but I have shown traditional dogma to be only one possible interpretation of the meaning of scriptures. As such, Mormons can, and should be considered Christian.[1] http://www.lds.org...;[2]http://www.lds.org...