Is Mormonism compatible with the Bible?

[Father Heathen]

The Bible warns that there are different versions of Jesus, which are false, yet sadly people believe in false christs and false gospels.

But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! 2 Corinthians 11:3-5

And what exactly makes her perception and portrayal of Christ the "false" one, and your perception and portrayal of Christ the "true" one? If anything, the vast majority of Christians hold political views that run contrary to the teachings of Christ (greed, lack of compassion, bigotry, etc.), and obsess over a few specific sins in particular while paying no mind to others (especially their own).

 

[dawny0826]

As a baha'i, you should know better.

Amen to that!

 

[InChrist]

Like our regular churches (a.k.a. chapels, ward houses, and meeting houses), our temples are places where we go to learn and to worship. Unlike our regular churches, they are places where only those who have demonstrated their willingness to live their lives according to a particular standard of worthiness are allowed. In other words, you might think of a temple as sort of an “institute of higher learning” with respect to spiritual knowledge. It is in our temples that we make covenants with God, a covenant being a two-way promise or mutual agreement. Consequently, we believe that when we keep the promises we make in the temple, God will in turn grant us certain blessings. We refer to this covenant-making ceremony as the Endowment. We believe that both the covenants and the blessings associated with them to be eternal in nature. Much of what takes place in our temples serve to unite families, not only for this life but for the next life as well.

Most people who have not been inside an LDS temple imagine that it must look much like a cathedral inside. After all, from the outside, there is a certain resemblance. In our temples, however, there is no one large room like the nave of a cathedral. Rather there are many rooms, each designed for a specific function. There are, for instance, fourteen rooms in the Salt Lake Temple that are used exclusively for marriages. We call them “sealing rooms” because we believe that marriages performed in our temples “seal” (i.e. “bind” or “unite&#8221 a couple and their posterity together forever.

A Latter-day Saint temple wedding is beautiful. The couple kneels together and holds hands across a velvet and lace covered alter. When the individual officiating pronounces them husband and wife, he states that their marriage will endure “for time and all eternity” as opposed to “until death do you part” or "as long as you both shall live." On either side of the room there are large mirrors, directly across from one another. If you have ever looked into a mirror reflecting another mirror, you have, of course, seen an image which appears to go on forever. This is, of course, symbolic of the covenant we make in the temple when we marry there.

Another important and unique function of our temples is to enable us to do vicarious work for those of our ancestors who have gone before us. This work would include baptism, the endowment and eternal marriage. We are prohibited from discussing the details of these ordinances with those who have not participated in them themselves. As a matter of fact, they are so sacred to us that we don't even talk about them among ourselves outside of the temple.

I believe there are currently 140 operating LDS temples throughout the world, with several more having been announced or now under construction. Whenever a new temple is completed, the public is invited to tour the building – from the dressing rooms in which Church members will change into white clothing (symbolic of purity) prior to participating in temple worship to the always breathtakingly beautiful Celestial Room. Missionaries are on hand to answer questions and help visitors understand the purpose of each room. These open houses typically are held for a period of a few days to a few weeks, depending upon the anticipated interest of the people in living in the area. Once the open house concludes, the temple is dedicated as a “House of the Lord.” From that point forward, only temple recommend-holding members of the Church are permitted to enter the building.

Not all members of our Church have proven themselves worthy of the blessings the Temple offers. The fact that a person is a baptized member of the Church doesn’t mean that that individual is committed to living up to the required standard of obedience that entrance to the temple requires. All Latter-day Saints are, however, encouraged to strive for that commitment and worthiness. Every individual wishing to participate in temple worship must meet with his or her bishop or one of his counselors every two years to be issued a “Temple Recommend.” (These three men are the leaders of an individual LDS Ward, or congregation – much like a parish.) The individual will be asked a series of questions, some of which are:

Do you believe in God, the Eternal Father, in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost?

Do you have a firm testimony of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Do you sustain President Thomas S. Monson as Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and as the only individual holding the Keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth today?

Do you pay a full tithing? (This would be 10% of our income.)

Do you strive to attend your Church meetings?

Are you morally clean? (To us this means no pre-marital or extra-marital sexual relations of any kind.)

Do you live the Word of Wisdom? (This is our health code which prohibits alcohol, tobacco, stimulants and illegal drugs.)

Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?

Is there anything in your relationship with members of your family that is amiss? (Spouse or child abuse would disqualify a person from getting a recommend.)

After this interview, the individual must meet with a member of his Stake Presidency. The stake president and his counselors preside over about six to eight wards, making a stake roughly equivalent to a diocese. He asks the individual the same questions previously asked by the bishop. If the individual is able to honestly answer them, attesting to his desire and worthiness to enter the temple, he is given a Temple Recommend, which he must carry with him whenever he goes to the temple and present there for admittance.

Temple recommend-holding members of the Church are encouraged to go to the temple as often as their personal circumstances (primarily distance from a temple) permit. The temple is a peaceful, beautiful refuge from the world. There is no "cult-like garbage" going on it it.

When I was in my twenties I met some very nice LDS people and became good friends with them. Later I invited the Mormon missionaries over and went through several meetings hearing the presentation of the gospel of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I was then baptized by my friend who was an elder. I attended a small congregation called a chapel because it was not large enough to be a ward. I taught a few classes in the Women’s Relief Society and also some Primary children’s classes. I met with the bishop and stake president, and having fulfilled all the requirements necessary to receive a temple recommend I shortly thereafter made my first visit where I had my endowments and was sealed to my husband in a temple marriage.



I believe the temples ordinances are cult-like, strange, and very unbiblical. Nowhere does the Bible instruct or even hint that a believer in Jesus Christ must meet certain requirements to be worthy to grow or progress in their relationship with Christ or should ever participate in any kind of secret initiation rituals to be exalted to a higher spiritual state. The initiation rituals of the endowment ceremony in the Mormon temple are very similar to those of the Masonic Lodge. They include washings and anointings, putting on temple under garments with symbols sewn on them (which are from then on always to be worn), receiving a secret name, learning special handshakes and tokens, wearing special clothing, aprons, veils( for women), hats(for men) during the ceremony. Many of the details of the temple ordinances have been changed since I was in the temple many years ago, but I believe these kinds of esoteric practices are pure occultism and forbidden by the scriptures because they are dangerous and an affront to God. When I was in the temple I did not find it beautiful, the many rooms felt like a maze,I felt trapped and found it oppressive. I didn’t fully understand it all, but I could sense an inner voice loudly speaking in my thoughts that the things taking place were evil and not at all inspired by God. I couldn’t wait to get out.


As you stated there are over 140 Mormon temples. The historical biblical accounts all indicate there was only one temple at a time. It was in Jerusalem and it never involved the kind of practices which occur in Mormon temples.


P.S. I personally knew of families in the LDS Church where despite situations of child molestation and domestic abuse the men still held temple recommends.

 

[Brickjectivity]

12. Mormonism is inconsistent with the Bible.

Hi, Katzpur. It is an honor. I do not often criticize the Mormons (LDS), but I notice that you continue to seek converts from people who consider themselves Christians, Catholics and Orthodox. This is one inconsistency. It is related to the most important one:

Joseph Smith declared all the churches of his day to be so corrupt that he was miraculously called to start a proper one. This is inconsistent with Jesus teachings. 1. Jesus knew and anticipated his disciples would fall away almost immediately after he left. 2. Jesus prayed that the church would be perfected, and 3. then he left us fully expecting his Father to complete the church without him. 4. There was no long process of corruption in the Church or fatal mistake made but an immediate fall, 5. and the church was to be rebuilt by the Father without human intervention. 6. That was why Jesus left in the first place! He didn't leave so that another man could finish. He said the Holy Spirit would come. 7. A man-made church would be counter to everything Jesus had hoped would take place, therefore Joseph Smith's miraculous calling to correct the course of the church is inconsistent with Jesus teachings.

 

[InChrist]

And what exactly makes her perception and portrayal of Christ the "false" one, and your perception and portrayal of Christ the "true" one? If anything, the vast majority of Christians hold political views that run contrary to the teachings of Christ (greed, lack of compassion, bigotry, etc.), and obsess over a few specific sins in particular while paying no mind to others (especially their own).

I believe it is not a person's perception or portrayal of Christ which determines the true or false Christ. It is the scriptures alone which define who the true Jesus Christ is or who He is not. I have no disagreement with you that many who call themselves Christians hold views and live contrary to the teachings of Christ...sad to say.

 

[Pegg]

Nothing in Mormonism contradicts anything in the Bible (at least to no greater degree that the Bible contradicts itself ). At first glance, certain LDS doctrines may appear to contradict Biblical doctrine but when one takes the time to examine both of them, this is not the case.

I would like to offer some more examples so that you can discuss individually,

I already mentioned 'God is a spirit' as opposed to the mormon teaching that God has a fleshly body. I understood that you interpret that verse to mean that 'God is life' which is what the word 'pneuma' can be interpreted as. However, Joseph smith specifically says that God has a body of flesh. So he's not talking about 'life' but physical form. This is not what the bible says about the heavenly 'bodys'...
It is clear from the following scripture that heavenly bodies are different to earthly bodies...they cannot be of flesh:
1Corinthians 15:40 And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort

It is also clear that when a person is raised to heavenly life, their body is 'changed' from a mortal body of flesh into something different:
1Corinthians 15:50 However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality
This idea of the body being changed also has backing in Jesus words about being 'born again'... He said unless one was “born again” he could not see the “kingdom of God.”
If the body is the same flesh, then why all this talk about fleshly bodies not being able to go to heaven, rather it needs to be changed? What is it being 'changed' into if it is still flesh and bone as Joseph smith teaches?



Another difference is this: Times and Seasons of August 15, 1844: “It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”
The bible does not present this idea that God was once a man. The bible is clear that the first man on earth was Adam...he was created by God who resides in heaven:
Genesis 1:1 1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens (cosmos) and the earth
The heavens were created first, then the earth...the last of Gods physical creations was the man Adam
Genesis 1:24 And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds,...26 And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image

1Cor 15:45 ‘The first man Adam became a living soul.’



Moromonism also teachings that mankind have an immortal spirit that lives on after the death of the body.
The bible teaches that when the man was brought to life, he was created from dust and God breathed spirit into his lungs to bring him to life. And when Adam died, he was told he would 'return to dust' Genesis 3:19
And the 'spirit (life) would return to God' who gave it. Ecclesiates 12:7
This does not make room for Adam to continue to live as a spirit person...just as he did not live as a spirit person before he was created from dust.



Mormons also believe that a marriage union is eternal in duration and extends beyond death. This is due to the immortal spirit belief.
The bible says that death annuls the marriage union.
1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound during all the time her husband is alive. But if her husband should fall asleep [in death], she is free to be married to whom she wants, only in [the] Lord

 

[InChrist]

12. Mormonism is inconsistent with the Bible.

Right in the beginning of the Book of Mormon there is a contradiction of God's Word in the Bible. Chapters 1 and 2 of Nephi portrary Lehi as a mighty prophet of God, who after mush danger leaves Jerusalem.

For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed. 1 Nephi 1:4 Book of Mormon


By looking at the above passage it is seen that Lehi is said to have lived in Jerusalem during the reign of Zedekiah, according to the Book of Mormon. Then by looking at the Bible in 2 Kings 24:17-18, Zedekiah is said to have reigned for 11 years from about 600 B.C. until his reign ended with the fourth siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. By this time Daniel and Ezekiel had already been taken captive to Babylon in the 1st and 3rd siege. According to the biblical account Jeremiah was the only prophet left in Jerusalem during the reign of Zedekiah and all the others were false prophets...
Jeremiah 2:8;5:31; 6:13; 8:10; 14:14; 23:16; 23:21; 27;14-17; 29:8-9


All these scriptures highlight warning given to the people not to listen to any of the prophets because they were telling the people that they would not have to serve the king of Babylon. But the LORD had already said through Jeremiah that they would serve Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon (Jeremiah 27). In Jeremiah 28 the false prophet Hananiah, in rebellion to the LORD, gave a message in contradiction to Jeremiah. Because of his rebellion and false words Hananiah was put to death by God (Jeremiah 28:16-17).



At this same time in Jerusalem, according to the Book of Mormon, Lehi was a prophet giving a message to the same people of Jerusalem telling of destruction and captivity, yet it is claimed in the Book of Mormon that Lehi was instructed by the Lord to take his family and depart from Jerusalem.


God did not deliver Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah or the people of Jerusalem from captivity, but clearly and repeatedly said in His word that it was His plan for all the people to serve the king of Babylon. If the account in the Book of Mormon about Lehi is true, does this not show that he was in direct disobedience to God by leaving Jerusalem and refusing to be taken captive by the king of Babylon? Or doesn't it more accurately show that the Book of Mormon starts right off in contradiction to the Bible?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

While I wouldn't call it condemnation exactly, there is that passage in the Epistles where Paul says that a presbyter/elder/bishop (the term varies depending on the translation) should be "the husband of one wife."

When polygamy was allowed generally by the LDS Church, did they interpret this passage to mean that certain higher offices in the church were off-limits to men with more than one wife?

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.

Hypothetical scenario:

- a man and a woman enter into a "celestial" marriage.
- the woman dies.
- the man remarries, entering into another "celestial" marriage with another woman.

Has the first wife been forced into polygamy in Heaven?

Well, I'll tell you what... Since their are Mormons in your extended family, you have a source you obviously considered more knowledgable and trustworthy than I am. Why don't you ask them to show you anywhere in the "Standard Works" (i.e. the LDS canon) where it is even hinted at what we will "rule planets or some such after the return." I don't know how I could possibly tell you which verses are being tweaked since none of them say anything of the sort.

Here, from a very current official LDS site, are two statements that address these questions specifically:

Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?

Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?

No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).

I realize that our official doctrine isn't anywhere near as imaginative as the parodies of it are, but I'm afraid it is what it is.

Would it be fair to say that this idea is similar to the idea of limbo in the Catholic Church? i.e. something that was never official doctrine, but was a commonly held belief and considered by many to be a reasonable inference from actual doctrine?

We don't publicize it because we don't believe it's an accurate statement. Why would any religion claim to be something they don't actually believe themselves to be? Ask any Muslim whether Christians are monotheistic or polytheistic and see what kind of an answer you get.

This atheist considers Trinitarian Christianity to be polytheistic.

 

[Katzpur]

Hello, Brickjectivity. Nice to meet you.

Thanks for your comments. As is to be expected, I’m sure, I disagree with your belief that seeking converts within the Christian community is inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. Just prior to Jesus Christ’s ascension into Heaven after His resurrection, He commissioned His Apostles to teach “all nations” what He had personally taught them. I don’t believe it’s any stretch of the imagination whatsoever to assume that He would have wanted His gospel accurately taught, that it would have mattered to Him that the purity and clarity of His teachings not to be mingled with or influenced by the philosophies of men. He had, after all, established His Church – or at least He had told His Apostles that this was what He intended to do. If, as His Church grew, some of His followers had been taught certain doctrines that were inconsistent with the uncorrupted truth as He’d taught it, I’m sure He would have hoped that someone would come along and correct them.

Thanks for enumerating your points, by the way. It makes responding to your post so much easier. I’ll take them one at a time.

You say that (1) Jesus knew and anticipated his disciples would fall away almost immediately after he left. Mormons would actually agree with that statement. As a matter of fact, it surprises me to hear you say this, since it’s not something commonly believed among Christians. I don’t think it necessarily follows, though, that He was pleased about this, do you?

You say that (2) Jesus prayed that the church would be perfected. I assume you are referring to His great intercessory prayer as recorded in the John’s gospel account. Again, we would essentially agree with you. It was undoubtedly His desire that His followers become as united in will and purpose as He and His Father were.

You say that (3) …he left us fully expecting His Father to complete the Church without Him. I’m not absolutely sure, but it sounds to me as if you are again referring to His intercessory prayer on behalf of His followers. (Please correct me if I’m wrong about that.) Mormons believe that by the time He offered this prayer, which was very close to the end of His mortal ministry, He had completed the establishment of His Church. He had chosen and ordained twelve Apostles, through whom He would continue after His death to direct that Church. He’d given them the power and authority to act in His name and to do what He himself would have continued to do had He not been imminently facing death. He had laid the foundation and was himself the chief cornerstone. Nothing was left for His Father to do, at least not with respect to completing the establishment of His Church.

You say that (4) …there was no long process of corruption in the Church or fatal mistake made but an immediate fall. I’m not sure exactly how “immediate” you believe this fall was. Do you believe it took place within a few years, a few months, a few weeks or just a few days. “Immediate,” sounds pretty “immediate,” but it’s actually kind of a relative term. Mormons do believe that the fall (or apostasy) did at least begin to take place very shortly after His death. We don’t see it as resulting from a single “fatal mistake” either, but we do believe His Church endured in its intended state for a brief period of time (a matter of a few decades, perhaps), although there was undoubtedly considerable internal strife from pretty much the beginning. We believe that as long as the Apostles were still alive and directing the Church and maintaining the purity of its doctrines, it continued to exist as the same entity established by Jesus Christ himself. After their deaths, however, things changed relatively quickly, and the process by which the gospel message was ultimately modified.

You say that (5) the church was to be rebuilt by the Father without human intervention. We Latter-day Saints would disagree fully with you on this. I personally know of nowhere in the Bible where we are told that this would be the case. I would, however, be willing to consider any passages you could provide that would substantiate this point of view.

You say that (6) that was why Jesus left in the first place! He didn't leave so that another man could finish. He said the Holy Spirit would come. Again, I really don’t know what passages of scripture might have led you to this conclusion, but I am open to a discussion on the subject. We Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was sent here to Earth for a number of different reasons. One of them was to show us, by His example, how we were to treat one another. One of them was to establish His Church (both the institutional and the invisible). One of them was to offer Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, making it possible for us to be forgiven for them and be reconciled to God. By the time He drew His last breath on the cross at Calvary, He had accomplished all He had set out to do. He didn’t leave anything up to His Father or anyone else to finish. He did, however, leave His Church in the hands of the Apostles, and would continue even after His death, to direct it through revelation to them, as the Holy Ghost would facilitate communication between Heaven and Earth.

You say that (7) a man-made church would be counter to everything Jesus had hoped would take place, therefore Joseph Smith's miraculous calling to correct the course of the church is inconsistent with Jesus teachings. We would agree that a “man-made Church” would be counter to everything Jesus had hoped would take place, but then we don’t believe ours is a “man-made Church.” I think that’s where the real difference of opinion is. Since we believe that there was, in fact, an apostasy in the early Church, we believe that only through direct revelation from the Lord to a chosen servant could that Church be re-established. Not too many years prior to the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Roger Williams, who was the pastor of the oldest Baptist Church in America, had said, “[There is] no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor can there be until new Apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking.” Clearly, we believe the Church had to be re-established from the ground up.

We share with the world the gospel of Jesus Christ as we believe it existed shortly after His death. I see that as entirely consistent with what the Bible says we are to do. That doesn't mean that we are asking anyone to completely reject everything they have believed in the past. As M. Russell Ballard, an LDS Apostle has said at the end of his book, “Our Search for Happiness: An Invitation to Understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”: “Please don’t let this opportunity to receive personal revelation from God pass. Consider what I’ve written here. Weigh it carefully. Measure it against the things you believe – and the things you want to believe. Hold fast to all that you know to be true and add to that the fulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Chirst. Take into account what you’ve felt as you’ve read these words. Then put it all to the ultimate test: Ask God. Listen for His answer with your heart, then respond to what you feel.”

 

[Katzpur]

While I wouldn't call it condemnation exactly, there is that passage in the Epistles where Paul says that a presbyter/elder/bishop (the term varies depending on the translation) should be "the husband of one wife."

When polygamy was allowed generally by the LDS Church, did they interpret this passage to mean that certain higher offices in the church were off-limits to men with more than one wife?

I think that anyone who knows anything about either Joseph Smith or Brigham Young knows the answer to that question without my having to tell them. We believe that polygamy was sanctioned for a period of time and that during that period of time, those who were practicing it were not going against any of God's commandments. Thus, they were entirely worthy to serve in any position in the Church to which they were called. Today, as was the case in Paul's day, a Bishop is to be "the husband of one wife." People seem to think that God never "changed the rules" from time to time. The Bible is full of examples where He did just that.

Hypothetical scenario:

- a man and a woman enter into a "celestial" marriage.
- the woman dies.
- the man remarries, entering into another "celestial" marriage with another woman.

Has the first wife been forced into polygamy in Heaven?

Nobody is "forced into polygamy in Heaven." We don't know the specifics of how God is going to handle such situations, but we trust that nobody is going to be hurt in the process.

Would it be fair to say that this idea is similar to the idea of limbo in the Catholic Church? i.e. something that was never official doctrine, but was a commonly held belief and considered by many to be a reasonable inference from actual doctrine?

I suppose that's a reasonably fair comparison. Whenever people are given a limited amount of information, they tend to "fill in the blanks" with whatever they see as logical.

This atheist considers Trinitarian Christianity to be polytheistic.

Of course you do. You haven't been taught all your life that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 and that this is perfectly logical, even if it's not supposed to make an ounce of sense.

 

[ChristineES]

And what exactly makes her perception and portrayal of Christ the "false" one, and your perception and portrayal of Christ the "true" one? If anything, the vast majority of Christians hold political views that run contrary to the teachings of Christ (greed, lack of compassion, bigotry, etc.), and obsess over a few specific sins in particular while paying no mind to others (especially their own).

This is a good answer, FH.

We really don't know which interpretation is the absolute correct or if ANY are the absolute correct one. The important thing should be Jesus, shouldn't it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that anyone who knows anything about either Joseph Smith or Brigham Young knows the answer to that question without my having to tell them.

Yeah, I kinda figured what the answer was before I asked it.

We believe that polygamy was sanctioned for a period of time and that during that period of time, those who were practicing it were not going against any of God's commandments. Thus, they were entirely worthy to serve in any position in the Church to which they were called. Today, as was the case in Paul's day, a Bishop is to be "the husband of one wife." People seem to think that God never "changed the rules" from time to time. The Bible is full of examples where He did just that.

Okay... it seems to me that this Mormon practice (at least among church elders) did go against what Paul said as quoted in the Bible.

To me, this suggests that the real question was whether that instruction was intended to stand for all time. I can't think of anything in the Bible that answers this question one way or the other.

Nobody is "forced into polygamy in Heaven." We don't know the specifics of how God is going to handle such situations, but we trust that nobody is going to be hurt in the process.

So... there is no question that both marriages will persist in Heaven, but we can't say for sure that all the first wives in these situations won't unanimously decide that polygamy is what they would have chosen?

I suppose that's a reasonably fair comparison. Whenever people are given a limited amount of information, they tend to "fill in the blanks" with whatever they see as logical.

Okay. So while it's not strictly doctrine, I think we can see why a non-Mormon could come to believe it's a Mormon teaching.

Of course you do. You haven't been taught all your life that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 and that this is perfectly logical, even if it's not supposed to make an ounce of sense.

I think that's what they call a "mystery".

 

[Brickjectivity]

Just prior to Jesus Christ’s ascension into Heaven after His resurrection, He commissioned His Apostles to teach “all nations” what He had personally taught them. I don’t believe it’s any stretch of the imagination whatsoever to assume that He would have wanted His gospel accurately taught, that it would have mattered to Him that the purity and clarity of His teachings not to be mingled with or influenced by the philosophies of men. He had, after all, established His Church – or at least He had told His Apostles that this was what He intended to do. If, as His Church grew, some of His followers had been taught certain doctrines that were inconsistent with the uncorrupted truth as He’d taught it, I’m sure He would have hoped that someone would come along and correct them.

Thank you, Katzpur. The world as changed, and new obstacles await your church. Opponents from the past have feared, misunderstood and hated 'Mormonism'. Not me. There are a lot of things I don't know about you, but I like you. I don't want you to disappear or to be destroyed. I'm trying to save my own people, but I like Mormons. Now let me do you Mormons a small favor in appreciation for some things your members have done for others.

First, you need to drop the insistence that people can teach 'Purity and clarity of doctrines'. This is an artifact from mid 19th century USA Christology, not a Biblical derivative. People are always wrong whenever we say anything. There is always an error. Jesus did not teach that doctrine would be preserved through strict regimen of study. It is an assumption you have placed upon Jesus (possibly you've based it upon 2 Timothy 2:2), and it is the assumption which Jesus criticized in the Pharisees, sadducee, priests and others. Surely you at least will admit that sometimes you need further guidance. In fact you have admitted it by saying you accept ongoing revelations.

I’m not absolutely sure, but it sounds to me as if you are again referring to His intercessory prayer on behalf of His followers. (Please correct me if I’m wrong about that.) Mormons believe that by the time He offered this prayer, which was very close to the end of His mortal ministry, He had completed the establishment of His Church. He had chosen and ordained twelve Apostles, through whom He would continue after His death to direct that Church. He’d given them the power and authority to act in His name and to do what He himself would have continued to do had He not been imminently facing death. He had laid the foundation and was himself the chief cornerstone. Nothing was left for His Father to do, at least not with respect to completing the establishment of His Church.

I apologize for entering this involved argument while you're already talking to some very advanced opponents, but I will if you will. John 17 is just the tip of an iceberg.

You say nothing was left for his Father to do?

• (Hebrews 2:8) "Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him"
• (Ezekiel 44:26) "After he is cleansed, he must wait seven days"
• (John 5:17) Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."
• (John 16:20) I tell you the truth, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy.

Yes, he is the author and finisher of the faith; but he cannot do anything on his own. Hebrews records that everything is under Jesus, except God. John records that Jesus can do nothing without his Father (God I presume).

You say that (4) …there was no long process of corruption in the Church or fatal mistake made but an immediate fall. I’m not sure exactly how “immediate” you believe this fall was. Do you believe it took place within a few years, a few months, a few weeks or just a few days. “Immediate,” sounds pretty “immediate,” but it’s actually kind of a relative term.

Very immediate.

• (Zechariah 13:7) "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!" declares the LORD Almighty. "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones.
• (Matthew 16:31) Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'
• (Luke 10:3) Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves.
• (Acts 20:30,31) Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

You say that (5) the church was to be rebuilt by the Father without human intervention. We Latter-day Saints would disagree fully with you on this...

Katzpur, you have only just said to me in the same post "Nothing was left for His Father to do, at least not with respect to completing the establishment of His Church." I insist that this "Nothing was left for the Father to do...establishment of His Church" does come from the doctrine which could be called 'The doctrine of no human intervention'. Solomon's temple, for this very reason, was constructed in silence from stones cut not on site back far away in the quarry of their origin. To this Peter refers: (1 Peter 2:5) "...you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." No worker may touch the stones ones they are cut, symbolizing that the human touch is not appropriate. It is most clearly illustrated in the dream interpreted by Daniel in which the kingdoms of humanity are destroyed by a stone made 'Without hands'. This stone Jesus called 'The stone the builders rejected.' (Matthew 21:42). It is the stone upon which you Mormons must break yourselves, or you will be crushed by it. (Matthew 21:44) This stone is also the rock upon which Jesus founded his church, since no man can convince another that Jesus is the messiah but the lesson must be given to them directly by the Father.

• (Matthew 16:18 LDS) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So, yes. The introduction of any ministry after Jesus would bring the touch of a man's hand in, nullifying the doctrine of no human intervention. I do think Mormons can somehow break themselves upon this stone, but it is not up to me by what method. Perhaps you can accomplish it by studying the doctrine of continuing revelation to which you have referred me. At any rate it is not appropriate for one Christian to say to another 'Know the LORD', because Christianity is the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:34, confirmed and referenced in Hebrews 8:11. It doesn't depend upon whether that Christian is a 'Latter Day Saint' or not.

You say that (6) that was why Jesus left in the first place! He didn't leave so that another man could finish. He said the Holy Spirit would come. Again, I really don’t know what passages of scripture might have led you to this conclusion, but I am open to a discussion on the subject.

This is the central mistake, in my opinion, of USA 19th and 20th century Christology (not that I'm a seminarian). I have addressed it, mostly, above. I will just add a few more verses.

• (John 15:15) "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."
• (John 1:13) children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
• (John 1:14) The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You say that (7) a man-made church would be counter to everything Jesus had hoped would take place, therefore Joseph Smith's miraculous calling to correct the course of the church is inconsistent with Jesus teachings. We would agree that a “man-made Church” would be counter to everything Jesus had hoped would take place, but then we don’t believe ours is a “man-made Church.”

I'm not the authority on what your church teaches and am only responding to what I have heard and seen, most of it online. If you don't believe that Joseph Smith's involvement qualifies as human interference, then that is up to you to decide for yourself. I think that most US Christians are on a track which will bring them into a much more Catholic way of thinking where they will indeed break themselves upon the stone as I have described it. This will put them into a superior position to the LDS church, making it irrelevant. At the moment, I admit it is an up and coming organization; but it has reached the limits of preaching without integration. It is obsessed with purity and clarity of doctrines, forgetting that these are the work of the Holy Spirit and follow behind love and faithfulness rather than leading them. I'm telling you you've got to rearrange the order in which you've placed these things, or your church will be as corrupt as you've hoped that it will be pure.

As M. Russell Ballard, an LDS Apostle has said at the end of his book, “Our Search for Happiness: An Invitation to Understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”: “Please don’t let this opportunity to receive personal revelation from God pass. Consider what I’ve written here. Weigh it carefully. Measure it against the things you believe – and the things you want to believe. Hold fast to all that you know to be true and add to that the fulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Chirst. Take into account what you’ve felt as you’ve read these words. Then put it all to the ultimate test: Ask God. Listen for His answer with your heart, then respond to what you feel.”

This "Listen for his answer with your heart" is a redeeming quality, but it is not enough. You have steered away from visible ice, but your ship is about to bump into some beneath the surface. That is what I think, not a prophecy and not a command, condemnation or any kind of cajole.

 

[Ingledsva]

Well, I'll tell you what... Since their are Mormons in your extended family, you have a source you obviously considered more knowledgable and trustworthy than I am. Why don't you ask them to show you anywhere in the "Standard Works" (i.e. the LDS canon) where it is even hinted at what we will "rule planets or some such after the return." I don't know how I could possibly tell you which verses are being tweaked since none of them say anything of the sort.

Here, from a very current official LDS site, are two statements that address these questions specifically:

Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?

Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?

No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).

I realize that our official doctrine isn't anywhere near as imaginative as the parodies of it are, but I'm afraid it is what it is.

It says "all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father."

This would imply a God status and "ruling over" something! Perhaps creating? SO ????

I have a Book of Mormon here somewhere. I guess I'll have to take a look at what it says.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

It says "all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father."

This would imply a God status and "ruling over" something! Perhaps creating? SO ????

I have a Book of Mormon here somewhere. I guess I'll have to take a look at what it says.

*

Part two.

I went to a Mormon site and it said the God of this universe was a man, we are his children and can become Gods just as he - and create and rule over universes - and populate them, etc.

mormondna.org/mormon-beliefs/mormons-planet-die.html

So obviously the people saying they heard you will rule over planets are not just throwing out crap.

 

[McBell]

I went to a Mormon site

Is the site you linked below the "Mormon site" you are referring to here?
If so, you just lost all credibility.

and it said the God of this universe was a man, we are his children and can become Gods just as he - and create and rule over universes - and populate them, etc.

mormondna.org/mormon-beliefs/mormons-planet-die.html

So obviously the people saying they heard you will rule over planets are not just throwing out crap.

yes, cause everyone knows that a personal blog is official church doctrine...

 

[Katzpur]

First, you need to drop the insistence that people can teach 'Purity and clarity of doctrines'. This is an artifact from mid 19th century USA Christology, not a Biblical derivative. People are always wrong whenever we say anything. There is always an error. Jesus did not teach that doctrine would be preserved through strict regimen of study. It is an assumption you have placed upon Jesus (possibly you've based it upon 2 Timothy 2:2), and it is the assumption which Jesus criticized in the Pharisees, sadducee, priests and others.

Okay, I'm not really sure what you're saying, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions before I really understand you. Are you saying, in essence, that truth is relative, and that there is really no such thing as "true doctrine" and "false doctrine"? Do you believe there is such a thing as "absolute truth" and that God wishes us to find it? Or do you see all of the doctrinal disputations between Christian denominations as essentially insignificant?

Surely you at least will admit that sometimes you need further guidance. In fact you have admitted it by saying you accept ongoing revelations.

Absolutely. You'll get no argument from me about that.

I apologize for entering this involved argument while you're already talking to some very advanced opponents, but I will if you will. John 17 is just the tip of an iceberg.

No need to apologize. It's not often I run into an opponent who is civil, open-minded and intelligent. You seem to be all three.

You say nothing was left for his Father to do?

• (Hebrews 2:8) "Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him"
• (Ezekiel 44:26) "After he is cleansed, he must wait seven days"
• (John 5:17) Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."
• (John 16:20) I tell you the truth, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy.

I absolutely did not mean to imply that there is nothing left for the Father to do. I was speaking specifically of the organization of the institutional Church back in the first century. I could not agree more that the Father and the Son are both working tirelessly to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man, and will continue to do so until there truly is nothing left to be done. I meant only that I believe that Jesus Christ did establish His Church, a fully-functional organization. I (we LDS) believe that He ordained individuals to specific callings and left His Church in their hands. We don't believe His life ended before He accomplished that which He set out to accomplish.

Yes, he is the author and finisher of the faith; but he cannot do anything on his own. Hebrews records that everything is under Jesus, except God. John records that Jesus can do nothing without his Father (God I presume).

Mormons would agree that even now, Jesus Christ acts under the authority of His Father. We are recognize the subordination of the Son to the Father.

Very immediate.

• (Zechariah 13:7) "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!" declares the LORD Almighty. "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones.
• (Matthew 16:31) Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'
• (Luke 10:3) Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves.
• (Acts 20:30,31) Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

Okay, well I would agree that an apostasy did begin "very immediately." I don't believe it took place overnight, though.

Katzpur, you have only just said to me in the same post "Nothing was left for His Father to do, at least not with respect to completing the establishment of His Church." I insist that this "Nothing was left for the Father to do...establishment of His Church" does come from the doctrine which could be called 'The doctrine of no human intervention'.

I'm sorry, but I've never heard of the "doctrine of no human intervention" before. It's going to take a little more back and forth discussion between us before I fully understand what it is you're trying to say.

It is most clearly illustrated in the dream interpreted by Daniel in which the kingdoms of humanity are destroyed by a stone made 'Without hands'. This stone Jesus called 'The stone the builders rejected.'

(Matthew 21:42). It is the stone upon which you Mormons must break yourselves, or you will be crushed by it. (Matthew 21:44)

It's interesting that you would bring this up. We Mormons would say that the restored gospel is itself this stone. I can't help but disagree with you that we are in danger of being crushed by it.

This stone is also the rock upon which Jesus founded his church, since no man can convince another that Jesus is the messiah but the lesson must be given to them directly by the Father.

• (Matthew 16:18 LDS) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Again, Brickjectivity, you have kind of lost me. I'm just not sure what you're getting at here. We definitely do believe that the gates of hell would not previl against Christ's Church. Maybe we just understand the phrase "the gates of hell" differently than you do.

So, yes. The introduction of any ministry after Jesus would bring the touch of a man's hand in, nullifying the doctrine of no human intervention. I do think Mormons can somehow break themselves upon this stone, but it is not up to me by what method. Perhaps you can accomplish it by studying the doctrine of continuing revelation to which you have referred me. At any rate it is not appropriate for one Christian to say to another 'Know the LORD', because Christianity is the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:34, confirmed and referenced in Hebrews 8:11. It doesn't depend upon whether that Christian is a 'Latter Day Saint' or not.

I wish I were more familiar with the "doctrine of no human intervention." It's kind of hard for me to comment when I really don't know anything at all about this doctrine. I do believe that God has always used human beings to accomplish His purposes. The Holy Bible, after all, would not exist today, without human intervention. God called righteous men to be His servants anciently, and we believe He continues to do so today. I also believe that it is entirely possible to "know the Lord" without being a Latter-day Saint. I would not ever want to imply otherwise.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not the authority on what your church teaches and am only responding to what I have heard and seen, most of it online. If you don't believe that Joseph Smith's involvement qualifies as human interference, then that is up to you to decide for yourself.

Maybe our disagreement comes about due to a misunderstanding concerning the word "interference." According to Webster (whose definition of the word goes on for a quarter of a column of my unabridged dictionary), the most relevant definition to our discussion would probably be, "to intermeddle; to enter without invitation or right into the concerns of others." Based on that definition, I don't believe Joseph Smith's involvement could be considered "interference." When God called Moses to be a prophet, Moses accepted the call. I don't believe he was interfering in God's will. Likewise, I don't believe Joseph Smith was either. Really, it gets down to whether one believes that Joseph Smith was called by God or not. I do, and you don't.

At the moment, I admit it is an up and coming organization; but it has reached the limits of preaching without integration. It is obsessed with purity and clarity of doctrines, forgetting that these are the work of the Holy Spirit and follow behind love and faithfulness rather than leading them. I'm telling you you've got to rearrange the order in which you've placed these things, or your church will be as corrupt as you've hoped that it will be pure.

Yes, "purity and clarity of doctrines" will probably always be important to the Latter-day Saints.

In Ephesians 4:11-14, Paul states:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..."

In other words, prophets and apostles were an essential part of the Church Jesus Christ established. They were its foundation. It wasn't just the words of the Apostles that would be needed until the Savior's return. It was individuals who held the same authority as the original twelve did and who functioned as they functioned in directing the affairs of the Church. Paul states that without this organizational structure, Christ’s followers would be like children, persuaded first one way and then another, and unable to distinguish between true and false doctrines, being subject to the teachings of those who were crafty and who desired to deceive them. He also pointed out that this organizational structure was to remain in place until we all became united in our faith and knowledge of Jesus Christ. We are clearly not unitied in our faith today. And 2 billion Christians, all claiming to be led by the Holy Ghost currently affiliate with 30,000+ different denominations of Christianity. At any rate, I believe Paul was saying that human beings called by God were always going to be a necessary part of Christ's Church.

Having said that, I wouldn't want you to think we focus on the correctness of doctrine to the exclusion of practicing genuine Christian love and charity. If we were ever to get to that point, I agree that we would absolutely fail in our mission (and by that I mean our mission to serve God, not our mission to gain converts).

This "Listen for his answer with your heart" is a redeeming quality, but it is not enough.

I couldn't agree more. My main point in posting that quote, though, was to point out that we're not asking anybody to give up any truths they already have. We are simply asking that they be open to receiving more.

 

[Katzpur]

It says "all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father."

And that would be correct. I said as much in this post.

I have a Book of Mormon here somewhere. I guess I'll have to take a look at what it says.

You know, that's the most logical thing you've said yet. Let me help you out. Here are links to the three books (other than the Bible) which comprise the LDS canon:

The Book of Mormon
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price

There is a search engine associated with each of them, which should make your research considerably easier.

I went to a Mormon site and it said the God of this universe was a man, we are his children and can become Gods just as he - and create and rule over universes - and populate them, etc.

mormondna.org/mormon-beliefs/mormons-planet-die.html

So obviously the people saying they heard you will rule over planets are not just throwing out crap.

You went to someone's personal blog and you did so because you apparently thought (1) that I was "just throwing out crap" myself, (2) that I am being intentionally dishonest or (3) that I am actually not very well-informed about my religion. I gave you a quote from the official LDS website and you chose to reject it as an accurate source. If the blog you went to had said Mormons believe the moon is made of green cheese, would you have believed that? (Never mind... don't bother answering. )