Uncomfortable Doctrine

[Justice]

Why does the Mormon church NOT place the same disclaimer on the BOM?

The Book of Mormon has only gone through 1 language translation, and that was done by the gift and power of God. The Angel told Joseph Smith that the translation was true.

Joseph Smith was inspired when he translated the Book of Mormon, I'm very hesitant to say the same of everyone who has contributed to the Bible being translated into English.

[xanmad33]

The Book of Mormon has only gone through 1 language translation, and that was done by the gift and power of God. The Angel told Joseph Smith that the translation was true.

Joseph Smith was inspired when he translated the Book of Mormon, I'm very hesitant to say the same of everyone who has contributed to the Bible being translated into English.

Funny.... You have trouble believing thousands of pieces of evidence that attest to the accuracy of the Bible, even from MORMON scholars...

How about some evidence from MORMON scholars attesting to the inaccuracy of the BOM?

in regard to what book is more trustworthy I found this interesting article:

Since the Book of Mormon is claimed to be the Word of God, and Joseph Smith stated, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on the face of the earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4, p.461), the implication is that this work is perfect in form and content.

This has also been the understanding of LDS Church authorities during the last 150 years. Joseph Fielding Smith, sixth President of the Church, stated in a sermon:

"Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God...The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another would appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual." (Journal of Oliver Huntington, 1881, p. 168)

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth President of the Church, has likewise stated:

"Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit, but each new revelation an doctrine and priesthood fitted into its place perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it has been prepared by the Master Builder." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol. I, p.170)

It would seem reasonable to assume, in light of such teachings by Church authorities, that current editions of the Book of Mormon would be identical to the 1830 edition, particularly since God made the translation.

The following are a few examples of such corrected errors:

1. "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents." (p.15) grammar

2. "...and loosed the bands which was upon my wrists." (p.49) grammar

3. "As I was a journeying." (p.249) - grammar

4. "...they had began to possess the land of Amulon, and had began to till the ground." (p.204) -- grammar

It is difficult to understand how a translation, superintended by the power of God, could contain such basic errors. It also cannot be said that these errors crept in through poor proof-reading or type-setting. Noted Mormon historian, Francis Kirkham, had this to say when considering the vast majority of changes in the original text:

"Such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proof-reading or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the 'typos,' or the unfriendliness of the publishing house. The errors are constitutional in their character, they are of the web and woof of the style and not such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed, the first edition of the Book of Mormon is singularly free from typographical errors." (Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America, The Book of Mormon, 1942, pp.200-201)

"Far more serious and troublesome are the substantive errors; those that have been corrected which were found to be in conflict with Mormon doctrine. The following are two illustrations.

In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, on page 32, it reads, "And the angel spake unto me, saying: 'These last records...shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the World; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 13:40 in modern editions. Then on page 25 of the 1830 edition it reads, "And he said unto me, 'Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh...' And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me, 'behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 11: 18-21. The problem in these sections, and two others, is that Jesus is said to be the Eternal Father, contrary to current Mormon teaching. In later editions, "the Son of God" has been inserted before "the Eternal Father."

Then I came across these remarks made by Dr. Dee Green, Mormon scientist and former editor of U.A.S. Newsletter. In the journal, Dialogue, he states in regard to no archaeological evidence supporting the BOM:

"There have been no spectacular finds, no Zarahemlas discovered, no gold plates brought to light, no horses uncovered, and King Benjamin's tomb remains unexcavated...

The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that book of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty handed." (Dialogue, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)"

Why would there be a need to change such dramatic doctrines?

like : "the Son of God" has been inserted before "the Eternal Father? Thats not just "gramatical"

[a-train]

Upon Saul's vision, 'the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.' (Acts 9:7). However, when Paul recounted that event he said: 'And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.' (Acts 22:9)

Wait a minute Paul, did they hear the voice or not? What did they see?

The Prophet Joseph clarified Acts 9:7: 'And they who were journeying with him saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him who spake to him.' (JST Acts 9:7)

Upon the covenant of Israel in the wilderness with Moses: 'They saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.' (Exodus 24:10-11)

John 1:18 says: 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.'

Joseph Smith clarified: 'No man hath seen God at any time except he hath borne record of the Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.' (JST John 1:18)

-a-train

[Still_Small_Voice]

Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU, stated:

"In studying a particular author in antiquity, the classical scholar typically works with a few principal manuscripts, together with a few more extensive fragments or portions of manuscripts. The New Testament scholar, however, faces the wonderful but impossible prospect of attempting to comprehend a text preserved in about 3,000 manuscripts...Nor is sheer quantity most impressive, for the antiquity of his manuscripts should be the envy of all ancient studies...With such an early collection, the question naturally arises how the text is different from the traditional one. Differences lie in numerous details, but the outstanding conclusion is that there is little, if any, significant change"

I will definitely agree with you here. There is very little wrong with the New Testament. It is the Old Testament that has been tampered with and had many plain prophecies of Jesus Christ removed from it (though there are still many witnesses of Jesus Christ in it).

I find it interesting that some point out that there are changes and errors in the Book of Mormon. I have read thru these changes. None of them are of consequence.

If one examines the text of the Book of Mormon they will find it to be a powerful witness for the Bible. Both of these books of scripture help us to gain a greater understanding of God and His marvelous plan for His children.

We obviously disagree on many points. I fear this thread is becoming unfruitful in lifting up Christ. You read the Bible from a different perspective than we do. This is why there are hundreds of different Christian denominations in the world. It is obvious more is needed than just the record of ancient prophets left for us.

[xanmad33]

Upon Saul's vision, 'the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.' (Acts 9:7). However, when Paul recounted that event he said: 'And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.' (Acts 22:9)

Wait a minute Paul, did they hear the voice or not? What did they see?

Let us look further...

. . "In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together, we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it inteligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul ekousen phonen--accusative case); though he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: "I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me," NASB). But in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case. "

-- Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer, p. 382.

Upon the covenant of Israel in the wilderness with Moses: 'They saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.' (Exodus 24:10-11)

if we look in the Septuagint version we read the following:

"And they saw the place where the God of Israel stood."

John 1:18 says: 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.'

Joseph Smith clarified: 'No man hath seen God at any time except he hath borne record of the Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.' (JST John 1:18)

-a-train

God cannot be seen by men when in his full glory, that is Biblical no need for Josephs clarification. God can be seen when in lesser form...

Edited September 7, 2008 by xanmad33

[xanmad33]

This is why there are hundreds of different Christian denominations in the world. It is obvious more is needed than just the record of ancient prophets left for us.

If this is truly the case...That we "need more" because of hundreds of different denominations, How do you explain the hundreds of different denominations of Mormonism?

All the new revelation from LDS has done nothing to ammend the situation.

[Snow]

A complaint is an expression of displeasure. Not an expression of opinion

Silly word games are pointless. Your complaint is that you think The Church of Jesus Christ is false.

And to your "newsflash" , I pointed out earlier a very real fact that seems ignored

Do Mormons consider Christians Mormon? Can I attend Temple? Can my pastor speak at your church? No!.... LDS rejects Christianity as wrong (doctrinally speaking) just as Christianity rejects LDS as doctrinally unsound.

That's just a fact

Honesty is important and you are now being dishonest. LDS does not reject Christianity. That is a false allegation. A true Christian would not dishonestly fabricate charges. The Church of Jesus Christ is Christian and we obviously don't reject ourselves. We do not believe that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are correct on all points and thus reject some of their beliefs and their claims to authority.

I call upon you as a Christian to be honest in your posts.

Regardless of "what you think" Its a fact.

A fact I bet you can't prove. You may have posted on the topic but you haven't covered any irreconcilable differences with the Bible as their are none... only in your mind.

How bout you show me that in the Bible, maybe start a new thread, make it all about proving Mormon beliefs in the BIble, just a thought...

You apparently don't understand how it works. He who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof. You claimed that deification contradicted the Bible. Support your assertion. While you are at it, you might try explain why the doctrine was so pervasive in the ancient church ("God became man so that man might become a god." cf. St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione or On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B;)

Please don't tell me what I do or do not believe. Again the oneness of God is of paramount importance to a Christian, the "trinity" is a word used to describe the different designations for God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are different designations for the one God. God is the Father. God is the Holy Spirit. The Son is God manifest in flesh. Believe it or not, that is my belief

Read the post. No one told you what you believe. You failed to respond in any meaningful way and simply repeated what you said before. The point is/was that the Trinity is is more that a designation, it is the belief that Father, Son, Holy Ghost are one single ontological being comprised of the same ousia. I explained that, contrary to your incorrect claim, that such a notion was NOT found in the Bible and that you would help demonstrate that it was NOT in the Bible by not being able to post proof of it.

First, I would like to point out how hypocritical it is to claim to believe in the Bible and claim to hold it just as dearly as the BOM, believeing it's words are true, but at the same time to blast it as if it's a totally contaminated book, not worthy to live by...

You are using the word "hypocritical" incorrectly. Look it up. You are also falsely alleging that I blast the Bible as not worthy to live by. Remember what I said about honesty above? Please be honest. I have never said the Bible is not worthy to live by.

How about instead of me pointing out all the thousands of inconsistancies of the BOM, and rebuttaling with pages and pages of Biblical scholars on the subject, I just offer you a quote from one of your own...

"Mormon scholar, Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU:...

Interesting... but completely irrelevant to anything I have posted in this thread. Try focusing.

If you believe in the Bible, which you say you do, and it obviously came WAYYYYY before the BOM or D&C etc...

Why did God need to send another revelation to Joseph Smith that was so vastly different than the one already recieved in the Bible? Shouldn't you bring all claims BACK to the Bible to see if they are truly in sync with what God has already revealed?

God doesn't need to do anything. He does what he does for his purposes. Your approval is not required. You question is also a bad question. It presupposes that LDS beliefs are out of sync with the Bible. You really struggle with this whole honesty issue. An honest position would be that LDS beliefs are out of sync with YOUR interpretation of the Bible. So what.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Snow

[Snow]

If this is truly the case...That we "need more" because of hundreds of different denominations, How do you explain the hundreds of different denominations of Mormonism?

All the new revelation from LDS has done nothing to ammend the situation.

This isn't rocket science. People, for their own reasons, disagree with others and so form their own sect. That's the history of what happens when people follow their own dictates instead of harkening unto the counsels of God's prophets.

[Snow]

Let us look further...

. . "In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together, we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it inteligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul ekousen phonen--accusative case); though he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: "I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me," NASB). But in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case. "

-- Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer, p. 382.

So - you believe the Bible in so far as it is translated correctly.

Kinda makes your protestations about the LDS doing the same thing sound hollow, doesn't it.

[a-train]

Let us look further...

So what you are telling me is that the KJV was not a perfect translation and we need to go back to the Greek and the Septuagint to increase accuracy. In other words, you believe the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly."

-a-train

[a-train]

So - you believe the Bible in so far as it is translated correctly.

Kinda makes your protestations about the LDS doing the same thing sound hollow, doesn't it.

Dohh! You beat me.

[Snow]

Funny.... You have trouble believing thousands of pieces of evidence that attest to the accuracy of the Bible, even from MORMON scholars...

How about some evidence from MORMON scholars attesting to the inaccuracy of the BOM?

Ts, tsk, tsk.

You are making up things about what the poster believes - ("You have trouble believing thousands of pieces of evidence that attest to the accuracy of the Bible"). The poster said nothing about having trouble believing thousands of pieces of paper and you know it because you read the posts. The poster answered your question about why there was the 8th Article of Faith.

You needn't make stuff up. Please engage in a straight forward conversation without deception.

[Snow]

in regard to what book is more trustworthy I found this interesting article:

Since the Book of Mormon is claimed to be the Word of God, and Joseph Smith stated, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on the face of the earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4, p.461), the implication is that this work is perfect in form and content.

This has also been the understanding of LDS Church authorities during the last 150 years. Joseph Fielding Smith, sixth President of the Church, stated in a sermon:

"Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God...The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another would appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual." (Journal of Oliver Huntington, 1881, p. 168)

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth President of the Church, has likewise stated:

"Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit, but each new revelation an doctrine and priesthood fitted into its place perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it has been prepared by the Master Builder." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol. I, p.170)

It would seem reasonable to assume, in light of such teachings by Church authorities, that current editions of the Book of Mormon would be identical to the 1830 edition, particularly since God made the translation.

The following are a few examples of such corrected errors:

1. "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents." (p.15) grammar

2. "...and loosed the bands which was upon my wrists." (p.49) grammar

3. "As I was a journeying." (p.249) - grammar

4. "...they had began to possess the land of Amulon, and had began to till the ground." (p.204) -- grammar

It is difficult to understand how a translation, superintended by the power of God, could contain such basic errors.

You apparently believe that JS meant that the Book of Mormon was the most grammatically correct book on earth.

Please post your evidence that is what he mean.

You also apparently believe that Joseph Fielding Smith had an accurate understanding of the translation process and so we should agree with him.

Please post your evidence that he had a correct understanding.

... by the way, I already know the answers to this stuff so I'll be watching for errors and false claims.

I'll wait.....

[Snow]

The following are a few examples of such corrected errors:

1. "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents." (p.15) grammar

2. "...and loosed the bands which was upon my wrists." (p.49) grammar

3. "As I was a journeying." (p.249) - grammar

4. "...they had began to possess the land of Amulon, and had began to till the ground." (p.204) -- grammar

It is difficult to understand how a translation, superintended by the power of God, could contain such basic errors. It also cannot be said that these errors crept in through poor proof-reading or type-setting. Noted Mormon historian, Francis Kirkham, had this to say when considering the vast majority of changes in the original text:

By the way, I notice that you are cutting and pasting from the anti-Mormon bigot Rev Bob Pardon and trying to pass it off as your own material.

Honesty requires that you either author your own posts or give credit to those that do.

[richlittell]

Dear xanmad,

You initiated the latter part of this thread with what I thought was a sincere desire to understand our view and position on a certain subject.

I was wondering WHAT is pertinent to your slavation? What "issues" are specifically relevant to your salvation that you spoke of? Is there one special book or belief that is above all else?

I and several others have answered you quite plainly and to the best of our abilities. We are not prophets nor paid ministers, as we don't have any in our church. We are husbands, fathers, mothers, and wives who are quite busy with our lives. I am sorry that I put so much time and effort into responding to your posts, or at least, that I didn't just simply stop responding earlier.

We are not trying to "prove" anything to you, why should you try to "prove" anything to us.

You are a lover of the Bible, I respect that, especially since we are too. We happen to believe in more than the Bible and we know and understand many many people don't agree with that. That's fine.

For me, I wouldn't go to another religion's website and ask seemingly sincere questions to understand how they believe and then turn around and try to show them why they are wrong, regardless of my personal bias.

This isn't a "convert the Protestant/Catholic forum" nor a "convert the Mormon forum." We would like to have open dialoque with all faiths and respect their beliefs, as I have tried to indicate that I respect yours, having myself been raised a Protestant; I can see many of your positions, I simply have studied both sides for myself and made my own personal choice, as have most others here.

I won't be bothering to respond to any more of your posts, but best wishes, as I once said, my whole family is Protestant (and if they can't "re-convert" me nobody can). So I do respect your position and also your zeal.

Edited September 7, 2008 by richlittell

[xanmad33]

Silly word games are pointless. Your complaint is that you think The Church of Jesus Christ is false.

Again, that would be my OPINION...

Honesty is important and you are now being dishonest. LDS does not reject Christianity. That is a false allegation. A true Christian would not dishonestly fabricate charges. The Church of Jesus Christ is Christian and we obviously don't reject ourselves. We do not believe that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are correct on all points and thus reject some of their beliefs and their claims to authority.

I call upon you as a Christian to be honest in your posts.

Who's being dishonest?

How about a few quotes from Mormon Prophets and Apostles?...

Christendom at the present day, and where are they, with all their boasted religion, piety, and sacredness while at the same time they are crying out against prophets, apostles, angels, revelations, prophesying and visions, etc. Why, they are just ripening for the damnation of hell. They will be damned, for they reject the most glorious principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and treat with disdain and trample under foot the key that unlocks the heavens and puts in our possession the glories of the celestial world. Yes, I say, such will be damned, with all their professed godliness. (Joseph Smith, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Alma P. Burton, p.220)

The gates of hell have prevailed and will continue to prevail over the Catholic mother of harlots, and over all her Protestant daughters; but as for the apostolical Church of Christ, she rests secure in the mansions of eternal happiness, where she will remain until the apostate Catholic church, with all her popes and bishops, together with all her harlot daughters shall be hurled down to hell; (Orson Pratt’s Works, p. 189-190)

But to return to the Christians' idol. The pious, zealous, religious and hypocritical in our day, uniting with political demagogues, have set up a God for us to worship.... this loathsome, filthy, debauched, degraded monster is held up for our veneration and worship by its corrupt Christian devotees as the essence of everything that is great and grand, noble and praiseworthy; and we are called upon to fall down and worship this loathsome monster. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 23:, p.36)

Or How bout this

I will now turn linguist. There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me. (Joseph Smith, Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith's Teachings, edited by Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q.Cannon)

or this:

It is from the Book of Mormon that we gain the concept of a "plan of salvation." This phrase is not a part of the vocabulary of theology of the Bible-believing world. The idea is not found in the Bible. We know it should be there, because we have it in the book of Moses (Moses 6:62), but the Bible as we have it today does not contain any reference to a divine plan for the salvation of men. (Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon v1 R. Millet)

A fact I bet you can't prove. You may have posted on the topic but you haven't covered any irreconcilable differences with the Bible as their are none... only in your mind.

Ah..ya got me...

heres a little outline

"The Bible teaches that there is only one True and Living God and apart from Him there are no other Gods (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:21,22; 46:9; Mark 12:29-34).

the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).

The Bible teaches That God is Spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:15,16), He is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Romans 1:22, 23), and has always (eternally) existed as God —He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present (Psalm 90:2; 139:7-10; Isaiah 40:28; Luke 1:37).

the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577).

-The Bible teaches and that Jesus is the unique Son of God; he has always existed as God, and is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father (John 1:1, 14; 10:30; 14:9; Colossians 2:9). While never less than God, at the appointed time He laid aside the glory He shared with the Father (John 17:4, 5; Philippians 2:6-11) and was made flesh for our salvation; His incarnation was accomplished through being conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:34-35).

-By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ is our elder brother who progressed to godhood, having first been procreated as a spirit child by Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother; He was later conceived physically through intercourse between Heavenly Father and the virgin Mary (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 129; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547; 742). Mormon doctrine affirms that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers (Gospel Principles, pp. 17-18; Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).

--The Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost are not separate Gods or separate beings, but are distinct Persons within the one Triune Godhead. Throughout the New Testament the Son and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father are separately identified as and act as God (Son: Mark 2:5-12; John 20:28; Philippians 2:10,11; Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3,4; 2 Corinthians 3:17,18; 13:14); yet at the same time the Bible teaches that these three are only one God (see point 1).

--By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577), and that the Son and Holy Ghost are the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a celestial wife (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, p. 649).

--The Bible teaches that the disobedience of our first parents Adam and Eve was a great evil. Through their fall sin entered the world, bringing all human beings under condemnation and death. Thus we are born with a sinful nature, and will be judged for the sins we commit as individuals. (Ezekiel 18:1-20; Romans 5:12-21).

--By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Adam’s sin was "a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us" (Gospel Principles, p. 33; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 2:25; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 114-115).

--The Bible teaches that apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross we are spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1,5) and are powerless to save ourselves. By grace alone, apart from self-righteous works, God forgives our sins and makes us worthy to live in His presence (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-6). Our part is only to cling to Christ in heartfelt faith. (However, it is certainly true that without the evidence of changed conduct, a person’s testimony of faith in Christ must be questioned; salvation by grace alone through faith, does not mean we can live as we please — Romans 6:1-4).

--By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that eternal life in the presence of God (which it terms "exaltation in the celestial kingdom") must be earned through obedience to all the commands of the Mormon Church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals. Works are a requirement for salvation (entrance into the "celestial kingdom") — Gospel Principles, p. 303-304; Pearl of Great Price — Third Article of Faith; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 339, 671; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 25:23).

--The Bible teaches that the purpose of the atoning work of Christ on the cross was to provide the complete solution for humankind’s sin problem. However, those who reject God’s grace in this life will have no part in this salvation but are under the judgment of God for eternity (John 3:36; Hebrews 9:27; 1 John 5:11-12).

--By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the purpose of the atonement was to bring resurrection and immortality to all people, regardless of whether they receive Christ by faith. Christ’s atonement is only a partial basis for worthiness and eternal life, which also requires obedience to all the commands of the Mormon church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals (Gospel Principles, pp. 74-75; Mormon Doctrine, p. 669).

--The Bible teaches that the Bible is the unique, final and infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1,2; 2 Peter 1:21) and that it will stand forever (1 Peter 1:23-25). God’s providential preservation of the text of the Bible was marvelously illustrated in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

--By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the Bible has been corrupted, is missing many "plain and precious parts" and does not contain the fullness of the Gospel (Book of Mormon — 1 Nephi 13:26-29; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 190-191).

--The Bible teaches that the true Church was divinely established by Jesus and could never and will never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18; John 15:16; 17:11). Christians acknowledge that there have been times of corruption and apostasy within the Church, but believe there has always been a remnant that held fast to the biblical essentials.

--By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there was a great and total apostasy of the Church as established by Jesus Christ; this state of apostasy "still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" of the Mormon Church (Gospel Principles, pp. 105-106; Mormon Doctrine, p. 44).""

You apparently don't understand how it works. He who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof. You claimed that deification contradicted the Bible. Support your assertion. While you are at it, you might try explain why the doctrine was so pervasive in the ancient church ("God became man so that man might become a god." cf. St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione or On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B;)

here's a few...

There is only one God, who has eternally existed:

Isaiah 43:10-11: "I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, and the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Isaiah 44:6: "Thus saith the LORD...I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

Isaiah 45:22: ...and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me....I am God, and there is none else."

Isa 42:8: "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

Read the post. No one told you what you believe. You failed to respond in any meaningful way and simply repeated what you said before. The point is/was that the Trinity is is more that a designation, it is the belief that Father, Son, Holy Ghost are one single ontological being comprised of the same ousia. I explained that, contrary to your incorrect claim, that such a notion was NOT found in the Bible and that you would help demonstrate that it was NOT in the Bible by not being able to post proof of it.

Christians believe that there is one God by nature revealed through three distinct persons. No Christian believes in three gods.

The Bible teaches there is only one God which we are to follow and believe in. (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 45:22)

The Bible teaches that God is one in nature not one in person. (Genesis 1:26, Genesis 11:7, Genesis 19:24, Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 48:12-18, Amos 4:10-12)

The Bible teaches God is one in unity. (Deuteronomy 6:4) " The Hebrew word here for one is "echad" which means a compound unity. Places which show this in context for the word "echad" are in Genesis 2:24, Ezra 2:64, Ezekiel 37:17 and other references."

The Bible teaches that there is only one God. (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 45:22)

The Bibles teaches that there is one who is called the Father and is identified as being God. (1 Peter 1:2)

The Bible teaches that there is one who is called Jesus and is identified as being God. (John 1:1-3&14-18, John 20:28-29, 1 John 1:1-4&5:20, Philippians 2:5-8, Revelation 1:17-18, Revelation 22:12-20)

The Bible teaches that there is one who is called the Holy Spirit and is identified as being God. (John 14:16-17, John 15:26, John 16:7-15, Acts 5:3-4, Acts 13:2, 1 Corinthians 12:4-18, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:15-18)

God said, “Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any”. How can there be Gods who are Elohim’s ancestors? Surely an all-knowing God would know this and wouldn’t speak falsehoods. (See Isa. 44:8 and Journal of Discourses Vol. 1, pg. 123)

If a spirit is a being without a body (See Luke 24:39), why do Mormons teach that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones? (See John 4:24)

If the Father is Elohim, and Jesus is Jehovah (as the Mormons teach), how does a Mormon explain Deuteronomy 6:4, which in the Hebrew says, “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah”?

You are using the word "hypocritical" incorrectly. Look it up. You are also falsely alleging that I blast the Bible as not worthy to live by. Remember what I said about honesty above? Please be honest. I have never said the Bible is not worthy to live by.

Here's the first definition for you...

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs

Let me illistrate that better for you....

Many Mormons I have encountered on this site (in this very thread)claim to believe in the Bible, but when pressed to prove how the Bible supports any Momon claims, they quickly turn the conversation into proving the Bible is corrupt and untrustworthy. That sounds like hypocritical to me...

Interesting... but completely irrelevant to anything I have posted in this thread. Try focusing.

How is that irrelevant? Especially when the Bible's accuracy has been questioned in this very thread?

God doesn't need to do anything. He does what he does for his purposes. Your approval is not required. You question is also a bad question. It presupposes that LDS beliefs are out of sync with the Bible. You really struggle with this whole honesty issue. An honest position would be that LDS beliefs are out of sync with YOUR interpretation of the Bible. So what.

Actually an honest position would be that LDS beliefs are out of sync with the Biblical interpretation of thousands of Biblical scholars, Hebrew scholars, Greek scholars etc.

Edited September 7, 2008 by xanmad33

[xanmad33]

By the way, I notice that you are cutting and pasting from the anti-Mormon bigot Rev Bob Pardon and trying to pass it off as your own material.

Honesty requires that you either author your own posts or give credit to those that do.

actually if you'll notice those were all in quotations

[xanmad33]

So what you are telling me is that the KJV was not a perfect translation and we need to go back to the Greek and the Septuagint to increase accuracy. In other words, you believe the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly."

-a-train

No, I believe the Bible IS translated correctly

It is only when things are taken grossly out of context and the FULL weight of scripture is not considered that one needs to go further to "prove" what the text was ACTUALLY saying vs. what someone wants the text to be saying :)

[Snow]

actually if you'll notice those were all in quotations

That's false.

Look at the text that I quoted in my post.

Though specific segments are in quotations, for example phrases from the Book of Mormon, the actual text you lifted from the anti-Mormon Rev is not nor did you give him credit. If you are unfamiliar with the conventions associated quotations that span several paragraphs or the requirements for giving proper credit, you may want to bone up before continuing.

Honesty is important to Christians.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Snow

[Snow]

Again, that would be my OPINION...

Who's being dishonest?

How about a few quotes from Mormon Prophets and Apostles?...

I see that you are very skilled at cutting and pasting from anti-Mormon websites. Are you able to interact yourself or is parroting back some bigot's canned complaints all we can expect from you. If the later, I'll pass. The world is full of religious bigots who can't think for themselves.

On the other hand, this is a message board where people talk to each other. You are talking to me. I am not Orson Pratt or Larry Dahl. If you want to interact with me, drop the cutting and pasting from anti-Mormon hate sites and write your own stuff and when you reference something else, give proper credit.

Let's focus on one topic. How about this which you cut and paste without credit from IRR:

The Bible teaches That God is Spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:15,16), He is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Romans 1:22, 23), and has always (eternally) existed as God —He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present (Psalm 90:2; 139:7-10; Isaiah 40:28; Luke 1:37).

I agree. God is spirit.

So?

You also (actually IRR) claim that god is not a man. That would put you out of step with "historical orthodox Christianity" that holds that Christ, (who is God) is fully man.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Snow

[pam]

This thread is now closed.