Using The Bible To Refute Lds Doctrine

[Cobalt-70]

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

Widtsoe would have disagreed with you. According to him, everything that Jesus did (and the Father does) was in accordance with natural laws, though we might not understand the laws. Widtsoe's view was very influential, and represents the predominant 20th century view.

[Cobalt-70]

There was no "first" God. All of them, and 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.

Okay, that's even more interesting. You are saying that humanity may have been "part of" Elohim, and that Elohim may have been "part of" the grandfather god. I've never heard that before. Please tell us more.

[altersteve]

Widtsoe's view was very influential, and represents the predominant 20th century view.

So? Does that mean his view is official doctrine?

[Franktalk]

I am disappointed that Rob will not engage my numerous questions regarding the "spiritual warfare" model of Evangelical relations with LDS.

I am disappointed as well. Because when you limit the discussion to just the knowledge and logic of man then chances are everyone has some error. But to argue that man can know for certain the meaning of scripture without the help of God is just crazy. The whole history of the RCC and Reformation argues against this position. And in 1 John it says that the Bible is a witness. A witness to what? All truth? I think so.

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

So the Bible is a witness to the Holy Ghost. It is God that knows for sure what He meant. So reading scripture through the revelations of the Holy Ghost we obtain truth. If Rob leaves out God then he has lost any foundation except his own logic. Which of course carries no weight on its own.

The whole argument rests on how you come to an understanding of scripture. If the Holy Ghost is behind you then you do well. But if Satan or the weakness of the flesh is your guide you will not come to truth.

For me I know some scripture. Some scripture I am pretty sure of. Some I have an opinion on and some I don't know at all.

[jo1952]

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.

I know that there is a standard dictionary version of "universe", which is the first definition you have pointed to. However, in my mind I "see" more than one universe due to a couple of reasons. The first is that I don't think we can quantify God to fit into any type of boxed definition which man's physical mind is capable of comprehending. Another reason is that as technology has improved, man has surpassed even his own expectations as to what he would be able to discover about our physical world which exists within the definition of universe as found in the dictionary. IOW, I see that the original definition of universe is now insufficient. Man has been able to determine that there are galaxies beyond the bounds of what they thought existed. I have seen scientists describing this as multiple universes for lack of a better or more comprehensive explanation. This leads to a different understanding of the word "universe"; i.e., there is more than one universe even though the original intent of the word was to encompass the unknown. Now that the "unknown" has exploded in size, the original term does not do justice to "everything that exists" since so much more exists than man first thought was possible.

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.

To describe how we see our earth's temporal existence in temporal time, we do often use a bubble explanation. Still, as I said before:

We do not believe that Elohim exists within the visible universe. Elohim created the universe(s) and exists outside of them in the invisible (to human eyes) spirit eternities. The physical universe(s) exist within the outer spiritual realm.

Therefore, whatever we can see with our physical eyes is not glorified, be there only one universe or multiple universes. The spirit world exists all around us. Neither Father nor Jesus live in our physical world, though they can, at will, enter and leave this physical existence. Only the Holy Spirit is a continual presence, as He is the witness, Comforter, and revealer of Truth on the physical earth.

Best regards,

jo

[Cobalt-70]

So? Does that mean his view is official doctrine?

There's a difference between official doctrine and standard doctrine. We only get "official doctrine" when the First Presidency issues a statement. The "standard doctrine" is what actually gets taught at the Mormon pulpit, in LDS publications, and in the LDS CES system, and what is generally accepted by Mormons.

Nevertheless, the 1916 First Presidency statement on the nature of God essentially follows the theology that had recently been established by Talmage, Roberts, and Widtsoe in the wake of the death of the Adam-God doctrine. So you could say Widtsoe's views, written for the most part in church publications, were about as standard as the views of anyone during that era. The 1916 statement is not as detailed as the writings of these three scholars upon which it was based. However, it does say that "[God] certainly did not create, in the sense of bringing into primal existence, the ultimate elements of the materials of which the earth consists, for "the elements are eternal." It also states that gods and goddesses "have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation." This is basically a re-packaged version of Brigham Young's eternal hierarchy of gods, except without the Adam-God doctrine.

[Ahab]

Okay, that's even more interesting. You are saying that humanity may have been "part of" Elohim, and that Elohim may have been "part of" the grandfather god. I've never heard that before. Please tell us more.

Why do I feel like I'm telling someone about the birds and the bees? Didn't your parents ever teach you where babies come from?

Start with the idea that children come from parents, rather than from out of nothing or nowhere.

I realize we have spirits which are melded with our mortal bodies, somehow, but those spirits didn't come from out of nothing or nowhere, either. Our spirits were "created" by our parents in heaven, with our parents having the ability to create spirit children from... what now? From themselves, meaning some of the elements and attributes which are part of what they are and have within them, some of which they got from their own parents who got it from their parents before them who got it from their parents before them, etc, etc, etc.

Now you may ask yourself (and God) why there is some variation among children, instead of all children turning out to be carbon copies of their parents in every particular. Well, I don't have that one figured out yet as far as appearances go, so I won't go into any speculation about that, but I can tell you that their attitudes and preferences and dispositions are determined by their ability to chooose what they like and don't like. They have freedom, rather than being programmed as if they are robots to choose what they will like and not like, so they can choose to be like their parents in heaven or some other person, even if a person they want to emulate is evil.

Worship is all about emulation, you know. The question is who do you want to be like, and even if you don't answer that question overtly with words you're still answering it by the person you choose to be.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ahab

[Calm]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

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.

Mr. Bowman's new thread with a decent size post containing some research that has nothing to do with answering this question of Dr. Hamblin's was at the top of the page when I just signed in.

Just making an observation here.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Okay, so opposing another's belief system is sometimes a good thing but usually not a good thing. Under what circumstances, or according to what standards or criteria, would it be a good thing?

Ignoring your attempt to put words in my mouth (my statement stood on its own thank you)...

I would oppose predators upon the innocent and those who Christ would say are otherwise be better off had they a millsone around their neck and be drowned in the sea. This would rarely include opposing an entire religion- but might include opposing an individual leader or policy (i.e. the Jeffs example).

Do you consider the Latter-day Saints one of these groups that are predatory enough in your mind to actively oppose?

Edited September 22, 2011 by DaddyG

[Bill Hamblin]

I notice that although Rob professes he doesn't have time to answer my questions on this thread, he does have time to start an entirely new thread. Odd.

I also note that Rob is essentially using this board as a means to hone his arguments. By responding to him, you are actually helping his anti-Mormon ministry. Let him post his ideas on his web page, then we can respond.

[Ahab]

I notice that although Rob professes he doesn't have time to answer my questions on this thread, he does have time to start an entirely new thread. Odd.

I also note that Rob is essentially using this board as a means to hone his arguments. By responding to him, you are actually helping his anti-Mormon ministry. Let him post his ideas on his web page, then we can respond.

I'm simply seeking to share the gospel with people, which sometimes includes trying to help clear up some misconceptions, and thus I see Mr. Rob Bowman as a prime target for my efforts.

At least he's willing to talk about these things and in some sense keep learning about us, regardless of whether or not what we tell him will ever be of any real use to him, personally.

What would you rather do? Stop talking to him completely and just wait for someone else to come along who is just about ready to be baptized?

It took Brigham Young about 2 years to figure out he needed to join our Lord's church. Rob is just taking a lot longer.

[Cobalt-70]

Why do I feel like I'm telling someone about the birds and the bees? Didn't your parents ever teach you where babies come from?

Start with the idea that children come from parents, rather than from out of nothing or nowhere.

I realize we have spirits which are melded with our mortal bodies, somehow, but those spirits didn't come from out of nothing or nowhere, either. Our spirits were "created" by our parents in heaven, with our parents having the ability to create spirit children from... what now? From themselves, meaning some of the elements and attributes which are part of what they are and have within them, some of which they got from their own parents who got it from their parents before them who got it from their parents before them, etc, etc, etc.

Now you may ask yourself (and God) why there is some variation among children, instead of all children turning out to be carbon copies of their parents in every particular. Well, I don't have that one figured out yet as far as appearances go, so I won't go into any speculation about that, but I can tell you that their attitudes and preferences and dispositions are determined by their ability to chooose what they like and don't like. They have freedom, rather than being programmed as if they are robots to choose what they will like and not like, so they can choose to be like their parents in heaven or some other person, even if a person they want to emulate is evil.

Worship is all about emulation, you know. The question is who do you want to be like, and even if you don't answer that question overtly with words you're still answering it by the person you choose to be.

You have to be explicit here, because this is a new variation on the co-eternal nature of humanity that I've never heard expressed before, quite in these terms. You seem to be saying, in essence, that each of us is eternal and uncreated because before we were born as spirits, we existed as unfertilized spirit germ cells swimming around for an eternity in the bodies of our heavenly parents.

Now I'm aware that there is a bit of a challenging paradox created by joining together the apparent doctrine of Joseph Smith (that our spirits are eternally preexistent and had always been intelligent to at least some extent, but that God "organized" our spirits by bringing us together as his children, providing us with light and knowledge, and giving each of us with an opportunity to be "added upon"), and the doctrine of Brigham Young (that our spirits had a beginning when we were very literally born as spirit children). Your doctrine described above seems to be very squarely in the Young camp, with no attempt to reconcile this theory with Joseph Smith's idea of an eternally-preexisting intelligence. Presumably, a gamete has no intelligence, right? And in fact, half of us would have exited in the body of our heavenly father, while the other half of us existed in the body of our heavenly mother. What does that do to our identity as an eternally-preexisting being? Were each of us a Binity, existing as two separate persons (gametes) with one being? Or were we two separate beings that later joined as one in the Fallopian tubes of our heavenly mother?

[Scott Lloyd]

It took Brigham Young about 2 years to figure out he needed to join our Lord's church. Rob is just taking a lot longer.

While Brigham may have been skeptical for a while, I don't think he ever took on the role of career antagonist.

[Ahab]

You have to be explicit here, because this is a new variation on the co-eternal nature of humanity that I've never heard expressed before, quite in these terms.

You still don't get it?

Try thinking just in terms of your mortal body. Where do you think that came from? Your parents, right? Well, where did they get what it took to form you? Well, some of it was from what they got from their parents, right? And on and on and on backwards throughout all of eternity, which has no beginning, as well as no end.

Now try thinking in terms of your spirit body. Where do you think that came from? Your parents, right? Well, where did they get what it took to form you? Well, some of it was from what they got from their parents, right? And on and on and on backwards throughout all of eternity, which has no beginning, as well as no end.

Your "intelligence" also came from God, too, bud, to whatever degree you have any, and the "kind" of intelligence you have and are, as a being of intelligence, is the same kind of intelligence that our Father in heaven and his Fathers before him have and is.

God = the most supreme being of intelligence in all of existence, and God exists as more than one person.

You seem to be saying, in essence, that each of us is eternal and uncreated because before we were born as spirits, we existed as unfertilized spirit germ cells swimming around for an eternity in the bodies of our heavenly parents.

I don't know why you're referring to what we were as "unfertilized germ cells". Is that what you think children are in their parents before they are consummated? Germ cells? Is that really what you think something like DNA is?

Now I'm aware that there is a bit of a challenging paradox created by joining together the apparent doctrine of Joseph Smith (that our spirits are eternally preexistent and had always been intelligent to at least some extent, but that God "organized" our spirits by bringing us together as his children, providing us with light and knowledge, and giving each of us with an opportunity to be "added upon"), and the doctrine of Brigham Young (that our spirits had a beginning when we were very literally born as spirit children).

You need to unscramble your own preconceptions of what you think Joseph and Brigham were teaching.

How can a spirit be eternally "preexistent" ? It existed before it was mortal, but that doesn't mean it was "preexistent". We are children of God, and as such our spirits came from him and everyone else with the same kind of spirit, which we can refer to as the spirit of God.

Your doctrine described above seems to be very squarely in the Young camp, with no attempt to reconcile this theory with Joseph Smith's idea of an eternally-preexisting intelligence.

Our intelligence came from God, who is eternal. There. Is that better for you?

Presumably, a gamete has no intelligence, right?

Gamete? What the heck is a gamete? All intelligent beings have intelligence and the kind we have is of God.

And in fact, half of us would have existed in the body of our heavenly father, while the other half of us existed in the body of our heavenly mother.

I don't know what the percentages are, but I do know part of what we are comes from our immediate Mother, and some from our immediate Father, and some of it comes from our Grandparents who are the parents of our Mothers and Fathers with what they have coming from their parents before them into all of eternity past.

What does that do to our identity as an eternally-preexisting being?

Stop using the word "preexisting" please. There was no point before existence, or even our existence, because what we are has always existed in some form and substance in our progenitors.

Were each of us a Binity, existing as two separate persons (gametes) with one being?

Is that what you think we are now? Two separate persons with one being? We came from a Father and a Mother, but does that make us 2 separate persons? And why do you say only 2 separate persons? What about how our Fathers and Mothers have something of their Fathers and Mothers in them which they passed along to us?

Or were we two separate beings that later joined as one in the Fallopian tubes of our heavenly mother?

Two becoming one. That's a good concept, but what do you have when one from two and one from another two join to become one with those two going on to produce one of the same kind forever and ever?

Not that I'm trying to convey the idea that it all started with 4, with 1 from each 2, but along the eternal chain that binds us all together you can pick out 4 to focus on and then see where it all goes from there.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ahab

[Ahab]

While Brigham may have been skeptical for a while, I don't think he ever took on the role of career antagonist.

Which means Rob will have quite a bit to be remorseful about. He'll still be able to be forgiven, though, because God is that good, as long as Rob really wants to repent.

And, uh, yeah. I'm taking the position that Rob is wrong and that he needs to repent, rather than thinking Rob is right about everything he says against us and what God has taught us.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I notice that although Rob professes he doesn't have time to answer my questions on this thread...,

I didn't say that, and you should know I didn't say it.

You continued:

...he does have time to start an entirely new thread. Odd.

The new thread was a response to a CFR and an accusation of lying on a subject of tangential relevance to the thread where that accusation was made, hence the need for a new thread. Thus, I was responding to someone else.

You wrote:

I also note that Rob is essentially using this board as a means to hone his arguments. By responding to him, you are actually helping his anti-Mormon ministry. Let him post his ideas on his web page, then we can respond.

Does that mean that you are not interested in continuing a discussion with me here? If so, why should I respond to the posts you have repeatedly complained about me not yet answering?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Another response to the following comment:

I also note that Rob is essentially using this board as a means to hone his arguments.

In other words, I recognize that I can learn from discussing issues here with knowledgeable Mormons like you. It is very telling that you and others here (notably Bukowski) think this is a bad thing. With all the complaining that Mormons do about how their critics supposedly misrepresent Mormonism all the time, you'd think Mormons would be happy that a critic wants to make sure he has listened to your side. But nooooooo! Some of you, at least, see only something threatening about a critic making such an effort.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Cobalt-70]

You need to unscramble your own preconceptions of what you think Joseph and Brigham were teaching.

How can a spirit be eternally "preexistent" ? It existed before it was mortal, but that doesn't mean it was "preexistent". We are children of God, and as such our spirits came from him and everyone else with the same kind of spirit, which we can refer to as the spirit of God.

I think I get your drift. We'll have to have a discussion, probably on another thread, about what each of us thinks Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were teaching on these issues.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Another response to the following comment:

In other words, I recognize that I can learn from discussing issues here with knowledgeable Mormons like you. It is very telling that you and others here (notably Bukowski) think this is a bad thing. With all the complaining that Mormons do about how their critics supposedly misrepresent Mormonism all the time, you'd think Mormons would be happy that a critic wants to make sure he has listened to your side. But nooooooo! Some of you, at least, see only something threatening about a critic making such an effort.

I wouldn't object if you approached your study of Mormonism with some humility and a sincere desire to learn and understand. I don't see you doing that here. Maybe I've misjudged you, but people who make videos and post web pages attacking other people's religions do annoy me. It annoys me even when its people like Kevin Graham ranting about Islam--and I'm not a Muslim. Truly, I would never do such a thing.

[Bill Hamblin]

Does that mean that you are not interested in continuing a discussion with me here? If so, why should I respond to the posts you have repeatedly complained about me not yet answering?

It was a serious and important question. It deserves an answer. But do what you want.

[wenglund]

...you'd think Mormons would be happy that a critic wants to make sure he has listened to your side.

We are happy when that happens--that is, if the listening is with the intent of better understanding how we think and with the desire to see the reasonableness of our view. Such has actually occurred with good folks like 3DOP and other non-LDS. And, I would be happy were that ever to become the case with you--though I wont hold my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 24, 2011 by wenglund

[zerinus]

In other words, I recognize that I can learn from discussing issues here with knowledgeable Mormons like you. It is very telling that you and others here (notably Bukowski) think this is a bad thing. With all the complaining that Mormons do about how their critics supposedly misrepresent Mormonism all the time, you'd think Mormons would be happy that a critic wants to make sure he has listened to your side. But nooooooo! Some of you, at least, see only something threatening about a critic making such an effort.

I don't have any problem with you doing that. But try doing it on the JW board or somewhere like that. You wouldn't last five minutes.

But the only way to be really accurate about Mormonism is to stop being an anti-Mormon altogether. There is no way to be an anti-Mormon and be accurate about it at the same time.

Edited September 23, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

I don't have any problem with you doing that. But try doing it on the JW board or somewhere like that. You wouldn't last five minutes.

Why not? Do more of them have as much intolerance as some people do here?

But the only way to be really accurate about Mormonism is to stop being an anti-Mormon altogether. There is no way to be an anti-Mormon and be accurate about it at the same time.

I don't agree with that, because I can see a way at least in theory for that to be possible.

All an anti-Mormon would have to do is stop adding some of his/her own negatively slanted adjectives and characterizations while teaching what we actually believe, and then in separate sentences say something about how while that is what we believe he/she does not believe it while stating his/her objections.

For example, instead of saying something like this:

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claim to accept the Holy Bible as the word of God in addition to what they claim is additional revelation from God in our day, such as the Book of Mormon, a book of Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. I do not accept their claims, however, and I have tried to explain to some members of that Church why I do not accept them, but they continue to hold firm to their faith while claiming that my understanding of their doctrine is not correct. I will now endeavor to explain my reasoning to you, the reader, while leaving you to judge for yourself.

Instead, though, I often see them saying something like this.

Mormons (a nickname they would rather than referring to the name of our Church is) say they accept the Holy Bible as the word of God in addition to their other teachings (as if they're trying to avoid suggesting that "our" teachings may be revelations from God), such as a book they call the Book of Mormon, a book of Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Their claims are not true, however, (as if the fact that they don't believe it means it is not true) and I have tried to tell them they are wrong (more of their own judgments based on their opinions) by showing where they're messing up by not understanding the Bible (again, more of their own judgments based on their opinions), but they continue to hold firm to their false doctrine (again, more of their own judgments based on their opinions) while claiming that my understanding of their doctrine is false. How preposterous. (again, more of their own judgments based on their opinions) will now endeavor to explain my reasoning to you, the reader, to help you to see how wrong they are. (again, more of their own judgments based on their opinions)

Edited September 23, 2011 by Ahab

[altersteve]

Instead, though, I often see them saying something like this.

Mormons (a nickname they would rather than referring to the name of our Church is) say they accept the Holy Bible as the word of God in addition to their other teachings (as if they're trying to avoid suggesting that "our" teachings may be revelations from God), such as a book they call the Book of Mormon, a book of Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Their claims are not true, however, (as if the fact that they don't believe it means it is not true) and I have tried to tell them they are wrong (more of their own judgments based on their opinions) by showing where they're messing up by not understanding the Bible (again, more of their own judgments based on their opinions), but they continue to hold firm to their false doctrine (again, more of their own judgments based on their opinions) while claiming that my understanding of their doctrine is false. How preposterous. (again, more of their own judgments based on their opinions) will now endeavor to explain my reasoning to you, the reader, to help you to see how wrong they are. (again, more of their own judgments based on their opinions)

This sounds like Matt Slick wrote it.

[zerinus]

Why not? Do more of them have as much intolerance as some people do here?

I am guessing that they do. But what is more, it is institutionally "more intolerant". JWism is a form of deception. It is great deception, starting at the very top. I know some have level the same accusation against us; but just because it is wrong against us, it doesn't mean that it is equally wrong against the JWs.

I don't agree with that, because I can see a way at least in theory for that to be possible.

All an anti-Mormon would have to do is stop adding some of his/her own negatively slanted adjectives and characterizations while teaching what we actually believe, and then in separate sentences say something about how while that is what we believe he/she does not believe it while stating his/her objections.

* * *

If they did that, then I wouldn't classify them as anti-Mormons. There is a nice thread just now about a videoed talk by Richard Mouw. He says that he doesn't agree with certain aspects of Mormon theology; but I wouldn't classify him as "anti-Mormon". But Rob is! Perhaps he will learn to do better one day.

Edited September 23, 2011 by zerinus