Using The Bible To Refute Lds Doctrine

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Excellent. I appreciate the clarification. Now, if I may go one more step further: Do you agree that the LDS interpretations of the Bible that differ from your own, are legitimate and reasonable, or do you consider them the product of sin and/or satanic deception?

A simple, unqualified answer (this or that) to your question would be misleading from my point of view. Let's say you quote a verse from the Synoptic Gospels that seems to you to teach that works are required for salvation. You can find some verses there that will seem to support that limited claim and to that extent your interpretation will be reasonable (though not correct, in my opinion). Or let's say you maintain that 1 Corinthians 15:29 is referring to proxy baptisms on behalf of departed ancestors who never heard the gospel. That's a possible interpretation and it would be difficult if not impossible to prove that it could not be correct, as far as it goes, so in that focused context you would be advocating a reasonable interpretation of the text (though not one that I think in balance is the best understanding of the text in its original historical and literary context). On the other hand, some of the "interpretations" of the Bible that Joseph Smith and other Mormon prophets have put forth are clearly unreasonable and illegitimate, e.g., Joseph Smith's claim that elohim in Genesis 1:1 denoted a plurality of Gods, his insertion of "not" in Romans 4:5 ("but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly"), and his citation of the polygamy of Old Testament men like David to justify his marrying other men's wives. When Mormons take 1 Corinthians 15:29 to mean that God needs human beings to build thousands of temples throughout the world in which proxy baptisms must be performed for the next thousand years (or more) to make possible the individual salvation of nearly a hundred billion people, I do consider that an unreasonable and illegitimate use of 1 Corinthians 15:29, even though the limited premise about what it was the Corinthians were doing may be reasonable as far as it goes.

If such interpretations or uses of the Bible are not legitimate or reasonable, does that mean they are the result of sin and/or demonic influence? Not all irrational or illegitimate interpretations are sinful or demonically inspired. Some people are just ignoramuses (not speaking of present company). I know of interpretations of the Bible among evangelicals that I would consider unreasonable. Sin and/or demonic deception come into the picture when the beliefs or religious practices legitimized by unreasonable interpretations of the Bible are heretical and/or seriously compromise or negate the gospel. For example, the theological belief that baptism is in some sense necessary for salvation, though erroneous in my opinion, is not necessarily heretical or inimical to the gospel. It is when a religious group start claiming that everyone outside their sect is without valid baptism, or teaches that anyone who has not been properly baptized according to their interpretation is damned, or makes baptismal salvation part of a larger system that in effect amounts to salvation through ritual obligation, that the line has been crossed from innocent misunderstanding to damaging distortion of Scripture. At that point, from my perspective, I have to recognize that there is a spiritual dimension to the misunderstanding of Scripture involving sinful dispositions and/or demonic deception.

That does not mean I run around saying that Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists are evil or that they are all a bunch of demonically deceived individuals. I never dismiss what people say by writing it off as demonic, as though that is an answer to what they are saying. If there is an argument made or a question asked, I will answer it if I can and if it is presented in a way that gives me some glimmer of hope for a civil exchange. I generally don't bring up the devil in interreligious discussions! But if someone argues that anyone's reading of the Bible is just as reasonable as another's, even to the point of excusing those who deny that Jesus is the Messiah, I must strongly object. As I pointed out, the apostle Paul himself was quite clear on this point: those who hear the gospel and don't accept it are deceived by Satan (2 Cor. 4:4). Some differences of opinion are legitimate, reasonable disagreements; others are the result of demonic deception. We may disagree on where that line is drawn and who is being deceived, but if you accept Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 4:4 as true, we ought to be able to agree that there is such a line and that some people do cross it.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I see you are being your usual obnoxious self.

You wrote:

Nice red herring and strawman!!!!

A two-fer!!

The topic is "interpretation of scripture" NOT "belief in scripture" or "belief in Christ.

Please tell that to Bill. He was the one who claimed that people who heard the gospel and concluded that Jesus was not the Christ were simply reading the Bible reasonably according to their own background, knowledge, experiences, upbringing, etc. It was in response to that claim that I cited 2 Corinthians 4:4.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I very conveniently run out of time when it comes to answering individuals that make presumptuous judgments like that against me.

Rob very conveniently runs out of time when it comes to answering tough questions which he can't answer.

[Cobalt-70]

Regardless of what God is and what he once was and what he will be in the future... regardless of ALL of that... God must exist for anything else to exist in existence.

I hear what you're saying, and I'm sure you believe that--which is fine. I'm not going to argue with your beliefs, to the extent they differ from the LDS norm. There are Mormons who are almost as trinitarian as a Methodist, and there are Mormons who still believe the Adam-God doctrine. I'm talking about contemporary Mormon theology, developed mainly by Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts in the early 20th century, which describes a God who is not, strictly speaking, omnipotent (see Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 239), and who has a limited dominion to the exclusion of other gods (see Roberts, New Witness for God, vol. 1, p. 472-73). This is a God who follows, and cannot transcend, natural laws (Widtsoe, Joseph Smith as Scientist, p. 37).

So I guess, bringing this back around the the topic of this thread, I'd have to say that the Mormon God is not the Trinity, but there is no way to say who "wins" between Mormonism and trinitarianism merely by reading the Bible. If that were the case, then anyone who could read would come to the same conclusion. I disagree with our evangelical brothers and sisters who think that the the Bible can resolve its own ambiguities. That is a misunderstanding of the nature of text, which is a human invention. The Bible may be the word of God, but words are the invention of men.

[Vance]

Vance,

I see you are being your usual obnoxious self.

As are you.

Please tell that to Bill.

It is rather obvious that Bill is grasping this topic better than you.

He was the one who claimed that people who heard the gospel and concluded that Jesus was not the Christ were simply reading the Bible reasonably according to their own background, knowledge, experiences, upbringing, etc. It was in response to that claim that I cited 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Still missing the point. Those that didn't believe in Paul's teachings of Christ, STILL believed in the scriptures. They still studied them. They just didn't believe Paul's interpretation of them.

[Bill Hamblin]

A simple, unqualified answer (this or that) to your question would be misleading from my point of view.

I note that you evaded the question of whether JS's visions were satanic inspired, or whether he was, perhaps, demon possessed.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

I very conveniently run out of time when it comes to answering individuals that make presumptuous judgments like that against me.

That is also very convenient for you I am sure.

Edited September 21, 2011 by zerinus

[Bill Hamblin]

Please tell that to Bill. He was the one who claimed that people who heard the gospel and concluded that Jesus was not the Christ were simply reading the Bible reasonably according to their own background, knowledge, experiences, upbringing, etc. It was in response to that claim that I cited 2 Corinthians 4:4.

I did not say that. What I said was reading the Bible was insufficient to bring belief in Christ. This is the clear implication of the text in Acts 17, since many or most of the readers did not believe in Christ.

On the other hand, having read the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Bible, and the Christian interpretations thereof, I have to admit that those messianic prophecies are by no means clear and unambiguous, admitting only one interpretation. I believe the Jews of the time of Jesus had good reason--though not absolute reason--to not accept that Jesus was the messiah based only on scriptural exegesis. That is why we see the importance of testimony of the resurrection, visions, the Holy Spirit, miracles, etc. as signs that the Christian exegesis was correct.

[Cobalt-70]

Define "absolute creator".

If you are alluding to some magical being whose m.o. is creatio ex nihil, as “Questing Beast” and the Trinitarians here are wont to do, then, no, God is not an "absolute creator". But, if you believe, along with Joseph Smith, et al., that matter is eternal, and that it took God to organize it in the great creative processes He has accomplished (and continues to do) since "the beginning", then, yes, He is the absolute Creator".

An absolute creator is the creator of absolutely all things. Even if you define creation as "organization," Elohim did not "organize" all things. He himself had to be "organized" by his own god so that he could obtain a body and his exaltation. He does not organize material within the domain of other gods. Moreover, while God "organized" humanity, he did not "create" humans in an absolute sense, because Mormon theology teaches that Mormons are co-eternal with God. I would say that "organization" is only a partial creation. You take something that exists, and transform it into something else. (Just for the record, I personally don't believe that "absolute" creation is possible. As a Mormon, I believe that even God follows the laws of thermodynamics.)

[Ahab]

I hear what you're saying, and I'm sure you believe that--which is fine. I'm not going to argue with your beliefs, to the extent they differ from the LDS norm. There are Mormons who are almost as trinitarian as a Methodist, and there are Mormons who still believe the Adam-God doctrine. I'm talking about contemporary Mormon theology, developed mainly by Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts in the early 20th century, which describes a God who is not, strictly speaking, omnipotent (see Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 239), and who has a limited dominion to the exclusion of other gods (see Roberts, New Witness for God, vol. 1, p. 472-73). This is a God who follows, and cannot transcend, natural laws (Widtsoe, Joseph Smith as Scientist, p. 37).

So I guess, bringing this back around the the topic of this thread, I'd have to say that the Mormon God is not the Trinity, but there is no way to say who "wins" between Mormonism and trinitarianism merely by reading the Bible. If that were the case, then anyone who could read would come to the same conclusion. I disagree with our evangelical brothers and sisters who think that the the Bible can resolve its own ambiguities. That is a misunderstanding of the nature of text, which is a human invention. The Bible may be the word of God, but words are the invention of men.

You should take care to distinguish when the word "God" is being used to refer to all persons who are God and only certain specific individual persons who are that God.

God, when referring to our Father in heaven, never had a beginning or an end because part of him always existed and will always exist in all persons who are the same kind of being he is. Likewise, all persons who are God, collectively, also never had a beginning or an end because there has never been a time, nor will there ever be a time, when something of them doesn't exist in what does and will continue to exist.

Now, regarding the universe, your issue can begin with this very basic question:

What came first: the universe, or God?

The correct answer is that neither came first, because both God and the universe have always existed, and if you imagine there ever was a time when God did not exist, then not only are you wrong, but if that were the case, all of the universe would not exist either, in any shape or form, and nothing is all there would be.

[zerinus]

I hear what you're saying, and I'm sure you believe that--which is fine. I'm not going to argue with your beliefs, to the extent they differ from the LDS norm. There are Mormons who are almost as trinitarian as a Methodist, and there are Mormons who still believe the Adam-God doctrine. I'm talking about contemporary Mormon theology, developed mainly by Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts in the early 20th century, which describes a God who is not, strictly speaking, omnipotent (see Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 239), and who has a limited dominion to the exclusion of other gods (see Roberts, New Witness for God, vol. 1, p. 472-73). This is a God who follows, and cannot transcend, natural laws (Widtsoe, Joseph Smith as Scientist, p. 37).

Mormon scripture teaches that God is eternal and has always been God. It teaches that God is the creator of all things, by Whom all things consist (2 Nephi 2:13). You can read as many books as you like; but unless you can show me by Mormon scripture what Mormonism teaches, don't expect me to be convinced.

[Calm]

Bill,

You wrote:

I'm spending about as much time here as I can justify as it is. I simply don't have time to get to every post.

I'll see what I can do.

Seriously? You have enough time to make a post that does not address his question, but don't have enough time to make a post that does?

[Bill Hamblin]

Seriously? You have enough time to make a post that does not address his question, but don't have enough time to make a post that does?

Obviously!

[Calm]

An absolute creator is the creator of absolutely all things.

or you could define it as the creator of all things created. Even the Trinitarians use this definition as God did not create himself, the only uncreated element. For LDS the set of uncreated is just much larger.

He himself had to be "organized" by his own god so that he could obtain a body and his exaltation.)

This has not been revealed and while it is a logical possibility it is not the only one. It is also possible to believe that which makes God God was always a part of him, that he himself organized his own physical body and was always exalted (save for those qualities that require a physical form). This is consistent with what is taught in the scriptures. I am sure there are likely other ways of viewing the 'origin' of God since there has been revealed so little about it.

Edited September 21, 2011 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

That's just silly. A short post that acknowledges his question and expresses a willingness to work on answering it takes far less time than a post that thoughtfully engages his question (argument).

This is the sort of post that garners brownie points around here?

Seriously? You have enough time to make a post that does not address his question, but don't have enough time to make a post that does?

[Jesterss]

This has not been revealed and while it is a logical possibility it is not the only one. It is also possible to believe that which makes God God was always a part of him, that he himself organized his own physical body and was always exalted (save for those qualities that require a physical form). This is consistent with what is taught in the scriptures.

What about Isaiah 43:10 though? That would deny the possibility that a God created our God.

[Ahab]

Seriously? You have enough time to make a post that does not address his question, but don't have enough time to make a post that does?

We're all selective. Saying we don't have enough time is just a polite way of saying we don't want to spend the limited amount of time we have to do something that would take more time than we're willing to give to a cause.

Even Rob needs to eat and sleep and do whatever else he wants to do with the time in his life, ya know.

[Ahab]

What about Isaiah 43:10 though? That would deny the possibility that a God created our God.

Again, take care when distinguising between ALL persons who are God and specific individuals who are that God.

There is only one God in all of existence when using the word "God" to refer to a specific kind of being, but that doesn't mean there is only one person who is the kind of being we refer to as God.

[Calm]

We're all selective. Saying we don't have enough time is just a polite way of saying we don't want to spend the limited amount of time we have to do something that would take more time than we're willing to give to a cause.

Even Rob needs to eat and sleep and do whatever else he wants to do with the time in his life, ya know.

Then Mr. Bowman should simply say I am not interested in answering your questions rather than posting several posts not addressing his question in response and then finally saying he does not have time to answer.

He pretty much had almost unlimited time to deal with his criticism of comments by a LDS (both the idea that spirit must mean not physical but material and the Holy Ghost as a spirit son of the Father) including spending significant time not just commenting but searching for quotes.

That he does not seem to feel it is as important to share his own personal beliefs in the Gospel as it is to engage in critiquing LDS gospel and other beliefs is rather telling in my opinion.

[Calm]

What about Isaiah 43:10 though? That would deny the possibility that a God created our God.

Besides Ahab's point, it is possible for an LDS to believe that the individual that we identify as God the Father has always been God or possessed those qualities that allow him to be our God even if he has not always filled all of his roles (for example, he has not always been our Father but became such when he created/organized our spirits.)

[Cobalt-70]

What came first: the universe, or God?

The correct answer is that neither came first, because both God and the universe have always existed, and if you imagine there ever was a time when God did not exist, then not only are you wrong, but if that were the case, all of the universe would not exist either, in any shape or form, and nothing is all there would be.

According to Mormon theology, Elohim and the universe are co-eternal. That means he didn't create the universe in which he exists.

Also, Elohim has not always been God. He "created" by organizing pre-existing matter, but he did bring that matter into existence before he organized it, nor did anyone else. Because God was not always God, if he had never existed, the universe would have still existed without him (perhaps with a different god), just as if you or I never existed, the universe would not have ceased to exist, either. Since at some point, God was the same as you or I, he is no more necessary for the existence of the universe than are you or I.

[Zakuska]

What about Isaiah 43:10 though? That would deny the possibility that a God created our God.

This verse could also be read as...

Isa 43

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

He is the only God that ever was created/formed.

[Cobalt-70]

What about Isaiah 43:10 though? That would deny the possibility that a God created our God.

It would, yes. But on the other hand, older parts of the Old Testament describe God as the "Most High" of a pantheon of gods, or as the God of Gods. This just reflects shifting Hebrew theology. Since the Bible was written over a period of centuries and by many different people, it is not always consistent, which leaves an opening for Mormon theology to be consistent with some parts of the Bible, but not others.

[Jesterss]

Again, take care when distinguising between ALL persons who are God and specific individuals who are that God.

There is only one God in all of existence when using the word "God" to refer to a specific kind of being, but that doesn't mean there is only one person who is the kind of being we refer to as God.

I get your point, but nobody was confused by what God I meant when the quoted scripture was placed. Unless you are saying that you believe this reference has a possibly different meaning than my understanding? If so, I don't want to derail this topic, so no need for that.

Besides Ahab's point, it is possible for an LDS to believe that the individual that we identify as God the Father has always been God or possessed those qualities that allow him to be our God even if he has not always filled all of his roles (for example, he has not always been our Father but became such when he created/organized our spirits.)

I think I'm following what you say. But you stated that it's a possibility (although not supported by scripture at this time) that God was organized or created by his own God. Therefore, equating to a "before" God that our God says didn't exist. In my interpretation of Isaiah 43:10.

[Jesterss]

This verse could also be read as...

Isa 43

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

He is the only God that ever was created/formed.

Interesting. So in other words, you believe that there is a possibility that before our God, there was a God that created him, but nothing before him. or, as someone eluded to, maybe not a God, but something that created him?