Mormons Are Christians

Contradictions I still fail to see how Mormons can claim they believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly, especially since there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible we have today is unchanged doctrinally, and there is no proof that the Book of Mormon was even really given to Joseph Smith. I never admitted there are errors in the Bible, only that there are errors in the translations. The originals texts are inerrant, but because humans aren't perfect and God did not inspire the translating and copying processes, some minor errors crept in. However, due to the overwhelming manuscript evidence that we have, we know to within a 99.99% accuracy what the original texts said. Perhaps it was unfair to claim that Mormons seek out contradictions. However, as to Pro's rejection of the explanations, this does show that the Scriptures are not as respected by Mormons as they are by orthodox Christians. For example, I gave Pro two reasonable explanations, yet the Mormons would apparently reject them and claim that the Scriptures which were literally "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16), cannot be trusted. If there are plausible explanations as to an apparent contradiction, there is no need to reject the explanations out of hand and assume it's an unresolvable contradiction, especially if you claim to respect the book. I agree that being a Christian means following Christ. But Christ constantly taught from the Scriptures. He didn't believe in them insofar as they were translated correctly, He taught from them authoritatively, trusting in the Scriptures, despite the fact that a lot of the Old Testament in Jesus' day was more than a thousand years old. But as you see, Pro has taken the verse in Exodus out of context. Reading it in context, it's pretty clear it is not a contradiction of the verse in John 1. Also, he has taken Genesis 32 out of context. If we read the passage in its context, we see that Jacob was wrestling with a Man, not with God in all His glory. In fact, he was wrestling with the Angel of the Lord, (Hosea 12:4, 5). [1] TrinityI am still unclear on the Mormon position on the Trinity. I did read the link Pro provided. How can there be one God if there are three persons in the Godhead? Either the three persons are not God, and therefore none of them have the ability to create the universe and humankind, or they are all three gods and Mormonism is a polytheistic religion. Is "God" simply a title, like "mayor? " How can there be three persons in the Godhead, if they are not all the same? If they are a Godhead, it would make sense that they are all gods, or are the same God (although in three distinct personalities). Why would anyone be allowed in the Godhead who was not a god? In fact, the link that Pro provided indicates that the Holy Spirit is a God, so that would seem to indicate that it is another god. Or is the Holy Spirit the only god in the Godhead? Adding on to the evidence of the word "Elohim" being plural with singular verbs, we also see in the book of Genesis that God says "let Us make man in Our image. .. " (Genesis 1:26). We also see Jesus (the Son) talking to God (the Father) in the New Testament. They are the same God but different Persons within the Trinity. They have all existed as a Trinity from before the universe began. Elohim was a plural Hebrew word used to describe God as a singular entity. Can Anyone be Christian? Actually, the Muslims believe a similar philosophy about the Bible to Mormons. Mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God, insofar as it is translated correctly. So do the Muslims. [2] The only difference is they can actually tell you what parts of the Bible they believe are intact, and which parts they believe have been corrupted. Using that philosophy, Muslims should also be considered Christians. Also, they don't believe that Jesus is God, but they do only believe in one God, Allah. But then again, Mormons don't believe Jesus is God, just that he's a member of the Godhead (again, does this make him another god, or just a person within the Godhead, and how is this any different from the Trinity)? Pro makes a fallacy by using my argument against me, because I have explained myself. We can trust the Bible in all things because we know to within a 99.99% accuracy what the original texts said, and any errors in the translation are well known nor do they change the meaning of any of the passages. Book of MormonAgain, I don't have a double-standard when it comes to manuscript evidence (of which the Bible has overwhelming, and the Book of Mormon has none). The Book of Mormon may have been translated into many different languages and have different versions, but again it was first "given" in the early 1800's, almost two-thousand years after the events it allegedly describes. This is why it's unreliable: because almost two-thousand years have passed since the events supposedly take place. For the New Testament, we have manuscripts that date back to the second century, a mere one-hundred years after the events took place, plus we have the writings of the early church fathers who knew and learned from Jesus' own disciples to substantiate the writings that we have. Trusting in the Bible is not circular logic, for the reasons already mentioned. The New Testament was composed in the first century A. D. , and in most matters of archaeology, history, etc. it has been proven correct (it's only a matter of time until the matters that haven't are found). This is because the New Testament was actually written when the events were occurring. The Book of Mormon was not (at least there is not proof that it had). The question regarding giving us the original manuscripts is misleading. God did give us the original manuscripts; He did not ask for them back. They have unfortunately been lost to time, but we do have the manuscripts which are as close as we can possibly get to having the originals. Inscribing on metalAccording to the passage given, Smith did not indicate it was a common practice. The entire Book of Mormon is unlikely to have happened and Smith was allegedly translating words inscribed on a plate of metal, so it does not seem unlikely that he would talk about another person in that same apocryphal book as performing the same act as Mormon and Moroni when they inscribed their message on the golden plates. As for the examples from iron and barley, I think there's something to be said for the "lucky guess. " After all, if the Book of Mormon claims there was barley but a "member of the barley family was discovered," that's not really the same thing. If I say, "Hey, I saw Mike at the store yesterday," but I really saw his brother Joe, then I wasn't recounting a true tale. But it's still largely irrelevant. Unless you find these cultures talked about in the Book of Mormon that were using these items, then it hasn't been proven correct. ConclusionI have adequately shown that since the Mormons don't agree with traditional Christian doctrines (in this case the Trinity), they cannot be considered Christians. They don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, as Christians do. The Book of Mormon is an unreliable doctrine of the ancient world. The Mormons are a separate religion and whether or not they are correct, they cannot be considered an orthodox sect of Christianity. Again, I would like to thank Pro for accepting this challenge and debating with me. [1] . http://www.biblegateway.com... [2] . http://www.islamicanswer.org...;