Is Mormonism compatible with the Bible?

[Katzpur]

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... 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

What you appear to be saying (I’m basing this on your use of the phrase “as opposed to&#8221 is that you see it as impossible that God could be “spirit” and also have a corporeal body. We don’t believe that to be the case at all. We see the spirit (whether it be ours spirits or God’s spirit) as a life force which can either reside within a corporeal body or fully independent of such a body. And yes, Joseph Smith did say that God has a body of flesh. He was referring to physical form. When the Bible says that God is spirit, it is referring to the essence of God’s being (i.e. His spirit). With respect to whether God has or does not have a corporeal body, the Bible simply doesn’t say one way or the other.

We would also agree that heavenly bodies are different from early bodies, but you have not provided any scripture which states exactly what the difference between heavenly bodies and earthly bodies is. You have said that a heavenly body cannot be flesh, but that is only your interpretation of what is actually stated in scripture.

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

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?

The phrase “flesh and blood” is found seven times in the Bible (at least in the KJV, I don’t know for sure about other translations). Five of these instances are in the New Testament. You have cited one of them (1 Corinthians 15:50). In every single one of these instances, the phrase clearly is just another way of saying “mortal man.” I suspect you’d agree with me on that. There is also one place in the New Testament where a similar but slightly different phrase is used (Luke 24:39): In that verse, the phrase “flesh and bones” is used by Jesus Christ to call His Apostles attention to the fact that He was not merely a spirit, but a being of flesh and bones. “Flesh and bones” is used here to denote corporeality. 1 Corinthians 15:50 says, in effect, that “flesh and blood” (i.e. mortal man) cannot inherit God’s kingdom. It does not say that “flesh and bones” (i.e. a corporeal being) cannot do so.

I realize that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus merely manifest Himself to His Apostles with a corporeal body, and but that He really had not been “physically” resurrected. We Mormons would disagree with you on that. We believe that Jesus Christ was physically resurrected. His body, which had been laying for three days in a tomb, was given new life when His spirit (which He had commended into His Father’s hands shortly before dying) re-entered that body giving it new life. And so it will be when we, too, are resurrected. Our spirits will re-enter our bodies, giving us new life. That is not to say – and I thought I’d made this clear in my prior post – that our body will not have changed in the process. It will have changed extensively. It will, for one thing, be perfect. No one will be crippled; no one will be blind; no one will be physically deformed. Secondly, our bodies will never again be subject to injury, disease, the effects of aging or death. They will be made immortal, meaning that our spirits will never again leave. “Corporeal,” in other words, is not a synonym for “mortal.” The two words should not ever be used interchangeably nor are they mutually exclusive. Unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons believe there is such a thing as a corporeal/physical but mortal body and there is also such a thing as a corporeal/physical immortal body. From the time a person is born until he dies, he has a corporeal/physical mortal body (an imperfect body that cannot enter the kingdom of God). From the time of his resurrection on throughout eternity, he has a corporeal/physical immortal body (a perfect body that can enter the kingdom of God).

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.

Well, for starters, the Times and Seasons was a 19th century periodical and has never been considered canonical. Whether God the Father once lived on an earth or not (and note: even the Times and Seasons does not say “this earth&#8221 is something I am simply not interested in debating. It is something many Mormons believe to be the case. It is something that many other Mormons (myself included) are unwilling to either accept or reject. In either case, the Bible doesn’t deal with anything that took place prior to “the beginning,” that is, to the beginning of the creation of our universe. If God ever had existed as a man on some other earth in some other universe, it would have been prior to “the beginning” – during a period of time not even mentioned in the Bible. But once again, since what the Times and Seasons has to say on the subject cannot be supported anywhere in the LDS canon, I’m just not interested in speculating.

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.

Actually, Mormons and most (not all) other Christians believe the spirit is eternal. Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the few who believe that the spirit perishes at death. (The recent thread I started on the subject didn’t elicit much interest, though.) If you would like, we can explore this further. I definitely do believe that the idea that the spirit is eternal is taught in the Bible, though, and I know a great many non-Mormons who would agree with me on this.

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

Yes, we believe that God intended marriages to be eternal. I don’t believe 1 Corinthians 7:39 contradicts that at all. I have actually addressed this particular subject in detail on this forum. If you'd like, I can try to find what I wrote on it previously.

 

[Pegg]

What you appear to be saying (I’m basing this on your use of the phrase “as opposed to&#8221 is that you see it as impossible that God could be “spirit” and also have a corporeal body. We don’t believe that to be the case at all. We see the spirit (whether it be ours spirits or God’s spirit) as a life force which can either reside within a corporeal body or fully independent of such a body. And yes, Joseph Smith did say that God has a body of flesh. He was referring to physical form. When the Bible says that God is spirit, it is referring to the essence of God’s being (i.e. His spirit). With respect to whether God has or does not have a corporeal body, the Bible simply doesn’t say one way or the other.

you might be surprised, but the bible does actually say that God does not have a body:

Hosea 11:9 I shall not express my burning anger. I shall not bring E′phra·im to ruin again, for I am God and not man, the Holy One in the midst of you;

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man that he should tell lies, Neither a son of mankind that he should feel regret

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time...

1Timothy 1:17 Now to the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, [the] only God, be honor and glory forever
Colossians 1:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation

John 4:24 God is a Spirit (Lit. “A Spirit [is] the God.” Gr., Pneu′ma ho The′os)

Isaiah, in speaking about those who craft images/icons for use in worship, he asks a good question which shows there is nothing on earth which can represent what God looks like... there is no physical form for Gods appearance because he is a 'spirit' in the sense of being an invisible force like wind (spirit means blow/breath)
Isaiah 40:18 And to whom can YOU people liken God, and what likeness can YOU put alongside him?

There are absolutely no verses in the bible which say that God has ANY physical characteristics. The only characteristic is 'spirit' and 'invisibility' which tells us that God is a 'metaphysical' being.

We would also agree that heavenly bodies are different from early bodies, but you have not provided any scripture which states exactly what the difference between heavenly bodies and earthly bodies is. You have said that a heavenly body cannot be flesh, but that is only your interpretation of what is actually stated in scripture.

There are plenty of scriptures, but if you dont use the meaning of the word 'spirit', then i guess the meaning can get lost.

Spirit (Heb ruach/Gr Pneuma) really does mean 'breath/blow'... In hebrew, ru′ach is often rendered as “breath.”
In Greek, Pneuma is sometimes rendered as 'wind'. You may notice a similarity in the greek word pneuma and pneumonia.... pneumonia is a serious breathing condition which can be fatal because it stops people from breathing.

With that in mind, when Paul said at 1Cor 15:44 "It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one"
It means that if there is a physical body (flesh/bone) there is also a body of pneuma... which is breath/wind... or an invisible body...a metaphysical body. It is a body not made of matter but made of a force which cannot be seen with the eyes, just as wind cannot be seen with the eyes.

The phrase “flesh and blood” is found seven times in the Bible (at least in the KJV, I don’t know for sure about other translations). Five of these instances are in the New Testament. You have cited one of them (1 Corinthians 15:50). In every single one of these instances, the phrase clearly is just another way of saying “mortal man.” I suspect you’d agree with me on that. There is also one place in the New Testament where a similar but slightly different phrase is used (Luke 24:39): In that verse, the phrase “flesh and bones” is used by Jesus Christ to call His Apostles attention to the fact that He was not merely a spirit, but a being of flesh and bones. “Flesh and bones” is used here to denote corporeality. 1 Corinthians 15:50 says, in effect, that “flesh and blood” (i.e. mortal man) cannot inherit God’s kingdom. It does not say that “flesh and bones” (i.e. a corporeal being) cannot do so.

yes i agree, however context has to be considered too.
When Jesus appeared to his disciples, they were in fear thinking they were seeing an apparition or a ghost....to assure them they were not seeing an apparition, he said look i have flesh and bones. Spirits can appear in bodies of flesh. The OT has accounts of angels who have appears in human form...they can do that. But it doesnt mean that they return to heaven and live up there in bodies of flesh.

I realize that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus merely manifest Himself to His Apostles with a corporeal body, and but that He really had not been “physically” resurrected. We Mormons would disagree with you on that. We believe that Jesus Christ was physically resurrected. His body, which had been laying for three days in a tomb, was given new life when His spirit (which He had commended into His Father’s hands shortly before dying) re-entered that body giving it new life. And so it will be when we, too, are resurrected. Our spirits will re-enter our bodies, giving us new life.

Ok, well here then is another point which differs to what is written in the bible:

1Peter 3:18 Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit

I just have to ask you what you specifically mean by 'spirit will re-enter our bodies' ... because when we die, our bodies rot and decay and evetually return back to dust. So how is it that spirit 're-enters' them? When does it re-enter?
This also kind of goes against the bibles clear words that the body 'returns to dust'
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Job 34:15 All flesh will expire together, And earthling man himself will return to the very dust.

Ecclesiastes 3:20 All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust.

Actually, Mormons and most (not all) other Christians believe the spirit is eternal. Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the few who believe that the spirit perishes at death. (The recent thread I started on the subject didn’t elicit much interest, though.) If you would like, we can explore this further. I definitely do believe that the idea that the spirit is eternal is taught in the Bible, though, and I know a great many non-Mormons who would agree with me on this.

well we do agree that the spirit is eternal because it issues from God and the bible says that God is eternal.... naturally the spirit is also eternal.

I think were we differ is that the spirit does not originate with man. It is a force given to man while he is alive... but when the man dies, the spirit returns to God. It has nothing to do with man and his personality/intelligence or consciousness. It is simply a force which God can use to sustain our life.

When God created the man, he first created the physical body out of matter which came from the dust of the ground
Genesis 2:7 And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground...
So he created this body...it is not yet living, it is just a body with blood/bones/organs and it is yet to become animated. Next God puts the spark into the man which brings him to life and gets all the blood and organs functioning so that the man can be animated
...and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul

Where the spirit comes into it is that everything God has created in the universe is said to have been through his spirit... in Vs 2 we are told 2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force (spirit) was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.
This includes the animal creation, the plants, the motions of the planets and the man. And that is why the spirit does not belong to the man...its not something inherent to us...its something which issues from God and so it returns to God everytime something dies.

Yes, we believe that God intended marriages to be eternal. I don’t believe 1 Corinthians 7:39 contradicts that at all. I have actually addressed this particular subject in detail on this forum. If you'd like, I can try to find what I wrote on it previously.

Can a marriage be ended in mormonism?

 

[Katzpur]

you might be surprised, but the bible does actually say that God does not have a body:

Hosea 11:9 I shall not express my burning anger. I shall not bring E′phra·im to ruin again, for I am God and not man, the Holy One in the midst of you;

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man that he should tell lies, Neither a son of mankind that he should feel regret

And you too may be surprised, but I'm every bit as familiar with those verses as you are. And neither of those verses are saying, "God does not have a body." They are both referring to the character of God. And the character of God is perfect. He has no human flaws or failings. In that regard, He is unquestionably God, and not man.

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time...

Colossians 1:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation

Nobody has seen Him except for Adam, Moses, Jacob, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, seventy of the elders of Israel and Stephen. I know you will likely say that He merely manifest Himself to appear in human form, and I realize there is nothing I can do to change your mind on that. You need to realize that there is nothing you can do to convince me that God had to take on some kind of a temporary form.

There are absolutely no verses in the bible which say that God has ANY physical characteristics. The only characteristic is 'spirit' and 'invisibility' which tells us that God is a 'metaphysical' being.

Of course there are. He is said to have a face, legs, feet and backparts. You just don't believe we should be taking those verses literally, and I do. When Stephen looked into Heaven and saw the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of God, He saw both the Father and the Son. Both of them occupied space and Stephen was able to distinguish one from the other.

That we are literally created in the image of God is made clear in Genesis. The entire first chapter of Genesis is dealing with the physical creation of the earth and its inhabitants.

Verses 24 and 25 (KJV) state:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Verses 26 and 27 continue:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Verses 26 and 27 seem to have a direct correlation to verses 24 and 25. It's hard for me to imagine that someone who had never been told that God doesn't have a form would read those verses for the first time and come to any conclusion other than God created dogs who would reproduce and bear dogs, cats who would reproduce and bear cats, and humans who would reproduce and bear humans.

In our image, after our likeness. And that's exactly what happened. In Genesis 5:3, we're told:

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth...

The same words exactly (except reversed from "in our image, after our likeness" to "in his... likeness, after his image") are used when referring to man reproducing after his kind.

I suspect that most people reading the Bible would assume that Adam had a son who bore a physical resemblance to him, at least to the degree that they were "the same kind" of being.

There are plenty of scriptures, but if you dont use the meaning of the word 'spirit', then i guess the meaning can get lost.

Spirit (Heb ruach/Gr Pneuma) really does mean 'breath/blow'... In hebrew, ru′ach is often rendered as “breath.”
In Greek, Pneuma is sometimes rendered as 'wind'. You may notice a similarity in the greek word pneuma and pneumonia.... pneumonia is a serious breathing condition which can be fatal because it stops people from breathing.

With that in mind, when Paul said at 1Cor 15:44 "It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one"
It means that if there is a physical body (flesh/bone) there is also a body of pneuma... which is breath/wind... or an invisible body...a metaphysical body. It is a body not made of matter but made of a force which cannot be seen with the eyes, just as wind cannot be seen with the eyes.

Sorry, but I disagree. When Jesus first appeared to His Apostles after His resurrection, they were afraid because they thought they'd seen a spirit. Well, they couldn't have very well have seen a spirit if a spirit is, by definition, invisible. Besides, you're talking here of the word "spiritual," which, yes, is formed from the root word, "spirit." But if someone is said to be "a truly spiritual person," that definitely does not mean he's invisible.

Spirits can appear in bodies of flesh. The OT has accounts of angels who have appears in human form...they can do that. But it doesnt mean that they return to heaven and live up there in bodies of flesh.

You know what... this is going absolutely nowhere. First off, I never said that angels have bodies of flesh. And last I knew, we weren't even talking about angels. Let's leave this one for another time, okay?

Ok, well here then is another point which differs to what is written in the bible:

1Peter 3:18 Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit

I just have to ask you what you specifically mean by 'spirit will re-enter our bodies' ... because when we die, our bodies rot and decay and evetually return back to dust. So how is it that spirit 're-enters' them? When does it re-enter?

If you believe God created our bodies from dust once, why do you not believe He could do the same thing a second time? Mormons believe the physical body will be resurrected, made whole, perfect and immortal. We believe God is fully capable of re-creating us out of dust when the time comes for us to be resurrected. As a matter of fact, we believe that Jesus Christ was the first to be resurrected and that all mankind will ultimately be resurrected -- physically.

This also kind of goes against the bibles clear words that the body 'returns to dust'

Yes, it does. But that's the miracle of the resurrection. God created us out of dust, we return to dust. But God is capable of renewing our bodies, to give life to that which is dead, just as was the case with Jesus when He was resurrected.

I think were we differ is that the spirit does not originate with man. It is a force given to man while he is alive... but when the man dies, the spirit returns to God. It has nothing to do with man and his personality/intelligence or consciousness. It is simply a force which God can use to sustain our life.

I don't understand what you're saying. We don't believe the spirit originates with man any more than you do. We believe that the spirits of each and every one of us were created by God and placed into our physical bodies, giving us life.

When God created the man, he first created the physical body out of matter which came from the dust of the ground. So he created this body...it is not yet living, it is just a body with blood/bones/organs and it is yet to become animated. Next God puts the spark into the man which brings him to life and gets all the blood and organs functioning so that the man can be animated
...and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul...

...And that is why the spirit does not belong to the man...its not something inherent to us...its something which issues from God and so it returns to God everytime something dies.

Yes, we believe that, too. But we see the spirit (life) as something which does not return to God dead. It returns to God alive and fully cognizant.

Can a marriage be ended in mormonism?

Yes.

You know, Pegg, it all gets down to which verses of the Bible you want to take literally and which ones you interpret metaphorically or figuratively. It is impossible to take the Bible 100% literally or 100% figuratively. If you try, you just run into one contradiction after another. Everybody who believes the Bible finds themselves in the same situation. You do and so do I, and unless we can agree as to what we should be taking literally and what we should be interpreting figuratively, we simply are bound to disagree on various doctrines.

 

[Pegg]

You know, Pegg, it all gets down to which verses of the Bible you want to take literally and which ones you interpret metaphorically or figuratively. It is impossible to take the Bible 100% literally or 100% figuratively. If you try, you just run into one contradiction after another. Everybody who believes the Bible finds themselves in the same situation. You do and so do I, and unless we can agree as to what we should be taking literally and what we should be interpreting figuratively, we simply are bound to disagree on various doctrines.

what i dont understand is that if the bible says for example, 'the soul dies', how can it be interpreted to mean that the soul does not die?

of if the bible says 'no man has seen God at any time', how can it be interpreted to mean that many men have seen God at various times? (I mean, God even told Moses that he could not see his face and live... if God knows it is physically dangerous for us to view him, then he is not going to put us in danger by appearing before us.)

or if it says 'Jesus was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit', how can it be interpreted to say he was made alive in the flesh?


I think this demonstrates that really, if we get down to the nity gritty of it, no matter how you think the verses can be interpreted differently, they still say something different to what you interpret them to say.
And that was really the point of this thread, it was to compare the teachings of the mormon church with the teachings found in the bible. And the mormons are not the only church who interpret verses differently to what is actually written so its no reflection on you guys alone... but for this reason i cannot believe that mormonism restored any of Christs true teachings....it is just too contradictory to what we find in the NT.

 

[McBell]

what i dont understand is that if the bible says for example, 'the soul dies', how can it be interpreted to mean that the soul does not die?

of if the bible says 'no man has seen God at any time', how can it be interpreted to mean that many men have seen God at various times? (I mean, God even told Moses that he could not see his face and live... if God knows it is physically dangerous for us to view him, then he is not going to put us in danger by appearing before us.)

or if it says 'Jesus was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit', how can it be interpreted to say he was made alive in the flesh?


I think this demonstrates that really, if we get down to the nity gritty of it, no matter how you think the verses can be interpreted differently, they still say something different to what you interpret them to say.
And that was really the point of this thread, it was to compare the teachings of the mormon church with the teachings found in the bible. And the mormons are not the only church who interpret verses differently to what is actually written so its no reflection on you guys alone... but for this reason i cannot believe that mormonism restored any of Christs true teachings....it is just too contradictory to what we find in the NT.

I to find it rather interesting how people can take some verses and make them mean the exact opposite of what it actually reads.

Or go to great lengths to add meanings to verses that the verses are scratching their heads going " how the hell did you get that?"

What is even more interesting is when someone does this from a version of the Bible rewritten specifically for their sect.

 

[Pegg]

What is even more interesting is when someone does this from a version of the Bible rewritten specifically for their sect.

the JW's held to these teachings even when the KJV was our primary bible version.

And the verses i quoted are found in many other translations too:

ie, the soul can die Ezekiel 18:4

ASV Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

KJV Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

ESV Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: (A)the soul who sins shall die.

Orthodox Jewish Bible
Behold, all nefashot are Mine; as the nefesh (soul) of the av, so also the nefesh of the ben is Mine; the nefesh that sinneth, it shall die

 

[McBell]

the JW's held to these teachings even when the KJV was our primary bible version.

And the verses i quoted are found in many other translations too:

ie, the soul can die Ezekiel 18:4

ASV Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

KJV Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

ESV Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: (A)the soul who sins shall die.

Orthodox Jewish BibleBehold, all nefashot are Mine; as the nefesh (soul) of the av, so also the nefesh of the ben is Mine; the nefesh that sinneth, it shall die

also gotta love the count the hits and ignore the misses technique that you have mastered.

you talk crap about how this and that does not line up with your favorite interpretation of the Bible but give not one shred of credible evidence that your favorite interpretation is the one and only correct interpretation.

You do the very things you whine about with your own rewritten version of the Bible.
making you no better than those you whine about.

Perhaps you should start with your own backyard before you complain about the backyards of others being in the same condition?

I seem to recall a verse from the NT about planks and splinters....

 

[Pegg]

also gotta love the count the hits and ignore the misses technique that you have mastered.

you talk crap about how this and that does not line up with your favorite interpretation of the Bible but give not one shred of credible evidence that your favorite interpretation is the one and only correct interpretation.

You do the very things you whine about with your own rewritten version of the Bible.
making you no better than those you whine about.

Perhaps you should start with your own backyard before you complain about the backyards of others being in the same condition?

I seem to recall a verse from the NT about planks and splinters....

meh, ok

 

[Ingledsva]

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



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

LOL! I misread the title.

However, he is a Mormon that studied at Brigham Young University - And went on proselytizing missions with the church.

I'm guessing he, like my Mormon relatives, knows what the church is teaching.

 

[InChrist]

LOL! I misread the title.

However, he is a Mormon that studied at Brigham Young University - And went on proselytizing missions with the church.

I'm guessing he, like my Mormon relatives, knows what the church is teaching.

Interesting, you have Mormon relatives. Are they close relatives? No wonder you have an interest in Mormonism.

 

[Ingledsva]

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

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.

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. )

As I said I have heard this from MORMONS!

Apostle James E. Talmage

"To become perfect as God is perfect is to attain the state, power, dignity, and authority of godship. Plainly there is a way provided by which the child of God may follow the footsteps of the Father, and in time—sometime in the distant eternities—be as that Divine Father is. Even as Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh, endured the experiences of mortality, passed the portals of death and became a resurrected Being, so the Father before Him had trodden the same path of progression from manhood to Godhood, and today sits enthroned in the heavens by right of achievement. He is the Eternal Father and with Him, crowned with glory and majesty, is the eternal Mother. They twain are the parents of the spirit-children for whose schooling in the lessons of mortality this earth was framed. ... Eternal exaltation is the assured attainment of those who obey in its fulness the whole law of the Gospel of Christ; theirs it is to become like unto their Celestial Parents.
"Then shall they be Gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be Gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:20). (The Essential James E. Talmage, edited by James P. Harris, pp. 132-133)

 

[Katzpur]

However, he is a Mormon that studied at Brigham Young University - And went on proselytizing missions with the church.

I'm guessing he, like my Mormon relatives, knows what the church is teaching.

Okay, and obviously I don't.

As I said I have heard this from MORMONS!

I'm not saying you haven't. I'm saying that a lot of Mormons like to fill in the blanks when all of the information on a given subject is not provided for them. Here's why I'm not one of them...

B.H. Roberts: "The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in General Conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appear for our doctrine."

Harold B. Lee: All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. … We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures, and wherever you have an illustration in the scriptures or a revelation in the Book of Mormon, use it, and do not draw from other sources where you can find it here in these books. We call these the standard Church works because they are standard. If you want to measure truth, measure it by the four standard Church works. … If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation. It is man’s own personal opinion, to put it another way; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, you may know by that same token that it is not true. This is the standard by which you measure all truth. But if you do not know the standards, you have no adequate measure of truth.

Joseph F. McConkie: In presenting a lesson there are many ways for the undisciplined teacher to stray from the path that leads to his objective. One of the most common temptations is to speculate on matters about which the Lord has said very little. The disciplined teacher has the courage to say, ‘I don’t know,’ and leave it at that. As President Joseph F. Smith said, ‘It is no discredit to our intelligence or to our integrity to say frankly in the face of a hundred speculative questions, “I don’t know” ’

J. Reuben Clark Jr.: Only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church”. We should not teach our private interpretation of gospel principles or the scriptures.

Elder Spencer W. Kimball: There are those today who seem to take pride in disagreeing with the orthodox teachings of the Church and who present their own opinions which are at variance with the revealed truth. Some may be partially innocent in the matter; others are feeding their own egotism; and some seem to be deliberate. Men may think as they please, but they have no right to impose upon others their unorthodox views. Such persons should realize that their own souls are in jeopardy.”

Wilford Woodruff: I wish to say that in my acquaintance in this Church, I have seen men, from time to time rise up and try to be servants of God. They try to explain things they know nothing about, to make themselves appear clever. There is a great deal of this kind of thing in this age. There was one of the leading Elders of the Church who went before the people and undertook to preach certain principles. Joseph heard of it and desired him to present the doctrine to him in writing. He wrote it, and when he completed it read it to the Prophet. He asked Joseph what he thought of it. “Why,” said Joseph, “it is a beautiful system, I have but one fault to find with it—” “What is that, Brother Joseph?” Joseph said—“It is not true.” So I say, every little while someone, thinking he is smart, tries to teach something that is not in the Doctrine and Covenants and Church works, and which is not true. … Do not speculate on things you know nothing about, for it will benefit no one.

And finally, from the Church's official website, something I have already posted probably about a half dozen times on RF to date:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

I've said everything I could possibly say on the subject, and you apparently think I'm full of crap. Whatever.

 

[Ingledsva]

Interesting, you have Mormon relatives. Are they close relatives? No wonder you have an interest in Mormonism.

What? No they aren't close relatives. They are shirttail and live down south.

I don't have any particular interest in Mormonism, that is just the subject of this thread, and it brought to mind their proselytizing.

 

[Ingledsva]

Okay, and obviously I don't.

I'm not saying you haven't. I'm saying that a lot of Mormons like to fill in the blanks when all of the information on a given subject is not provided for them. Here's why I'm not one of them...

B.H. Roberts: "The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in General Conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appear for our doctrine."

Harold B. Lee: All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. … We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures, and wherever you have an illustration in the scriptures or a revelation in the Book of Mormon, use it, and do not draw from other sources where you can find it here in these books. We call these the standard Church works because they are standard. If you want to measure truth, measure it by the four standard Church works. … If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation. It is man’s own personal opinion, to put it another way; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, you may know by that same token that it is not true. This is the standard by which you measure all truth. But if you do not know the standards, you have no adequate measure of truth.

Joseph F. McConkie: In presenting a lesson there are many ways for the undisciplined teacher to stray from the path that leads to his objective. One of the most common temptations is to speculate on matters about which the Lord has said very little. The disciplined teacher has the courage to say, ‘I don’t know,’ and leave it at that. As President Joseph F. Smith said, ‘It is no discredit to our intelligence or to our integrity to say frankly in the face of a hundred speculative questions, “I don’t know” ’

J. Reuben Clark Jr.: Only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church”. We should not teach our private interpretation of gospel principles or the scriptures.

Elder Spencer W. Kimball: There are those today who seem to take pride in disagreeing with the orthodox teachings of the Church and who present their own opinions which are at variance with the revealed truth. Some may be partially innocent in the matter; others are feeding their own egotism; and some seem to be deliberate. Men may think as they please, but they have no right to impose upon others their unorthodox views. Such persons should realize that their own souls are in jeopardy.”

Wilford Woodruff: I wish to say that in my acquaintance in this Church, I have seen men, from time to time rise up and try to be servants of God. They try to explain things they know nothing about, to make themselves appear clever. There is a great deal of this kind of thing in this age. There was one of the leading Elders of the Church who went before the people and undertook to preach certain principles. Joseph heard of it and desired him to present the doctrine to him in writing. He wrote it, and when he completed it read it to the Prophet. He asked Joseph what he thought of it. “Why,” said Joseph, “it is a beautiful system, I have but one fault to find with it—” “What is that, Brother Joseph?” Joseph said—“It is not true.” So I say, every little while someone, thinking he is smart, tries to teach something that is not in the Doctrine and Covenants and Church works, and which is not true. … Do not speculate on things you know nothing about, for it will benefit no one.

And finally, from the Church's official website, something I have already posted probably about a half dozen times on RF to date:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

I've said everything I could possibly say on the subject, and you apparently think I'm full of crap. Whatever.

First off I never said you were full of crap - go back and reread that - I was referring to you folks thinking - the PEOPLE that repeat this information are full of crap. You are trying to disprove the information.

Also - as I showed with the quote, - it is very obvious where these ideas are coming from, and it IS NOT people against the church. Mormons are repeating it. As I said.

*

 

[Katzpur]

what i dont understand is that if the bible says for example, 'the soul dies', how can it be interpreted to mean that the soul does not die?

Well, let me try to explain. The Bible says different things in different verses. Matthew 10:28, for instance says, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Evidently someone can kill a person's body but not his soul.

of if the bible says 'no man has seen God at any time', how can it be interpreted to mean that many men have seen God at various times? (I mean, God even told Moses that he could not see his face and live... if God knows it is physically dangerous for us to view him, then he is not going to put us in danger by appearing before us.)

Well, in Genesis 32:30, Jacob said, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Can I explain the contradiction? No, I can't. But since I have to go with the one verse that says "no man has seen God at any time" or the many instances in which we are told of people who did see God, I'll go with the many verses that seem to contradict the one, rather than with the one that seems to contradict the many.

or if it says 'Jesus was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit', how can it be interpreted to say he was made alive in the flesh?

It can be interpreted to mean that He was made alive in the flesh if you believe Him when He pointed out to His Apostles that He had a body of flesh and bones. I could turn the tables and ask you why you think He would have pretended to have a body if He really didn't.

You should know as well as I do, Pegg, that pretty much any point of view a person cares to take on pretty much any given doctrine can be supported by appealing to certain verses and ignoring others. Take a doctrine that neither you nor I believe -- the Trinity. Haven't you had Trinitarians point out to you a million times that the Bible records Jesus Christ as having said, "I and my Father are one"? Of course you have. They will tell you that this means that the Father and the Son are just two different manifestations of a single substance (or some such thing). Sure, the verse can be interpreted to mean what they believe it means, but it doesn't have to be interpreted that way, as you and I both know.

I think this demonstrates that really, if we get down to the nity gritty of it, no matter how you think the verses can be interpreted differently, they still say something different to what you interpret them to say.

Yes, and I can say that they say something different to what you interpret them to say. And so, it appears we're at an impasse. Unless, of course, you want to continue along this completely circular argument which neither of us will ever win.

 

[Katzpur]

First off I never said you were full of crap - go back and reread that - I was referring to you folks thinking - the PEOPLE that repeat this information are full of crap. You are trying to disprove the information.

I am not trying to disprove that people have said such things. I'm merely pointing out that such embellishments are not doctrinal.

Also - as I showed with the quote, - it is very obvious where these ideas are coming from, and it IS NOT people against the church. Mormons are repeating it. As I said.

And as I just said, and as the Church's leadership has said on multiple occasions, they shouldn't be.

"To become perfect as God is perfect is to attain the state, power, dignity, and authority of godship. Plainly there is a way provided by which the child of God may follow the footsteps of the Father, and in time—sometime in the distant eternities—be as that Divine Father is. Even as Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh, endured the experiences of mortality, passed the portals of death and became a resurrected Being, so the Father before Him had trodden the same path of progression from manhood to Godhood, and today sits enthroned in the heavens by right of achievement. He is the Eternal Father and with Him, crowned with glory and majesty, is the eternal Mother. They twain are the parents of the spirit-children for whose schooling in the lessons of mortality this earth was framed. ... Eternal exaltation is the assured attainment of those who obey in its fulness the whole law of the Gospel of Christ; theirs it is to become like unto their Celestial Parents.
"Then shall they be Gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be Gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:20). (The Essential James E. Talmage, edited by James P. Harris, pp. 132-133)

I would say that Talmage has summed it up rather well. I didn't see anything in his comments, though, to imply that Mormons believe they're going to stand before God at some point in the future and have Him dispense out planets to them.

 

[Ingledsva]

Just curious... how long is it?

The large hard copy I have is 2097 pages.

 

[Ingledsva]

The key diffence is the fact that Christianity (and many other religions) are monotheistic, whereas Mormons are polytheistic (tho' they don't always publicize this fact).

Peace,

Bruce

Actually closer to henotheistic.

They believe there are many Gods - but worship one.

Actually the ancient Hebrew were the same.

 

[Ingledsva]

The Urantia book is obviously made up by people with a Christian background as they have some of the same errors that are in the New Testament teachings, - such as Isaiah 14 being about Satan rather then the King of Babylon.

You may be right. Your source?

I read it.


They use Christian mythos throughout, including error such as Isaiah 14 being about Satan/Lucifer, rather then a King of Babylon.

 

[Ingledsva]

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 have always wondered why Mormons do this?

This would be taking away the decisions the people made for themselves in life.

If such existed - I would be one angry "shade" because you even tried it.