Is Mormonism compatible with the Bible?

[Pegg]

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.

there is an alternative to this method

The way the early bible students handled this dilema was that they found an explanation/interpretation which did not contradict either statement. The addage, "The truth is always somewhere in the middle" is a very good principle to apply.

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.

thats exactly right....but its not an honest way to study the scriptures, nor will a person learn anything from doing it like that.
Honestly, what can God teach a person if they are not willing to look at the 'whole' of his word? People read the bible selectively because they already have something in mind which they believe holds true, therefore everything else becomes irrelevant. And that is really just tossing the Word of God aside in favor of ones own beliefs.

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.

Some verses in the bible are clear cut statements of fact...they dont need interpreting.

When Moses wrote "God created the earth'... it was statement of truth and fact. There is no way to reinterpret that verse to mean something else. I believe it is the same with the statements i posted....ie 'Jesus was raised in spirit' and 'No man has seen God at any time"
I dont believe there are any other ways of interpreting these because they are 'statements', whereas an analogy or illustration would need to be interpreted, a statement does not.

 

[McBell]

When Moses wrote "God created the earth'... it was statement of truth and fact. There is no way to reinterpret that verse to mean something else. I believe it is the same with the statements i posted....ie 'Jesus was raised in spirit' and 'No man has seen God at any time"
I dont believe there are any other ways of interpreting these because they are 'statements', whereas an analogy or illustration would need to be interpreted, a statement does not.

and yet people choose to ignore the flat out statement where god claims responsibility for creating evil...
Making all manner of claims to make the verse mean something other than what it flat out says.

It is nothing more than justification for their cherry picking verses technique.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

and yet people choose to ignore the flat out statement where god claims responsibility for creating evil...

Why not start a post exposing that "flat out statement"?

 

[McBell]

Why not start a post exposing that "flat out statement"?

Why not go read the numerous threads on just that topic?

 

[BSM1]

Why not start a post exposing that "flat out statement"?

Isaiah 45:7

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Wrong - but let's not further derail this discussion.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Are there any "Flat out statements" from God That are not at least second person reports?

Even a statement as simple as "God created the Earth" needs interpretation as to how it was done, the process and the time scale, and why that claim is made.
Even if it was a magical instantaneous process, the limits of what was created need explaining.

Often "flat out statements" are in reality unqualified don't knows, where it is simpler to say "God did it"

 

[BSM1]

[

quote=Jayhawker Soule;3249447]Wrong - but let's not further derail this discussion.

[/QUOTE]

Could you elaborate--again?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are there any "Flat out statements" from God That are not at least second person reports?

Even a statement as simple as "God created the Earth" needs interpretation as to how it was done, ...

Actually not. What is minimally required is sensitivity to the differences between asah, bara, and yatzar.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Mormonism like the other Christian religions needed a starting point that could be agreed upon by their membership.

for Mormons this starting point, would seem to be the "Restoration"
Everything else flows from there.

The Books in the "Book of Mormon" are no more mysterious than books in the Bible or even the Quran. They all had Authors. The Book of Mormon is more like the books of Moses and the Quran as they seem to have come down through a single finder/receiver of God's message.

The LDS seem to have taken a very logical process in deriving what they believe about God, themselves, the teachings of Jesus and the afterlife.

There are three main sticking points for "standard format" Christians.

• The first is that it is necessary to "start again" and selectively reinterpret much of what they were taught about the nature of God and the nature of man and the after life.
• They must also find a way of incorporating the "Book of Mormon" into their beliefs (no more difficult than accepting "Revelation" in the Bible)
• accepting a new set of life rules ( not unlike accepting "Kosher" or "Halal ")

On top of that, the converts are presented with a very different format for worship, study, authority and discipline. ( in much the same way as Muslims and JW's devote long periods of weekly study)

None of this makes "Mormonism" in any way unchristian or evil.
Its faith has gone back to the "Basics" of Christianity, reinterpreted what they have found in the light of revelation and prayer, and reestablished a Church of Christ.

Their beliefs are clearly not for everyone.
God in his wisdom has revealed himself to many peoples, who in turn have established many religions to worship him.
The Church of Christ of latter day saints, has been revealed into the family of churches we call "Christian.

 

[BruceDLimber]

As a baha'i, you should know better.

I should know WHAT better than WHAT?

Your statement is grossly unclear.

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

We don't publicize it because we don't believe it's an accurate statement.

So you DENY that the Mormon religion teaches that at least some individual humans (or perhaps only males; I don't know) can become gods?

Because that's exactly my understanding of their belief.

If this is inaccurate, how and why is this so?

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Actually not. What is minimally required is sensitivity to the differences between asah, bara, and yatzar.

Not being "English" words even they need interpretation for most of us,

 

[Katzpur]

Note to all: I am going to be gone all morning, all afternoon and all evening. I will most likely not be able to post anything today at all. I'll be back tomorrow to respond.

 

[savagewind]

Not being "English" words even they need interpretation for most of us,

The words led me to an interesting article. A thread about them would be a good one I think.

"differences between asah, bara, and yatzar."
__________________

 

[dawny0826]

So you DENY that the Mormon religion teaches that at least some individual humans (or perhaps only males; I don't know) can become gods?

Because that's exactly my understanding of their belief.

If this is inaccurate, how and why is this so?

Peace,

Bruce

With all due respect, Katzpur has addressed this and has done so eloquently, in this same thread. See post #11

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3247087-post11.html

I'm not Mormon but I subscribe to the belief that when I pass on, I'm going to be a different type of spiritual being. I won't be the same as I was in the flesh. I will look and be more like God. The "gods" isn't a label used to describe people that become deities. It's a description for that new person that people may become when they pass over.

 

[savagewind]

Hello all! Good thread.

Brickjecktivity brought out "doctrine of no human intervention" which I think I have never heard before either. I will say what I believe it means. YHWH was KING of Israel. But GOD is a Spirit. Israel asked the prophet Samuel for a human king. God said all right. They have rejected me as King, they want "human intervention". That is what the people keep doing even after the Messiah has appeared. The people who want a head of the church point to Bible examples of the people being led by chosen men. The most extinguished being Moses. But it is written God would raise another like Moses. It was His son Jehoshua imo. He who is now spirit leads his sheep with no human intervention. The Head of the church is Christ.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Well, for starters, I will readily (if regrettably) acknowledge that we definitely do have a history of racism in our past. I do not deny that some of my Church's past leaders did, in fact, made some statements that were unequivocably racist. It is not, however, my place to judge them; I'll leave that up to God.

People outside of our Church do sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between doctrine and policy, and that distinction is important when discussing this topic. (Sometimes members of our Church have the same problem, to be perfectly honest.) Doctrine is eternal truth, revealed to us by God. Policies, on the other hand, are determined by human beings. There are times when God clearly has had a hand in guiding those who establish policy. There are also times when this is pretty obviously not the case. There is no Mormon doctrine, nor has there ever been a Mormon doctrine, that teaches the superiority of one race over another. On the other hand, there was for a number of years, a policy in place that discriminated against Black men and women. I am old enough to be able to remember very clearly the day that policy was changed, and it was truly a wonderful day.

Finally, I am not saying that two wrongs make a right, because they don't. I can't help but wonder, though, why the racist policies of other Christian Churches are so seldom discussed. True, there was a period of many years when Black men could not hold the LDS Church's priesthood. There was never a time, however, when Black people could not join the Church and never in our history have we had segregated congregations. This is not the case with many Protestant Churches, particularly in the southern states. I've also got to admit that I'm not quite sure what the "diabolical and bizarre ways" we justified racism actually were. There is quite simply no way of justifying racism, but I don't believe the LDS Church's way of doing so was any more "diabolical and bizarre" than any other church's way.

This is a topic that could easily be discussed in much more depth than I'm interested in going into on this particular thread.

That's all for tonight.

I'd like to add I have met and worked with a black Mormon. He was just a regular cheeky chap, minus the alcohol abuse

 

[Ingledsva]

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

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

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.

You can skirt it all you want but -

His paper says we are God's spirit children - God was once as us - we can also be gods and goddesses - with our own spirit children (hence the marriage eternal bond) - whom need somewhere to live - thus creation of universes with planets - just as this last God.

 

[Muffled]

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





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

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

Let the games begin.

Katzpur in pajamas? No wonder there is no admittance. I wonder if I would be thumped on the head if I tried to take a peek? I believe I would be willing to take the risk to see magic performed. (Not the illusional stuff but the real thing)

I believe every denomination is inconsistent with the Bible so it is no great claim to fame. I suppose every denomiation thinks it is sqaure with the Bible and there are some that like to think they interpet better than others.