Examining Mormonism in light of Mormonism

[mpschmitt]

There is a very popular Christian apologetics ministry that is very adamant about the principle that one must "examine scripture in light of scripture".

Ironically, this same ministry is decidedly anti-Mormon in it's teachings and supports it's claims against Mormonism by violating it's own stated principle. What I mean by this is that it fails (as many anti-Mormon ministries do) to examine Mormonism in light of Mormonism. Mormonism must be examined and understood in the context of all of it's various interwoven parts. It is a complex tapestry and there is a tremendous depth to it, that ministries (if they may be termed such) like these barely even scratch the surface of acknowledging (if that). To compare one thread of the tapestry against an entirely different tapestry altogether (Nicene Christianity) will not provide the seeker of Truth (with a capital T) with the conclusive data they need to draw the right inferences about Mormon theology. Yet this is precisely where many anti-Mormon groups and writers fall down in their efforts.

I am not suggesting that these ministries need to agree with our theology, but if they are to be sincere in their efforts, they must acknowledge the philosophical and theological depth of Mormonism and attempt to explain it by some other means than divine intervention. One cannot, for instance take a single quote from Brigham Young about Adam out of context (as many anti-Mormon writers do) and then draw a conclusion about what the entirety of Mormon theology has to say on that subject without considering that statement in light of the other things Brigham said on the subject, as well as what other Prophets and Apostles before and since Brigham have said about it. It must also be viewed and measured in light of what the standard scriptural works of the Church have to say on it. Then and only then, does the meaning of these allegedly outlandish statements become clearer to the observer. The doctrines and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constitute the most philosophically and theologically complete system of belief that I have encountered (granted, I'm biased, but I have studied many other faiths fairly extensively, so cut me some slack on that statement ). If Joseph Smith was not a prophet then he was a theological genius unlike any I have encountered outside of Canonical Judeo-Christian history.

Another ironic thing about this ministry to which I refer above is that their slogan is "Because Truth Matters". Any who are familiar with the work of genuine scholars and historians like Robert V. Remini, Richard Bushman, and Jan Shipps will find the humor in the fact that this ministry with such a statement about it's commitment to Truth with a capital T seems blithely unaware of such giants in the area of Mormon history, and favors instead folks like Sandra Tanner and Richard Abanes, putting them on a pedestal as paragons of meticulous research and objectivity. This adds a great deal of incredulity to their methods and teachings for me, which is a good thing as I desire that they not have success in their intent to tear at the moorings of my faith. But it also saddens me because of the inaccurate and woefully incomplete picture of my faith that it provides. They pull out threads here and there from this beautiful tapestry that I see as my faith, and shout "Lo! Here! This one is red! How can you possibly have a red thread here! Our manual, which we've ratified a number of times by the votes of erudite biblical scholars, says that red threads only go around the edges! Blasphemy!" Which interjection understandably falls on deaf ears in my case...

I know better...

Thoughts?

[Hoops22]

How about because mormonism is making the claim that it is a part of, an extension of, a furthering of, etc., christianity.

[mpschmitt]

How about because mormonism is making the claim that it is a part of, an extension of, a furthering of, etc., christianity.

Okay, that's a fine initial statement, feel free to elaborate if it's your position that Mormonism is not a restoration of Christianity...

I have no problem with you making your case as long as you provide details that demonstrate you know enough about Mormonism and your own theological underpinnings to make it adroitly...

[Hoops22]

I'm simply saying that mormonism must be examined in light of biblical christianity because of its own claims about itself. If it were to claim that mormonism is something other than mc, or that it replaces it then i can support your position that mormonism should be examined by it's own scriptures. I don't think it does, does it?

[mpschmitt]

I'm simply saying that mormonism must be examined in light of biblical christianity because of its own claims about itself. If it were to claim that mormonism is something other than mc, or that it replaces it then i can support your position that mormonism should be examined by it's own scriptures. I don't think it does, does it?

Ah. I see. Yes you are absolutely right. I'm not trying to suggest that there is anything wrong with holding a differing theological view with Mormonism. My point is that Mormonism must be understood in the context of all of its various components and parts and cannot be examined without those parts being viewed in the context of every other part. Once you have a grasp on the whole, you will be better able to compare it to the entirety of traditional Christianity.

Let me give an example...

Let's say I tried to teach something about traditional Christianity without mentioning or exploring the Atonement...

I might come out with a statement like this:

"Christians believe in a form of ritual vicarious canibalism whereby they devour the flesh and blood of their God in order to be forgiven of their sins"

This would not be a very accurate picture of something dear to each of us, and you and I both would find it very offensive and incorrect. It would be immediately apparent to us that the symbolism and beauty of the communion (or the sacrament as we call it) was being replaced by a partial picture that, taken out of the context of the Atonement, made it sound stranger than it really was.

What I'm suggesting is that anti-Mormon writers do this very thing on a regular basis to Mormonism by taking one or two pieces apart from other evidence that would contradict their pre-conceived conclusions.

But to answer you other question, yes, Mormonism does claim to replace the various doctrines and practices of mainstream (never liked that term) or traditional Christianity with something different. A living doctrine guided by continual revelation and unfolding that is also a restoration of things lost in the early centuries of traditional Christianity. I think that sets it apart from other branches of Christianity.

[mfbukowski]

The doctrines and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constitute the most philosophically and theologically complete system of belief that I have encountered (granted, I'm biased, but I have studied many other faiths fairly extensively, so cut me some slack on that statement ). If Joseph Smith was not a prophet then he was a theological genius unlike any I have encountered outside of Canonical Judeo-Christian history.

You are just plain absolutely right.

We don't appreciate the strength of our own position. I have had conversations on a personal level with at least one of the "antis" you mention, and let me tell you that person has very little understanding of our church, and yet has written volumes against a strawman that has no substance.

If we ever get out act(s) together, we really could become what we espouse to be -- a worldwide church destined to lead humanity to God.

I think the problem is that we are so insistent on being "mainstream" that we miss the strength of what makes us unique.

[Hoops22]

Ah. I see. Yes you are absolutely right. I'm not trying to suggest that there is anything wrong with holding a differing theological view with Mormonism.

The mormon philosophy of accepting Christ after death aside, shouldn't you?

My point is that Mormonism must be understood in the context of all of its various components and parts and cannot be examined without those parts being viewed in the context of every other part.

Yes, that's reasonable. I try to do that.

Once you have a grasp on the whole, you will be better able to compare it to the entirety of traditional Christianity.

Agreed.

What I'm suggesting is that anti-Mormon writers do this very thing on a regular basis to Mormonism by taking one or two pieces apart from other evidence that would contradict their pre-conceived conclusions.

That's a different argument is it not? But, assuming it's true, at least in some instances one tries to fit the pieces together and it's just not possible. Thus, they're left with examining each piece by itself. As an example, the Trinity. Your view of the Trinity impacts the very nature of God. Yet, when one tries to examine what/who God is, it, in turn, becomes a piece of the whole that has much fluidity.

But to answer you other question, yes, Mormonism does claim to replace the various doctrines and practices of mainstream

Agreed. So why the rush to claim a branch of christianity's tree.

(never liked that term)

me neither.

or traditional Christianity with something different. A living doctrine guided by continual revelation and unfolding that is also a restoration of things lost in the early centuries of traditional Christianity.

Okay, I'm confused here. If you are restoring what is the early christian church, then you're not replacing, you're returning.

I think that sets it apart from other branches of Christianity.

So that we can rest easy, here is at least one point upon which we can agree.

[Avatar4321]

I'm simply saying that mormonism must be examined in light of biblical christianity because of its own claims about itself. If it were to claim that mormonism is something other than mc, or that it replaces it then i can support your position that mormonism should be examined by it's own scriptures. I don't think it does, does it?

I guess that depends on how you define "Biblical Christianity"

If by Biblical Christianity you mean The OT & NT Church, then yes, we invite you to examine in the light of the Bible. It is the Bible that gave us everything we have. Because without the scriptures found there, the Revelations would not have been revealed.

However, if by Biblical Christianity, you mean Protestant/Evangelical theology, then no. I don't believe that is Biblical Christianity and I expect significant differences between that and Mormonism.

[Hoops22]

I guess that depends on how you define "Biblical Christianity"

And it's at least equally important how YOU define the church.

I

f by Biblical Christianity you mean The OT

There was no ot church. Only the nation of israel.

& NT Church,

Then you must provide some sustantiation for your claim - as lds expression of faith resembles very little of the post resurrection nt church as described from about Acts 3 forward

then yes, we invite you to examine in the light of the Bible.

I have. the lds church is not an accurate of nt teaching on the church.

It is the Bible that gave us everything we have. Because without the scriptures found there, the Revelations would not have been revealed.

I don't know what this means.

However, if by Biblical Christianity, you mean Protestant/Evangelical theology, then no.

I would include rcc.

I don't believe that is Biblical Christianity and I expect significant differences between that and Mormonism.

Yet, it is ev/prot/rcc that claim sole reliance on that very nt - we don't have added scriptures.

[Analytics]

There is a very popular Christian apologetics ministry that is very adamant about the principle that one must "examine scripture in light of scripture".

Ironically, this same ministry is decidedly anti-Mormon in it's teachings and supports it's claims against Mormonism by violating it's own stated principle. What I mean by this is that it fails (as many anti-Mormon ministries do) to examine Mormonism in light of Mormonism. Mormonism must be examined and understood in the context of all of it's various interwoven parts....

This reminds me of a unique anti-Mormon argument I saw a long time ago. A Christian said it is logically impossible for a finite being to grow into an infinite being. He asserted that finite things can only grow incrementally, and regardless of how long something grows incrementally, it always remains finite. He concluded that since Gods have an infinite amount of power, glory, intelligence, etc. and humans donâ??t, it is absolutely impossible for finite beings like us to grow into infinite beings like God. Thus, Mormonism is false.

[Sargon]

There is a very popular Christian apologetics ministry that is very adamant about the principle that one must "examine scripture in light of scripture".

Ironically, this same ministry is decidedly anti-Mormon in it's teachings and supports it's claims against Mormonism by violating it's own stated principle. What I mean by this is that it fails (as many anti-Mormon ministries do) to examine Mormonism in light of Mormonism. Mormonism must be examined and understood in the context of all of it's various interwoven parts. It is a complex tapestry and there is a tremendous depth to it, that ministries (if they may be termed such) like these barely even scratch the surface of acknowledging (if that). To compare one thread of the tapestry against an entirely different tapestry altogether (Nicene Christianity) will not provide the seeker of Truth (with a capital T) with the conclusive data they need to draw the right inferences about Mormon theology. Yet this is precisely where many anti-Mormon groups and writers fall down in their efforts.

I am not suggesting that these ministries need to agree with our theology, but if they are to be sincere in their efforts, they must acknowledge the philosophical and theological depth of Mormonism and attempt to explain it by some other means than divine intervention. One cannot, for instance take a single quote from Brigham Young about Adam out of context (as many anti-Mormon writers do) and then draw a conclusion about what the entirety of Mormon theology has to say on that subject without considering that statement in light of the other things Brigham said on the subject, as well as what other Prophets and Apostles before and since Brigham have said about it. It must also be viewed and measured in light of what the standard scriptural works of the Church have to say on it. Then and only then, does the meaning of these allegedly outlandish statements become clearer to the observer. h

Thoughts?

Well said. Perhaps the most common strategy employed by anti-mormons is to cherry pick a few peripheral oddball statements or doctrines from the edges of our "tapestry" and inappropriately address them as if it were something from the very center of our theology.

One perfect example is the statement by Joseph Smith wherein he boasts of having kept the church together longer than Jesus. Many anti-mormons (Matt Slick especially comes to mind) absolutely love that quote. They love to pretend to be outraged by it. But, as you have pointed out, it is simply unfair and frankly dishonest to isolate that one statement by Joseph Smith and to judge it alone. It can not be fairly or honestly evaluated except in the larger "tapestry" of Joseph's teachings and statements. When this is done, Joseph is seen to be something very far from a prideful man.

Hank Hannegraaff, the Bible Answer Man, is fond of saying something like, "We should read the Bible for all it's worth." By this he means that the theology of the bible cannot be isolated into a few cherry-picked passages, but emerges as we consider the entirety of the bible. I wish Hannegraaff would consistently apply that standard in his evaluation of Mormonism.

[Sargon]

I'm simply saying that mormonism must be examined in light of biblical christianity because of its own claims about itself. If it were to claim that mormonism is something other than mc, or that it replaces it then i can support your position that mormonism should be examined by it's own scriptures. I don't think it does, does it?

If by "biblical Christianity" you mean the exact same theology, in every respect, believed and taught by the earliest Christian community, then no. We don't claim to do that. We quite loudly preach that along with restoring "biblical Christianity", we have received further revelations that have expanded on, added to, and clarified "biblical Christianity".

We (at least I do) claim that Mormonism is completely compatible with "biblical Christianity". It is compatible with "biblical Christianity" just as trigonometry is compatible with algebra. Trigonometry is algebra, with some further elements.

[David Waltz]

Hoops posted:

>>How about because mormonism is making the claim that it is a part of, an extension of, a furthering of, etc., christianity.>>

Me: FYI, the Reformers made the same claim; and by extension, so do the hundreds of varying sects that are daughters of the Reformation.

>>I'm simply saying that mormonism must be examined in light of biblical christianity because of its own claims about itself.>>

Me: Your statement is basically an equivocation, for a major issue at hand is: what constitutes â??biblical [C]christianityâ?? Issues of canon, interpretation, tradition, apostasy, et al. need to be addressed before proceedingâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hoops wrote:

>> There was no ot church. Only the nation of israel.>>

Me: The best minds of Christendom (Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed) have identified the OT covenant people as the Church. The apostle Paul affirms such a view in Romans 11:1-26, and Ephesians 2:11-22.

Grace and peace,

David

[mfbukowski]

This reminds me of a unique anti-Mormon argument I saw a long time ago. A Christian said it is logically impossible for a finite being to grow into an infinite being. He asserted that finite things can only grow incrementally, and regardless of how long something grows incrementally, it always remains finite. He concluded that since Gods have an infinite amount of power, glory, intelligence, etc. and humans don’t, it is absolutely impossible for finite beings like us to grow into infinite beings like God. Thus, Mormonism is false.

Just the usual misunderstanding of Mormonism. First of all, his argument is confused and ambiguous as most of these Thomistic arguments are, but even taking the terms at their face value, this argument does precisely what this thread is discussing-- it does not examine Mormonism in light of Mormonism. We don't believe we ARE finite beings. We have existed forever as intelligences and then spirits.

[rameumptom]

hoops 22:

Then you must provide some sustantiation for your claim - as lds expression of faith resembles very little of the post resurrection nt church as described from about Acts 3 forward

But neither do the Catholic nor Protestants resemble the primitive Church. Protestants railed against the RCC for straying from the primitive church. And yet, they resemble it even less!

The early apostolic Christian Church's setup including prophets and apostles, bishops and teachers, among others. Paul taught that the Church was established upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, with Christ being the "chief cornerstone." There was no Bible, but just many prophetic writings floating around on scrolls. These included writings from Enoch, which are no longer part of the canon (but is quoted 39 times in the New Testament, showing its importance still). They believed in continuing revelation, with John telling us there would be prophets in the last days in Jerusalem. They believed in the importance of priesthood authority, as decisions were made by the chief priesthood councils in Jerusalem. While Phillip could baptize in Samaria, they sent Peter and John to give the Holy Ghost, which Simon Magus attempted to purchase the priesthood power to do. Paul passed through Ephesus and rebaptized 12 men, who were obviously not baptized by proper authority, as they had not heard of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which he promptly laid his hands on them to give.

These are issues that agree with Mormonism, but not with Protestantism nor evangelical views. Only the Roman Catholics believe in specific priestly authority.

Protestantism is not ancient. It came about in the last 600 or so years. The RCC, depending on whether you believe they began with Peter or later on with the "first pope" Gregory, started in some form or other a millennium before.

While you stated that the OT religion was the state of Israel, it was more complicated than that. Jews had many versions of their own religion. In Jesus' time, they had the Pharisees, Sadduccees, Zealots, Essenes, and Christians as a minimum set of Jewish sects (there were likely others, and subsets of these). Each WAS a religion with its own leaders, even though all attended the temple, etc. The Dead Sea Scrolls describe their community in religious terms that we would readily recognize today as a separate religion. These groups competed against each other. Even Jesus and the apostles competed for converts, and railed against the other sects for not following the correct teachings of God and Moses.

Early Christianity was not any clearer of a mess. Simon Magus was only the FIRST of the Gnostics. Today, so many early groups are lumped in with the Gnostics that it becomes meaningless, and some Biblical scholars today are seeking new terms to describe these disparate groups.

According to Professor Bart Ehrmann, it was due to the vast number of claimed revelations the Gnostics were passing out as if from early prophets, that the "proto-orthodox" church diligently tried to rein in the books, and created the New and Old Testaments in about the 4th-5th centuries AD. They basically said there would be no more continuing revelation, because it was hampering their efforts to destroy the Gnostics.

And this concept worked, except that it also went against the teachings in the Bible, and among the early Christian Fathers. For example, Justin Martyr told Trypho the Jew that the key difference between Jews and Christians was that Christians continued having revelation, and if they stopped receiving revelation, they would be a dried up reed, as were the Jews.

Concepts of the Trinity came late to Christianity. Early Christians did NOT teach the Trinitarian concept of one God/three persons (homo-ousious). For example, Origen insisted that the Father was God, and Jesus was a subordinate God. In his view, they were NOT one spirit being, but are a social trinity. Others also believed this, such as the historian Eusebius of Caesarea, who was exiled after the Council of Nice (325 AD) because the believers in Origenism were lumped in with the followers of Arius (who believed in 3 beings, and since there is only one God, Jesus was "only" Lord).

As it is, even after the Council of Nice, Trinitarian belief did not get a strong foothold in Christianity for over a century with the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). Athanasius, who was the key proponent for the Trinity at Nice was later banished by Constantine and lost his bishop's seat in Africa over a dispute with Arians.

I could go on, but I hope this clarifies that the issue of what is "traditional" Christianity is really a matter of opinion. It would be better to define who belongs to Trinitarian Christianity and who belongs to Restoration Christianity.

[LeSellers]

There was no ot church. Only the nation of israel.

False.

While the House of Israel was also a nation (kingdom), there was indeed an Old Testament Church. We frequently see the words "Assembly" and "Congregation" in various contexts, especially in Exodus~Deuteronomy referring to the body of the Old Testament Saints.

The Greek word "ekklesia", from which we get "church", means "assembly" or congregation". The LXX uses "ekklesia" many times to translate the several words we read in our English Bible(s).

Furthermore, the Old Testament describes a distinctly ecclesiastical organization with Seventy Elders, Twelve Elders, and Three High Priests as overall leaders at various points in the history of Israel. The Kingdom of Israel (and later, Judah) supplanted this organization, but a kingdom is Father's preferred religious organization, and David, etc., were representatives of the Divine King, the King and leader of the Church.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

If you are restoring what is the early christian church, then you're not replacing, you're returning.

Actually, Joseph Smith, by the power and under the inspiration of God, restored the original Church of Jesus Christ along with features of Old Testament Christianity that the Turn of the Era Church did not have or need. Hence, the term "Restoration".

You claim the term "biblical christianity" (without caps, for whatever reason), but this term is misleading because, among other reasons, it implies, without foundation, that evangelical christianity, protestant christianity, and catholic christianity are, in fact, "biblical". The evidence does not support that assumption. That's why I prefer the term "Creedal Christianity": it accurately portrays the source of your beliefs.

The New Testament Bible talks of contemporary Apostles. No church today, apart The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and a few tiny others) has Apostles. It speaks of Bishops; but Protestants do not have Bishops, either. Jesus sent out Seventy: we have them, you all do not. There are few Deacons in Creedal Christianity (and they have little or no power). Most of you reject the idea of High Priests, but on the flimsiest of bases. The New Testament has many prophets â?? you reject them today, we revere them as God's modern representatives.

All of these, God Restored, through His prophet, Joseph Smith. Martin Luther, as honest as he was, Calvin, and the rest of the Reformers had no authority to reform anything, much less restore it. They did the best they could, under the inspiration of God but limited by the knowledge they had, to return to the fundamentals of Jesus' teachings. But they failed for two reasons: they did not have direct revelation from God, and they did not have the Priesthood of God. That was for a later day: for the mid XIX.

Lehi

[Hoops22]

Me: FYI, the Reformers made the same claim; and by extension, so do the hundreds of varying sects that are daughters of the Reformation.

And yet they are perfectly willing to be examined in light of the bible alone. According to the op, mormonism is not.

Me: Your statement is basically an equivocation, for a major issue at hand is: what constitutes â??biblical [C]christianityâ?? Issues of canon, interpretation, tradition, apostasy, et al. need to be addressed before proceedingâ?¦

Grace and peace,

There is consistency among the vast majority of denominations, and the differences either do not equate to essential doctrine or they do not impact essential doctrine. I'd start there.

[semlogo]

Let's say I tried to teach something about traditional Christianity without mentioning or exploring the Atonement...

I might come out with a statement like this:

"Christians believe in a form of ritual vicarious canibalism whereby they devour the flesh and blood of their God in order to be forgiven of their sins"

That's a very good example of the methods anti-Mormon ministries use to try to discredit LDS doctrine. Very astute! Sensationalize and present it out of context. It doesn't need to even be false necessarily. Just do those two things and you can discredit anything.

[David Waltz]

Hey hoops,

Thanks for responding; you posted:

>> And yet they are perfectly willing to be examined in light of the bible alone. According to the op, mormonism is not.>>

Me: According to the Introduction to the BoM, the Bible contains â??the fullness of the everlasting gospelâ?; as such, there must be a certain sense in which Mormonism can/must be examined by the Bible.

>> There is consistency among the vast majority of denominations, and the differences either do not equate to essential doctrine or they do not impact essential doctrine. I'd start there.>>

Me: I disagree. One Evangelical scholar put it this way:

It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Luthern or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that â??the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.â?? By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, â??Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Surveyâ?, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX â?? 1975, pp. 44, 45 â?? bold emphasis mine.) [http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol09/scripture_lane.pdf]

Laneâ??s assessment is even more true today than it was at the end of the seventeenth century.

Grace and peace,

David

[mpschmitt]

Okay, I'm confused here. If you are restoring what is the early christian church, then you're not replacing, you're returning.

Precisely. Peter described it as the "times of refreshing" and the "restitution of all things" ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/3/19-21#19 )

[Hoops22]

Precisely. Peter described it as the "times of refreshing" and the "restitution of all things" ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/3/19-21#19 )

Great. Now show me where the early church believed in 3 levels of heaven, baptism for the dead (I know the verse, so don't go there), preaching the gospel in the afterlife, the lds version of the godhead, etc., etc., etc.,

[mpschmitt]

Great. Now show me where the early church believed in 3 levels of heaven

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_cor/12/2#2

If there's a third one, it stands to reason there is a first and a second, no?

baptism for the dead (I know the verse, so don't go there)

Oh well...why not? ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/15/29#29 )

"Else why are they baptized for the dead..." etc...

The greek is even plainer in it's meaning by the way...

uJpevr - meaning "in behalf of"

So the translation is sometimes given "baptized in behalf of the dead"

Galatians 1:4, Galatians 2:20, Romans 5:6-8 all are good examples of using this word to describe the vicarious offering of Jesus in our behalf.

So what is it to which Paul refers here as a vicarious baptismal offering in behalf of the dead if it is not baptism in behalf of the dead?

This may interest you:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicatio...nscripts/?id=67

As may this:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BaptDead.shtml

preaching the gospel in the afterlife

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_pet/3/18-20#18

the lds version of the godhead,

The Godhead will take me longer than this post and probably needs it's own topic...

As a start, compare and contrast these bible verses (this list only scratches the surface by the way, if you want I can give a more exhaustive list with our additional scriptures cross referenced to the bible ones to make it more easy to parse -sorry, but it's a really big topic):

in the New Testament:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/2/9#9

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/17

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/14/6,10-11,20#6

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/8/16,18,28#16

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_jn/2/1#1

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/10/30#30

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/3/17#17

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_jn/5/7#7

with LDS Scripture:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/15

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/20/11-37#11

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/1/1-39

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/5/4-15

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/1/14#14

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/110/4#4

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/11/27,36#27

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/11/7#7

[Hoops22]

Mr. Waltz

Me: According to the Introduction to the BoM, the Bible contains â??the fullness of the everlasting gospelâ?; as such, there must be a certain sense in which Mormonism can/must be examined by the Bible.

To a degree, I suppose. But you must reconcile all of your scriptures within themselves and each other. Or, as I've heard it before, the latest revelations (PoGP?) are the standard by which doctrine should be judged therefor mormonism can not be held against biblical doctrine. Thus the op can not be.

Me: I disagree. One Evangelical scholar put it this way:

I don't doubt this assessment. I DO doubt that this is an accurate description of today. Greatly.

Laneâ??s assessment is even more true today than it was at the end of the seventeenth century.

I disagree.

Grace and peace,

Same to you - only more of it!