• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

LDS Contradiction of the Bible. Tenable?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
With respect to our belief that we (not just "us" but everyone) has the potential of becoming a god at some point in the future, the following is just a cut and paste from something I posted on another thread. It may help clarify the doctrine which, to many who do not fully understand it, would understandably be out-and-out heresy.

Before we get started, let's clear up two big, big misconceptions:

(1) We do not believe that any of us will ever be equal to God, our Eternal Father in Heaven. He will always be our God and we will always worship Him.

(2) Nothing we could possibly do on our own could exalt us to the level of deity. It is only through the will and grace of God that man is given this potential. And "with God, nothing is impossible."

We believe, as you may know, that ours is a restoration of the very Church Jesus Christ established during His ministry here on earth. It would follow, then, that we believe we are teaching the same doctrines as were taught then and accepted by Jesus’ followers. Throughout the New Testament, there are indications that this doctrine (known as deification or exaltation) is not one the Latter-day Saints invented, but that the earliest Christians understood and believed it, as well.

Romans 8:16-17, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 2:26-27 and Revelation 3:21 are the four I like best. Through these verses, we learn that, as children of God, we may also be His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, even glorified with Him. We might partake of the nature of divinity and be allowed to sit with our Savior on His throne, to rule over the nations.

Now, if these promises are true (as I believe they are), what do they all boil down to? To the Latter-day Saints, they mean that we have the potential to someday, be “godlike.” One of our prophets explained that "we are gods in embryo." If our Father is divine and we are literally his "offspring", as the Bible teaches we are, is it really such a stretch of the imagination to believe that he has endowed each of us with a spark of divinity?

Finally, there is considerable evidence that the doctrine of deification was taught for quite some time after the Savior’s death, and accepted as orthodox. Some of the most well-known and respected of the early Christian Fathers made statements that were remarkably close to the statements LDS leaders have made. For example:

In the second century, Saint Irenaeus said, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.” He also posed this question: “Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as Gods?” At about the same period of time, Saint Clement made this statement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And Saint Justin Martyr agreed, saying that men are “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” Some two centuries later, Athanasius explained that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.” And, finally, Augustine, said, “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”

Even the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, said much the same thing in his book "Mere Christianity."

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

Finally, according to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, “Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is made in the image and likeness of God…. It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.”

So, the "Mormons" really didn't come up with this doctrine. We only restored that which had been lost for many, many years.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
Actually, the first council of Nicaea had nothing to do with what should be included in the biblical canon.
Quite right.

From Wikipedia:

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon, and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393 CE).

The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt, Festal Letter 39. Also cited is the Council of Rome, but not without controversy. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted at the Third Council of Carthage in 397 and 419.

Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books, referred to as Antilegomena, continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, the Reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. To this day, German-language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than in their traditional order as in other editions of the Bible.

In light of this questioning of the canon of Scripture by Protestants in the 16th century, the (Roman Catholic) Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional western canon (i.e., the canon accepted at the 4th-century Council of Rome and Council of Carthage), thus making the Canon of Trent and the Vulgate Bible dogma in the Catholic Church. Later, Pope Pius XI on 2 June 1927 decreed the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute and Pope Pius XII on 3 September 1943 issued the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, which allowed translations based on other versions than just the Latin Vulgate, notably in English the New American Bible.

Thus, some claim that, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today), and that, by the 5th century, the Eastern Church, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon. Nonetheless, full dogmatic articulations of the canon were not made until the Canon of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

On the question of NT Canon formation generally, New Testament scholar Lee Martin McDonald has written that:

Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.
In other words, the NT was assembled according to the popularity of its various books.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Yes, but they don't, anyone knows that, yes I feel sorry for these people who are lead to believe such nonsense, its beyond me how they are caught up in this imaginary world.
I think most Mormons readily admit that a great many of their doctrines are very different from the doctrines of "traditional" Christianity. If that were not the case, we'd be claiming to believe in the Trinity, an ex nihilo creation, salvation by faith alone, no opportunity for salvation after death and a myriad of other things. We as Mormons consider anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God and looks to Him for salvation to be a "Christian." All we want is the same in return. When people say we're not Christians, the implication is that we don't believe in Jesus Christ. And that's really not an honest way for people to represent us -- even if they consider our beliefs to be "nonsense."
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
I think most Mormons readily admit that a great many of their doctrines are very different from the doctrines of "traditional" Christianity. If that were not the case, we'd be claiming to believe in the Trinity, an ex nihilo creation, salvation by faith alone, no opportunity for salvation after death and a myriad of other things. We as Mormons consider anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God and looks to Him for salvation to be a "Christian." All we want is the same in return. When people say we're not Christians, the implication is that we don't believe in Jesus Christ. And that's really not an honest way for people to represent us -- even if they consider our beliefs to be "nonsense."

It often seems as though you don't. Not the same one, anyway. Your views on Jesus differ from those of the Bible.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
How does one reconcile the differences between Father and Son being separate entities in the Book of Mormon and them being part of a Trinity in the Bible?

I believe that the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach exactly the same doctrine regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Take for example John 17. Jesus is praying for his disciples. He prays:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.


Here Jesus prays that the disciples will be "one" with each other and one with the Father and the Son, in the same sense that the Father and the Son are one with each other. I don't think anyone believes that Jesus wanted his disciples to be one in substance with each other or with the Father and the Son. He wanted them to be perfectly unified in spirit, in direction, and in heart, just as he and the Father are one. This clearly shows what the Bible means by the oneness of the Father and the Son. It's perfect harmony and unity, but not literally the same person.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Do Christians concur with your beliefs?
As I understand it, many Christians do not and many Christians maintain that Mormons are not Christians ... not that I care, it sounds like a discussion of angels dancing on pinheads to me, but then ... I am not a Christian.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member

And they (the Father and Son) said...
Yes, the father is a god and the son is another god: "they (the Gods)." And I suspect the holy ghost (spirit) is a third god. (The book of Abraham Chapter 4 verses 3-5 doesn't say who they are or their number.)
 
Last edited:

Norman

Defender of Truth
I love this christian attitudes. It makes me feel better about being an Atheist.

Norman: Hello Mycroft, I ignored Sapiens and gsa and it had nothing to do with them being atheist or agnostic. They have repeatedly for along time
acted like adolescent's and didn't even debate, just bashing my Church over and over. You do not know the whole situation, I have never ignored
anyone since on became a member of this forum, but they crossed a line to many times with me.
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
Norman: Hello Mycroft, I ignored Sapiens and gsa and it had nothing to do with them being atheist or agnostic. They have repeatedly for along time
acted like adolescent's and didn't even debate, just bashing my Church over and over. You do not know the whole situation, I have never ignored
anyone since on became a member of this forum, but they crossed a line to many times with me.

Then forgive them.
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
Actually on this forum there are many atheists and they tend to do a very poor job of explaining atheism and how it benefits them, the main thing I notice is, much like to a lesser extent fundamentalist Christians, atheists seem more compelled to continually attack any religion they find beneath them, and offer very little in the way of positive alternative to said religious beliefs that they find so distasteful.
It's a little hard for us to explain ourselves when there are so. very. many on here who insist they know us better than we know ourselves. ;)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
It often seems as though you don't. Not the same one, anyway. Your views on Jesus differ from those of the Bible.
Give me an example of something the Latter-day Saints believe about Jesus Christ that contradicts anything the Bible has to say about Him.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
How does one reconcile the differences between Father and Son being separate entities in the Book of Mormon and them being part of a Trinity in the Bible?
Where in the Bible does it say they are part of a Trinity?
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
Give me an example of something the Latter-day Saints believe about Jesus Christ that contradicts anything the Bible has to say about Him.

1) That jesus visited North America (3 Nephi 11:18; 3 Nephi 12:1-2)
2) That jesus was not the result of a virgin birth, and that god had literal, physical sex with mary. (1 Ne. 11:18-21; Alma 7:10)
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Scripture quoting atheists, aren't there laws against such nonsense. And no the concept of the Trinity as taught by the catholic church is NOT in the Bible.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
Yes, the father is a god and the son is another god: "they (the Gods)." And I suspect the holy ghost (spirit) is a third god. (The book of Abraham Chapter 4 verses 3-5 doesn't say who they are or their number.)

I agree that in one sense the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods. The term God can be applied to them individually or collectively. The Book of Abraham reference is the only place in scripture, of which I am aware, where they are referred to as "Gods". This is not a contradiction of the other scriptures which name them as one God or Godhead. I consider the Abrahamic reference to be quite instructive as it teaches that while the Father and Son are "one in purpose and unity", they are literally three separate beings, each of which can be called God.
Do Christians concur with your beliefs?

No, most Christians believe that the Bible teaches the Trinity. We believe that the Trinity was an interpretation that developed in post Biblical times. We believe that modern day revelation such as the appearance of the Father AND the Son to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Abraham make clear what the Bible means by "One". We believe that modern day prophets and revelation were necessary to clarify Biblical passages and to un-do many traditional, yet incorrect interpretations of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top