Is Mormonism compatible with the Bible?

[Katzpur]

Man, oh man, I have been so bored for so long! Thanks to 1robin, I am bored no more! In order not to derail the thread on which his rather inflammatory claims about my religion appeared, I am starting a new thread in which to debate this topic. Here are his original comments:

Look you can believe whatever you wish but do not insist that it is compatible with the Bible. Your faith makes God's out of men and men out of God's, gives them their own planets to rule , justified polygamy, claimed Christ did what he said he would not do, justified racism in the most diabolical and bizarre ways, blood atonement, baptism for the dead and more ridiculous nonsense than I care to get into. Not to mention the cult like garbage that goes on at the Temple that none but seriously committed Mormons even know about. You may believe as you wish and I have no complaint but do when you link my God with yours as many do to attempt to acquire dearly bought legitimacy. Joseph Smith and his followers were ran out of every Christian town they stopped at, follow if you wish but do not get any of that on my religion. I do however admire the focus on family and morality many Mormons have. Thought I would end on a light note. I have no desire to critique you faith but cannot stand to have Christ tangled up with it either.

I am beginning to feel set up. I will officially say that I would not like to offend any Mormons. I actually like them a lot but do so in spite of most aspects of their religion. I have even been to the temple in salt lake but they would not let me into a certain area for some strange reason. Maybe I needed my magic Mormon pajamas or something. I declare that I sincerely hope I am not challenged to critique the religion. On the other hand I will not have Christ drug into something he has very little to do with. Either way it will have to wait until tomorrow and I hope that the issue will be dropped but a little part of me hopes it won't. It is up to whoever it was that said Mormonism is consistent with the Bible.

I can hardly wait to get started. Robin, would you care to elaborate on what you have said in the above two statements? You might start with an explanation of why you would say that "you would not like to offend any Mormons" when you have started out by making the most offensive accusations imaginable. I have no more time to post right now, but I'll be sure to check back tomorrow to see what you have to say. Now, to make the thread a little easier to follow, I'm going to enumerate each of your accusations:

1. Mormonism makes Gods out of men and men out of Gods.
2. Mormonism gives men their own planets to rule.
3. Mormonism justified polygamy.
4. Mormonism claimed Christ did what he said he would not do.
5. Mormonism justified racism in the most diabolical and bizarre ways.
6. Mormonism teaches blood atonement.
7. Mormonism teaches baptism for the dead.
8. "Cult-like garbage" goes on in the Temple.
9. Christ should not be "tangled up with" or "drug into" Mormonism.
10. Mormons do not let non-Mormons into some areas of their Temple in Salt Lake City.
11. Mormons wear magic pajamas.
12. Mormonism is inconsistent with the Bible.

Let the games begin.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Like I said before....opcorn:

It's so good to have you back in the arena again, K. :bounce

 

[Pegg]

Hi Katzpur, I do hope this debate can remain strictly a comparison of Mormon beliefs with biblical teachings...otherwise, you know what happens lol.

anyway, i hope it can remain strictly as a comparison of each.

My first comparison is with regard to what Jesus stated about the nature of God , at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit.”
In the Logan Journal of March 14, 1911 Joseph Smith had this to say: “The thing I want to impress upon you, is that God is real, a person of flesh and bones, the same as you are and I am. Christ is the same, but the Holy Ghost is a person of spirit.”

Is this still the belief today and if so, how is it reconciled with the bibles teaching that God is a spirit?

 

[Katzpur]

Hi Katzpur, I do hope this debate can remain strictly a comparison of Mormon beliefs with biblical teachings...otherwise, you know what happens lol.

anyway, i hope it can remain strictly as a comparison of each.

I hope so, too, Pegg.

My first comparison is with regard to what Jesus stated about the nature of God , at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit.”
In the Logan Journal of March 14, 1911 Joseph Smith had this to say: “The thing I want to impress upon you, is that God is real, a person of flesh and bones, the same as you are and I am. Christ is the same, but the Holy Ghost is a person of spirit.”

Is this still the belief today and if so, how is it reconciled with the bibles teaching that God is a spirit?

I'm leaving to go to my book club, so I won't be able to post any more tonight, but I will respond to your question tomorrow morning.

 

[Pegg]

I hope so, too, Pegg.

I'm leaving to go to my book club, so I won't be able to post any more tonight, but I will respond to your question tomorrow morning.

no worries,

have a good night

 

[Ingledsva]

Man, oh man, I have been so bored for so long! Thanks to 1robin, I am bored no more! In order not to derail the thread on which his rather inflammatory claims about my religion appeared, I am starting a new thread in which to debate this topic. Here are his original comments:





I can hardly wait to get started. Robin, would you care to elaborate on what you have said in the above two statements? You might start with an explanation of why you would say that "you would not like to offend any Mormons" when you have started out by making the most offensive accusations imaginable. I have no more time to post right now, but I'll be sure to check back tomorrow to see what you have to say. Now, to make the thread a little easier to follow, I'm going to enumerate each of your accusations:

1. Mormonism makes Gods out of men and men out of Gods.
2. Mormonism gives men their own planets to rule.
3. Mormonism justified polygamy.
4. Mormonism claimed Christ did what he said he would not do.
5. Mormonism justified racism in the most diabolical and bizarre ways.
6. Mormonism teaches blood atonement.
7. Mormonism teaches baptism for the dead.
8. "Cult-like garbage" goes on in the Temple.
9. Christ should not be "tangled up with" or "drug into" Mormonism.
10. Mormons do not let non-Mormons into some areas of their Temple in Salt Lake City.
11. Mormons wear magic pajamas.
12. Mormonism is inconsistent with the Bible.

Let the games begin.

Well, they certainly don't seem to be compatible.

The Bible does say "Ye are Gods." LOL!

To me, both are man made religions.

 

[Breathe]

Subscribing to an interesting thread.

 

[fantome profane]

I have noticed that people are able to interpret the Bible in ways to make it compatable, or incomparable with anything they wish.

 

[Shiranui117]

Well, they certainly don't seem to be compatible.

The Bible does say "Ye are Gods." LOL!

To me, both are man made religions.

Perhaps we could explore this aspect? Biblical Theosis and Mormon Apotheosis?

I have noticed that people are able to interpret the Bible in ways to make it compatable, or incomparable with anything they wish.

^True dat. Which is why Mormons have other religious texts outside of the Bible, and why the Church, Eastern and Western, places so much emphasis on Apostolic Tradition.

 

[Katzpur]

Hi Katzpur, I do hope this debate can remain strictly a comparison of Mormon beliefs with biblical teachings...otherwise, you know what happens lol.

anyway, i hope it can remain strictly as a comparison of each.

My first comparison is with regard to what Jesus stated about the nature of God , at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit.”
In the Logan Journal of March 14, 1911 Joseph Smith had this to say: “The thing I want to impress upon you, is that God is real, a person of flesh and bones, the same as you are and I am. Christ is the same, but the Holy Ghost is a person of spirit.”

Is this still the belief today and if so, how is it reconciled with the bibles teaching that God is a spirit?

Hello, Pegg. I don't have a lot of time this morning, but I'd like to briefly respond to your question.

We do believe, as is stated in John 4:24, that “God is spirit.” We also believe, as our Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 states, that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also…” To us, these two passages of scripture are not in any way mutually exclusive. This can be explained by a closer look at the word “spirit” and what it actually means.

The Greek word, Pneuma (πνευμ&#945, is translated in John 4:24 as “spirit.” It is translated elsewhere in the Bible (for instance in Revelation 13:15) as “life.” It can also be accurately be translated as “breath.” For this reason, John 4:24 can also be interpreted as “God is life” or “God is the breath of life.” We believe that’s what He is – life itself and the essence or source of all life. He is "life," but this is not His sole defining characteristic. For instance, He is also light and love, as the Bible clearly states. But just as neither of these two words contradicts the other, neither does the fact that God is spirit mean that this spirit cannot or does not inhabit a physical body. Please note: When I say, “physical,” I do not mean “mortal.” God’s body is not mortal. It is, unlike ours, incorruptible. It is not subject to disease, the effects of aging, death or anything of the sort. It is a perfect, glorified, immortal body.

The statement, “God is spirit,” tells us not only what God is, but what He is not. We believe that the word "spirit" is not intended to define his appearance (or lack of appearance). It is intended to convey the fact that He is a living Being, a Being capable of feeling and thinking, not some inanimate object or unfeeling force.

*****

(I do hope that Apex, idea or some of my fellow Mormons will help me out on this thread. There's a lot of material for just one person to cover.)

 

[Katzpur]

Just a quick response to 1robin's first criticism, "Mormonism makes Gods out of men and men out of Gods":

Robin, I see we do have one thing in common -- a respect for C.S. Lewis. You might find his words on this subject to be kind of interesting:

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

We agree with C.S. Lewis 100%. Here are a few more thoughts on the doctrine of "Eternal Progression":

First, though -- a few brief comments regarding what we do not believe. We do not believe that any of us will ever be equal to God, our Eternal Father in Heaven. He will always be our God and we will always worship Him. Furthermore, nothing we could possibly do on our own could exalt us to the level of deity. It is only through the will and grace of God that man is given this potential. And "with God, nothing is impossible."

Throughout the New Testament, there are passages alluding to this doctrine. Romans 8:16-17, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 2:26-27 and Revelation 3:21 are the four I like best. Through these verses, we learn that, as children of God, we may also be His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, even glorified with Him. We might partake of the nature of divinity and be allowed to sit with our Savior on His throne, to rule over the nations.

Now, if these promises are true, as I believe they are, what do they all boil down to? To me, it means that we have the potential to someday, be “godlike.” I see us as "gods in embryo." If our Father is divine and we are literally his "offspring", as the Bible teaches we are, is it really such a stretch of the imagination to believe that he has endowed each of us with a spark of divinity?

There is considerable evidence that the doctrine of deification was taught for quite some time after the Savior’s death, and accepted as orthodox. Here are some statements by some of the most well-known and respected of the early Christian Fathers on the subject:

In the second century, Saint Irenaeus said, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.” He also posed this question: “Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as Gods?” At about the same period of time, Saint Clement made this statement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And Saint Justin Martyr agreed, saying that men are “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” Some two centuries later, Athanasius explained that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.” And, finally, Augustine, said, “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”

Finally, according to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, “Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is made in the image and likeness of God…. It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.”

 

[Katzpur]

I think I have time to address just one more of 1robin's claims -- "Mormonism gives men their own planets to rule." This statement is, of course, closely tied to the first statement (about Mormonism making men gods), and really doesn't even deserve a response when you get right down to it. The reason I say this is because this is not even something that Mormonism teaches. Anti-Mormons (and yes, that's what they are) love to take a Mormon doctrine and tweak it just enough to make it sound completely heretical. To draw an analogy... Take the doctrine of Transsubstantiation (a doctrine to which we do not subscribe). This doctrine teaches essentially that the bread and wine given to believers at communion are literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ. While I do not personally believe this to be the case, I could explain the doctrine as I have, and probably be reasonably accurate in getting the point across, or I could say, "Catholics go to church each Sunday to eat Jesus! Yeah, really! Sounds kind of cannibalistic to me!"

So, with that analogy in mind, I would like to just point out to Robin that nowhere in the LDS canon are we told that we will each get our own planet to rule. This trivialization of a beautiful doctrine is a favorite tactic of organizations (like CARM) with a decidedly anti-Mormon agenda.

We have been told that, as children of God, we can attain our full potential and become like He is. As I explained in my prior post, this is something that He wants very much for us. So what, exactly, does this mean? We don't even claim to know the answer in a great deal of detail. Does it mean we'll each get our own planet to rule? The way I look at it, if I ever become a goddess (this is something I don't even really think about, to be perfectly honest), nobody is going to have to give me a planet to rule. I'll just create my own universe with all the planets I could possibly want. Meanwhile, I'll focus on just being the best person I can possibly be, and on obeying my Father in Heaven's commandments.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This can be explained by a closer look at the word “spirit” and what it actually means. The Greek word ,Pneuma (πνευμ&#945, is translated in John 4:24 as “spirit.” It is translated elsewhere in the Bible (for instance in Revelation 13:15) as “life.” It can also be accurately be translated as “breath.” ...

As is true of the Hebrew term 'nefesh'.

 

[BSM1]

I have a question that's a little off the subject, so I won't be offended if you roll your eyes at me. I was reading about the Melchizedek priesthood and I was wondering if Mormons are aware of The Urantia Book and, if so, do Mormons put any stock in the papers it contains?

 

[Father Heathen]

In my eyes Mormonism is just another christian denomination. Peas in a pod.

 

[ChristineES]

I used to be different, but lately- the past few years- I have come to believe that it is not my place to judge a Christian whether he or she is a Christian or not by any means- not denomination or anything else. To me, a Mormon follows Jesus, believes in God, etc. and is therefore a Christian.

Those Christians who claim "We are the only Christians who believe the truth of Jesus" scare me! Not in the terror type fear, but because I personally believe that Jesus said- in so many words- that if you condemn others, it is the same as condemning yourself.

I say this only in support of my fellow Christians- including Mormons- and not as part of the debate.

 

[Katzpur]

I have a question that's a little off the subject, so I won't be offended if you roll your eyes at me. I was reading about the Melchizedek priesthood and I was wondering if Mormons are aware of The Urantia Book and, if so, do Mormons put any stock in the papers it contains?

Questions like yours don't bother me in the slightest. I would say that there is probably not one Mormon in 10,000 who has ever even heard of the Urantia Book (if that). I have a close friend (LDS) whose daughter married a man who puts a lot of stock in the Urantia Book. She was pretty into it herself (i.e. the daughter) for a period of time, but eventually started attending the Unitarian Universalist Church. We definitely don't use the book ourselves, but we do believe that we are to accept truth wherever it may be found.

In 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball and the First Presidency issued the following statement: “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.”

B. H. Roberts had previously stated: “While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men, it is ONE of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth; yet God is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. He raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them… Whenever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom His Spirit can communicate, lo! He makes of him a teacher of men.”

So I would say that is it not beyond the realm of possibility that some truth might be found in the Urantia Book. You've got me curious now, though. What was the connection between the Melchizedek Priesthood and the Urantia Book that prompted your question.

 

[BSM1]

Questions like yours don't bother me in the slightest. I would say that there is probably not one Mormon in 10,000 who has ever even heard of the Urantia Book (if that). I have a close friend (LDS) whose daughter married a man who puts a lot of stock in the Urantia Book. She was pretty into it herself (i.e. the daughter) for a period of time, but eventually started attending the Unitarian Universalist Church. We definitely don't use the book ourselves, but we do believe that we are to accept truth wherever it may be found.

In 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball and the First Presidency issued the following statement: “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.”

B. H. Roberts had previously stated: “While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men, it is ONE of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth; yet God is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. He raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them… Whenever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom His Spirit can communicate, lo! He makes of him a teacher of men.”

So I would say that is it not beyond the realm of possibility that some truth might be found in the Urantia Book. You've got me curious now, though. What was the connection between the Melchizedek Priesthood and the Urantia Book that prompted your question.

Thanks for the intelligent come back. The Urantia Book starts with an total outline of the hierarchy (for lack of a better term) of the spiritual realm. Melchizedek is discussed in detailed. Without being familiar with the book it would be hard to really have a conversation that would make any sense. If you get a chance you read a little of it. think you would find it interesting at least.

 

[Katzpur]

3. Mormonism justified polygamy.

Yes, it did. And since the Bible never condemns it, I don't see this an an issue.

The Book of Mormon specifically states (Jacob 2:27-30), "Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (emphasis mine)

This is probably a more straightforward statement against polygamy than you will even find in the Bible. But, if you will notice, the final sentence (which I italicized) indicates that while monogamy is to be the norm, there will be times when polygamy is sanctioned by the Lord for the purpose of "raising up seed to Him." In those instances -- that is, when the Lord specifically approves of it -- it is not considered sinful. In other instances, and without the Lord's permission, it is.

Many of the Old Testament prophets had more than one wife. Abraham, of course, was one of the most notable. Do we find any evidence at all that God disapproved of his having more than one wife? No. As a matter of fact, the Bible tells us how greatly Abraham was blessed by God specifically because of his obedience and faithfulness. Among several passages I might have quoted, is this one from Acts 3:25: "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."

If God had been opposed to the practice of polygamy, why would He have given David more than one wife? Why would He have given someone something that was causing him to sin? 2 Samuel 12:7-8 clearly states that it was God's choice that David have more than one wife.

"And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. It was not the fact that David had more than one wife that was sinful. It was that he coveted and committed murder. David already had more than one wife, wives God himself had given him.

There is absolutely no biblical evidence that God was displeased with the practice of polygamy per se. There is not one single solitary verse in which God condemned the practice, except when it was abused and practiced for the purpose of sexual fulfillment. Today most of us find the practice quite abhorent. The source of this abhorrance, however, is quite simply not biblical.

Finally, and I suspect that most people reading this are already aware of this fact, but just to be on the safe side, I just want to point out that even during its height, polygamy was not practiced anywhere nearly as commonly as most people suppose. Only about 5% of Mormon men ever had more than one wife. No one was ever forced in polygamy and polygamous relationships never involved incest or rape. The practice was discontinued well over 110 years ago. It was instituted by commandment from God and rescinded by commandment from God.

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks for the intelligent come back. The Urantia Book starts with an total outline of the hierarchy (for lack of a better term) of the spiritual realm. Melchizedek is discussed in detailed. Without being familiar with the book it would be hard to really have a conversation that would make any sense. If you get a chance you read a little of it. think you would find it interesting at least.

Just curious... how long is it?