Using The Bible To Refute Lds Doctrine

[Jesterss]

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.

What about the golden calf? Zeus? Athena? As we know, these weren't real Gods, they were misrepresentations given godly substance or thought without actually having such authority. It was given by humans. God is the most High because he is indeed a God, the God. None before, none after.

[jo1952]

I don't believe anything is problematic about Mormon theology. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't be Mormon. But I think I understand trinitarianism pretty well, and I can say that the fact that Jesus is fully God and fully human does not nullify the "necessary" nature of God's being. God's "being," after all, is considered to be a unity. In trinitarianism, any differences between the persons of God do not nullify their unity of being. In trinitarianism, Jesus was never not god. The Mormon Elohim, however, was once not God. Therefore, the Mormon Elohim cannot be the one necessary being upon which the universe is contingent.

The reason I was never able to accept the Trinity dogma (though I was raised Lutheran), is because it was obviously manufactured by man. The only reason the Trinity "appears" to keep God in a permanent unity is because this theory does not allow Jesus to never have been God. At any rate, I do understand your pov on this issue.

I just want to quote Sterling McMurrin, writing about Mormon theology, who put it rather elegantly: "God is described in non-absolutistic terms as a being who is conditioned by and related to the world in which he is a part and which, because it is not ultimately his creation, is not absolutely under his dominion. As a constructor or artisan God, not entirely unlike Plato's demiurge of the Timaeus, the Mormon deity informs the continuing process of reality and determines the world's configurations, but he is not the creator of the most ultimate constituents of the world, either the fundamental material entities or the space and time that locate them. ...It is a basic article of Mormon theology that God is related to a world environment for the being of which he is not the ultimate ground and by which he therefore is in some sense conditioned." Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, p. 29 (1965).

The above sounds interesting. Thank you for the heads up.

Meanwhile, I am curious to understand how it is you believe that we believe that Elohim is a being within the universe. ??

Best regards,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

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.

That is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the facts. I posts several posts addressing a good number of points that he made and said that although I cannot answer every post I would try to get to an issue he complained I had not (yet) addressed.

Good grief.

[Bill Hamblin]

That is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the facts. I posts several posts addressing a good number of points that he made and said that although I cannot answer every post I would try to get to an issue he complained I had not (yet) addressed.

So are you going to answer the questions or not?

[zerinus]

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?

Well observed! That is exactly what he does, and he thinks nobody will notice! lol!

[Bill Hamblin]

As an example of the problems of exegesis of the Bible, let's look simply at Gen 1:1.

Who wrote it?

When was it written?

What is "the beginning"?

What does to mean to "create" (bara)?

Is this creation from nothing?

Why are there heavens/skies instead of one heaven/sky?

How does this verse relate to modern cosmology (big bang, etc.)?

Is the creation describing the ancient kosmos (earth and visible sky), or the entire universe?

I could go on.

Now, in fact, a wide range of answers have been given to these (and other) questions throughout history, by equally intelligent, informed and honest people from a wide range of backgrounds and presuppositions. I maintain that these questions simply can't be decisively answered (or even asked for that matter) by an appeal to "what the Bible says".

[Zakuska]

As an example of the problems of exegesis of the Bible, let's look simply at Gen 1:1.

Who wrote it?

When was it written?

What is "the beginning"?

What does to mean to "create" (bara)?

Is this creation from nothing?

Why are there heavens/skies instead of one heaven/sky?

How does this verse relate to modern cosmology (big bang, etc.)?

Is the creation describing the ancient kosmos (earth and visible sky), or the entire universe?

I could go on.

Now, in fact, a wide range of answers have been given to these (and other) questions throughout history, by equally intelligent, informed and honest people from a wide range of backgrounds and presuppositions. I maintain that these questions simply can't be decisively answered (or even asked for that matter) by an appeal to "what the Bible says".

Not to mention the fact that a couple places in the Bible there are glimpses of things that happend prior to "In the beginning".

[Calm]

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.

I believe I agree that particular belief does not agree with your interpretation. But I have heard of interpretations that reconcile them.

[Zakuska]

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?

It could also be read that he is an only Child of his Father. As in... the only begotten of the Father. Wisdom/Christ is said to have been "formed" by God as the first thing he created. Before he created this creation.

Prov 8

²² “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,^[c][d]

before his deeds of old;

²³ I was formed long ages ago,

at the very beginning, when the world came to be.

²⁴ When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,

when there were no springs overflowing with water;

²⁵ before the mountains were settled in place,

before the hills, I was given birth,

²⁶ before he made the world or its fields

or any of the dust of the earth.

²⁷ I was there when he set the heavens in place,

when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

²⁸ when he established the clouds above

and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,

²⁹ when he gave the sea its boundary

so the waters would not overstep his command,

and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

³⁰ Then I was constantly^[e] at his side.

I was filled with delight day after day,

rejoicing always in his presence,

³¹ rejoicing in his whole world

and delighting in mankind.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Zakuska

[LeSellers]

That he [Rob Bowman] 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.

Before I put him on my ignore list, I believe he said he was a Calvinist.

We are left to wonder if he's an orthodox Calvinist, or reformed, or a neo-Calvinist, of course, but it does give us some insight into what he believes.

I have never understood Calvinism (and I have read Instituts—a huge tome, full of logical fallacies and inconsistencies enough to make stockholders in Johnson&Johnson wealthy were it required reading for Sophomores at any large college).

The biggest non sequitor is the doctrine of predestination. Why would any Calvinist waste his time telling the rest of us we are damned: there's nothing either he or we can do about it. (It is also very interesting to note that all Calvinists are among the chosen. If it is true, as they claim, then some of them ought, at least, to acknowledge that all of it is correct, but that they are among the damned. It seems only the true believers can recognize the truth of the Calvinist position.)

That same predestination requires that God be a sadistic and egocentric maniac: If He knows all, as they claim, and knows that the vast majority of His human creations will be damned to eternity in unending fire, with the full import of the suffering that entails, He must have created them for the sole purpose of their suffering. It appears He will watch their our torment, and will do so with great pleasure and satisfaction. Indeed, I can only conclude that He must need us to suffer, else why would He have created us at all?

It also appears that, in addition to the boredom of harping and singing, those admitted to the Divine Presence will also watch us. They, too, will rejoice at the torture of the damned (that’s us, btw), and then turn and praise God for His mercy towards them, and to us, we who are being burned everlastingly before their very eyes.

One woman I know through the internet likens us (all humanity) to puppets doomed to torment, from whom the Calvinist God picks a few (at random), and saves them from the flames. But puppets we are, and puppets they, the “saved” will always be, being predestined to their reward, even as we have always been doomed to burn and suffer for all eternity.

Lehi

[wenglund]

Hi Rob,

I appreciate your rather extensive answer.

Wade,

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

Okay. Can you answer my question in a qualified way,--i.e. as on balance, or as a general rule? Given your examples, I am wondering if you view as legitimate and reasonable any of the LDS beliefs that differ from your own?

My point in pressing this question is to, as Bill Hamblin mentioned, determine the value to us in trying to have even a civil conversation with you. If you can't, or have very limited capacity, to view our position as reasonable, then we can't reason with you, and if we can't reason with you, then we have little or no reason for you to reason with us. Does that make sense?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

According to Mormon theology, Elohim and the universe are co-eternal.

True.

That means he didn't create the universe in which he exists.

False.

He did and still does create the universe in which he and all of the rest of us now exist, and since he has been around forever, which is just as long as the universe has been around, his existence and the existence of the universe are co-eternal.

Try to realize that God is actually somewhere and there has always been a place for that God to be. What would you call where he is and has always been while considering the universe to be the one place in which everything else exists?

Also, Elohim has not always been God.

Yes, he has. Stop saying stuff that isn't true, please. As calmoriah said, he may not have always been our Father, or even a Father, but he has always existed in some sense, even if only as a twinkle in his Father's eyes before he was born with a spirit body.

He "created" by organizing pre-existing matter, but he did bring that matter into existence before he organized it, nor did anyone else.

Right. Now you're onto it correctly, and the truth is that nobody brought it into existence because it has always been around forever. Just don't say he didn't create it, because he did and still does.

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.

God has always been God, and if he had never existed, there would never have been any kind of God or anything else in all of existence, just as there would not have been any matter, including no matter in his body, nor anything else with any matter in it.

God is the most supreme being in all of existence, and for God to exist there must be an existence for him to be a part of, including some matter to compose his body as well as the matter that exists in every other form of whatever it is.

Do you get that yet? If there were no God, there would also be no matter for him to be made of, and even if all there was was God and the matter he is made of, his matter would be the matter that exists in the universe with the universe being nothing but him in all of existence.

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.

Keep thinking on that and then maybe someday you'll realize what we really are.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Ahab

[Cobalt-70]

What about the golden calf? Zeus? Athena? As we know, these weren't real Gods, they were misrepresentations given godly substance or thought without actually having such authority. It was given by humans. God is the most High because he is indeed a God, the God. None before, none after.

To the early Jews, the golden calf god was just as real as the god YHWH, the difference being that YHWH was mightier and more jealous than the calf god and preferred not to be represented by a physical idol. The Old Testament has several examples of contests (championed by Moses, Elijah) between YHWH and other gods, and YHWH always came out the winner. I don't know whether the earliest Hebrews knew about the Greek gods, so they probably didn't have an opinion.

[Cobalt-70]

Meanwhile, I am curious to understand how it is you believe that we believe that Elohim is a being within the universe. ??

There are two meanings of the term universe. One is that the universe is everything that exists, and the other is that the universe is a self-contained bubble of reality. I'm using the first definition, though I know that some Mormons use the second, and believe that God himself dwells outside the "bubble universe" he created. This idea attractive to those familiar with scientific cosmology. But it still means that God's domain is not absolute. He did not create other "universes" outside his own kingdom.

This theory is a bit of an amalgamation between early 20th century Mormon theology and traditional Christianity, where you have God creating something essentially ex nihilo and he is not subject to the natural laws of his own creation, but God's domain is still bounded in the Mormon sense. Mathematically, such a hybrid god could be both infinite and yet still not absolute. In other words, each "bubble universe" might be infinite, yet not all bubble universes are within God's domain.

[altersteve]

There are two meanings of the term universe. One is that the universe is everything that exists, and the other is that the universe is a self-contained bubble of reality. I'm using the first definition, though I know that some Mormons use the second, and believe that God himself dwells outside the "bubble universe" he created. This idea attractive to those familiar with scientific cosmology. But it still means that God's domain is not absolute. He did not create other "universes" outside his own kingdom.

This theory is a bit of an amalgamation between early 20th century Mormon theology and traditional Christianity, where you have God creating something essentially ex nihilo and he is not subject to the natural laws of his own creation, but God's domain is still bounded in the Mormon sense. Mathematically, such a hybrid god could be both infinite and yet still not absolute. In other words, each "bubble universe" might be infinite, yet not all bubble universes are within God's domain.

CFR that LDS doctrine teaches that "not all bubble universes are within God's domain" and that He "did not create other 'universes' outside his own kingdom."

[Cobalt-70]

God has always been God, and if he had never existed, there would never have been any kind of God or anything else in all of existence, just as there would not have been any matter, including no matter in his body, nor anything else with any matter in it.

God is the most supreme being in all of existence, and for God to exist there must be an existence for him to be a part of, including some matter to compose his body as well as the matter that exists in every other form of whatever it is.

Do you get that yet? If there were no God, there would also be no matter for him to be made of, and even if all there was was God and the matter he is made of, his matter would be the matter that exists in the universe with the universe being nothing but him in all of existence.

It sounds like you don't believe the standard Mormon theology that God was once a man, and that he was either organized (as per Joseph Smith) or physically born as a spirit (as per Brigham Young) by own heavenly Father and Mother. If you don't, that's cool. I'm just trying to understand.

[altersteve]

It sounds like you don't believe the standard Mormon theology that God was once a man, and that he was either organized (as per Joseph Smith) or physically born as a spirit (as per Brigham Young) by own heavenly Father and Mother. If you don't, that's cool. I'm just trying to understand.

This isn't official LDS doctrine. It is officially taught by the Church that God the Father passed through mortality, but everything beyond that is speculation.

[zerinus]

As an example of the problems of exegesis of the Bible, let's look simply at Gen 1:1.

Who wrote it?

When was it written?

What is "the beginning"?

What does to mean to "create" (bara)?

Is this creation from nothing?

Why are there heavens/skies instead of one heaven/sky?

How does this verse relate to modern cosmology (big bang, etc.)?

Is the creation describing the ancient kosmos (earth and visible sky), or the entire universe?

I could go on.

Now, in fact, a wide range of answers have been given to these (and other) questions throughout history, by equally intelligent, informed and honest people from a wide range of backgrounds and presuppositions. I maintain that these questions simply can't be decisively answered (or even asked for that matter) by an appeal to "what the Bible says".

That is not my idea of scripture exegesis. This is what I call scripture exegesis, followed by this, and this, after which he deserted the thread and ran for his life! Scripture exegesis is a glorified name for "reasoning out of the scriptures". Another term that is often used is hermeneutics. They are all fanciful names, and a lot may have been written about them; but they all amount to the same thing: reasoning out of the scriptures. In the book of Acts mention is made of someone by the name of "Apollos" who was "an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures" (Acts 18:24). That means that he knew his scriptures well, and was skilful in reasoning out of them. In other words, he had a natural tallent for scripture exegesis and hermeneutics. Stephen was another one in the early Church who had that ability (Acts 6:9-10). Well, in case anybody didn't know, that is what God wants the Saints to be able to do (D&C 100:11). He wants them to become "mighty in expounding all scriptures," and be able to silence the opponents of the Church who use the Bible (as they think) to attack it, by successfully reasoning against them. Exegesis and hermeneutics are fanciful names for doing that.

Edited September 22, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

It sounds like you don't believe the standard Mormon theology that God was once a man, and that he was either organized (as per Joseph Smith) or physically born as a spirit (as per Brigham Young) by own heavenly Father and Mother. If you don't, that's cool. I'm just trying to understand.

Man is the same kind of being God is, although not as perfect as our Father in heaven is now.

Sheesh, why is this so hard for some people to understand?

[Cobalt-70]

CFR that LDS doctrine teaches that "not all bubble universes are within God's domain" and that He "did not create other 'universes' outside his own kingdom."

I wouldn't characterize that as "LDS doctrine." It's just something I've heard. Like I said, this theory is kind of a "hybrid" theology between standard Mormonism and classical Christianity. It's kind of implied whenever a Mormon says they believe that God is "outside" the universe. In standard Mormonism (circa 20th century), God is within the universe and subject to its laws.

[Zakuska]

I wouldn't characterize that as "LDS doctrine." It's just something I've heard. Like I said, this theory is kind of a "hybrid" theology between standard Mormonism and classical Christianity. It's kind of implied whenever a Mormon says they believe that God is "outside" the universe. In standard Mormonism (circa 20th century), God is within the universe and subject to its laws.

Jesus was In this Universe yet wasn't subject to it's laws...

The wind and the waves shall obey thy will

Peace be still, peace be still

Peace be still, peace be still

Whether the wrath of the storm-tossed sea

Or demons, or men or whatever may be

No water can swallow the ship where lies

The Master of ocean and earth and skies

They all shall sweetly obey thy will

Peace, peace be still

Edited September 21, 2011 by Zakuska

[Ahab]

This isn't official LDS doctrine. It is officially taught by the Church that God the Father passed through mortality, but everything beyond that is speculation.

I especially like this part of what I said:

If there were no God, there would also be no matter for him to be made of, and even if all there was was God and the matter he is made of, his matter would be the matter that exists in the universe with the universe being nothing but him in all of existence.

I'm often amazed by how clear revelation from God actually is, even though all people sometimes don't see it as clearly as I do.

[Cobalt-70]

Man is the same kind of being God is, although not as perfect as our Father in heaven is now.

Okay. I've been focusing on standard Mormon theology, but you are saying something a bit different: that the deity Mormons call Elohim was always a god, and apparently the first and highest of the gods. Do you know if there is a modern publication describing this view? When I refer to "standard" Mormon theology, I mean the predominant LDS theology of the 20th century, which was basically Brigham Young minus the Adam-God doctrine, with Elohim identified as God the Father and Jehovah identified as Jesus. What you are suggesting might be a throwback to Joseph Smith's unvarnished theology, of which I have great respect.

[Ahab]

Okay. I've been focusing on standard Mormon theology, but you are saying something a bit different: that the deity Mormons call Elohim was always a god, and apparently the first and highest of the gods. Do you know if there is a modern publication describing this view? When I refer to "standard" Mormon theology, I mean the predominant LDS theology of the 20th century, which was basically Brigham Young minus the Adam-God doctrine, with Elohim identified as God the Father and Jehovah identified as Jesus. What you are suggesting might be a throwback to Joseph Smith's unvarnished theology, of which I have great respect.

You still don't get it.

There was no "first" God. All of the persons who are God, including us, are eternal, because we have always existed in some sense, even if only as a part of our Father in heaven before he became our Father and even if he was part of someone else who was his Father before he was born, etc, etc, etc.

Nobody comes from nothing. We as a species are merely perpetuating ourselves.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ahab

[Calm]

Okay. I've been focusing on standard Mormon theology, but you are saying something a bit different: that the deity Mormons call Elohim was always a god, and apparently the first and highest of the gods. Do you know if there is a modern publication describing this view? When I refer to "standard" Mormon theology, I mean the predominant LDS theology of the 20th century, which was basically Brigham Young minus the Adam-God doctrine, with Elohim identified as God the Father and Jehovah identified as Jesus. What you are suggesting might be a throwback to Joseph Smith's unvarnished theology, of which I have great respect.

You need to make clear you are making a distinction between theology and official doctrine. Many equate the two.