LDS Contradiction of the Bible. Tenable?

[Mycroft]

It would seem to me that you, as an atheist, would be quite happy to see Christianity undermined.

I'd admit it, I might do a little wee in excitement if it happened.

 

[Mycroft]

I was just joking about how the church changed its views on black people all of a sudden.

Got harder and harder to stay racist, I guess.

 

[gsa]

You're mixing up Lamanites with people of African ancestry. The priesthood was never denied to "Lamanites."

No, you are assuming that my discussion about the priesthood was related to Lamanites. It came after I discussed the Book of Abraham, and its discussion of the lineage of Ham. You edited my comment to omit this: "Similarly, the idea that it is metaphorical makes far less sense once we take into account the historic teachings on the "Hamitic" line and priesthood holders in the Book of Abraham..."

I think that I was being very clear about the reference. What made you think that I was still discussing the Lamanites?

You're reading more into Spencer W. Kimball's statement than what he actually said. LDS people of African descent are entirely free to marry Caucasians. President Kimball was merely pointing out the obvious -- that the greater the differences between a man and a woman (in terms of to racial, economic, social and educational issues), the greater the chance that the marriage will thrive. That's pretty much a no-brainer, and it was even more in 1976 than it is today. Still, such marriages can and do work. Former NBA star, Thurl Bailey is a Black convert to the Church who was married in the temple a number of years ago to a white woman from Utah. Even in my own marriage, the cultural and educational differences between my husband's family and mine are pretty significant and we've been happily married for almost 45 years.

There will always be a few idiots in every group, and it appears this man's bishop was slightly paranoid and fanatical. My husband gave a lesson to a group of LDS High Priests about racial discrimination in the early LDS Church and nobody thought a thing of it (except that some people undoubtedly learned a thing or two, since he definitely didn't mince words).

It is very interesting that Kimball mentions race first, is it not?

We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question.” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144)

Or what about this?

When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

I am not suggesting that Mormons are uniquely bad on this, from a historical perspective. However, your scriptures do plainly appear to treat black or dark skin as a curse in at least two instances (Lamanite and Hamitc), Brigham Young taught that interracial marriage with Africans should result in death and there was apparently some liberalization at later dates, so that now racial background is I guess just one of many things that married partners should ideally share, but no transgression if that is not the case. Is that a fair assessment of where Mormonism was and is, to you?

 

[Pegg]

Wow, it's truly scary when a "follower of Mycroft" goes after Mormonism like he was a fundamentalist Christian. Okay, here's your answer...

There are numerous places in the Bible where "gods" other than the Abrahamic "God" are mentioned. Here are just a couple:

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward…

Joshua 22:22 The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD…

You can go ahead and try to tell me that these verses mean something different than what they actually say, and that the "gods" mentioned are actually "false gods." If that were the case, then God would be the "God of false gods." How else would you explain the verses I gave as examples? Mormons worship "one God," just as all Christians do.

*cough* thats not from the book of mormon *cough*

 

[InChrist]

Then why do you apply the label 'christian' to yourselves?

I believe the Mormon Church has invested a lot into a public relations campaign to change their image in an attempt (which has been very successful) to be seen as Christian and be accepted by the Christian community. This has not always been the case, though. In the beginning of LDS church history Joseph Smith and other church leaders made a point of distinguishing their church from all the other Christian churches whose creeds they considered all wrong, apostate, of the devil, and abominations while only the Mormon Church had the true doctrines restored through Joseph Smith.

 

[Mycroft]

through Joseph Smith.

Who was then killed in jail, no less. Lol.

 

[Lyndon]

I think if you read the history, Jesus was put to death too, following imprisonment.

 

[Katzpur]

I was just joking about how the church changed its views on black people all of a sudden.

Yeah, I know. But I do always try to point out that the priesthood ban never was authorized by God, and while it's extremely regrettable that it ever existed, I'm glad that the Church is finally acknowledging the fact that it was a policy established by men and not by God.

 

[Katzpur]

Re: The debate over whether Mormonism is Christian. I think that the relationship between Mormonism and Christianity is similar to the relationship between the Alawites and Islam. While they describe themselves as Muslims, indeed Shiite Muslims, they also believe in a divine trinity and reincarnation, ritual use of alcohol and other doctrines and practices that move them so far past Islamic orthodoxy, Sunni or Shiite, that they are widely perceived as a separate religion.

Whether Mormons can justify their beliefs by referencing the Christian and Hebrew scriptures, it is clear they deviate considerably from the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox doctrines and practices. This includes new revelations that discuss Jesus visiting indigenous Americans, a wife for Yahweh, literal descent from spiritual heavenly parents, rejection of creation ex nihilo and a fairly radical interpretation of deification. The question of whether it is scriptural or not seems kind of irrelevant, since the Trinity is not expressly described in the New Testament either, but is considered a fundamental requirement for Christianity by the vast majority of Christians.

I guess what it really gets down to is how we (people in general) define "Christian." Mormonism probably has a more open-minded attitude about this than most Christians do. If a person believes that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God and the only means by which a reconciliation with the Father is possible, if he self-identifies as Christian, and if he leads his life in the way he personally believes Jesus would have him do, he's a Christian. No additional criteria must be met.

The truly interesting thing is how many uniquely LDS doctrines can be found within the teachings of first- and second-century Christianity. I've written some pretty thorough posts before (not on this thread) about what some of the early Church fathers had to say about deification and some of the quotes were remarkable similar to what LDS Church President, Lorenzo Snow, said in his well-known couplet. The same is true with respect to early Christian doctrines on the creation (not being ex nihilo), a pre-mortal existence, the spirit world as a place where both the good and the evil await their resurrections, etc. Mormonism exists because we believe that Jesus Christ actually did establish His Church as a part of His mortal ministry, that following His death, men changed it, and that it has since been reestablished, and the doctrines that were lost over the years, restored. If that is the case, then it would make perfect sense that Mormonism would have some significantly different doctrines than are taught in Hellenized Christianity.

I can't think of a single one of our doctrines that actually contradicts anything in the Bible. You might say that some of our doctrines are "non-biblical," but that is not the same thing as saying they're "un-biblical." Pretty much any argument I've ever heard presented to prove that we're not "real Christians" is flawed, because all of them could be applied to other Christian groups as well, but for some reason aren't.

This is what the Catholic Church says about the invalidity of baptism, and why the Trinitarian formula used by Mormons is insufficient to justify a baptism:

There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI,Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp.345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.

As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from It doesn't bother me in the slightest that Catholics and other Christians won't accept LDS baptisms as valid. We don't accept theirs; why should they accept ours?the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that Catholics and other Christians don't accept LDS baptisms as valid. We don't accept theirs; why should they accept ours?

My understanding is that virtually all Protestant and Orthodox communities have similar responses to Mormon theology. Perhaps the Catholic Church is wrongly quoting a Joseph Smith sermon on the Book of Abraham on some points, tough:

I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist--two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."

Section Six 1843-44, p.373

If Abraham reasoned thus--If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

Section Six 1843-44, p.373

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.

From what I have read from Katzpur and the others who deny that this is doctrine, it must be that the Catholic Church is reading this too literally?

I don't believe the Catholic Church should have to justify their non-acceptance of LDS baptisms, but if they're going to try, I'd say it's only fair that they stick to official sources. They probably would expect us use their catechism in a similar circumstance, and I think we'd be totally agreeable to that.

Or I guess that the Joseph Smith sermon is not doctrine as it is not necessarily inferred from BoA? The two articles from Fair Mormon highlight the vagueness Katzpur was discussing earlier: On the one hand, Hinckley appears to understand that God was once a man and agrees with it, and on the other hand the doctrine is not actually binding an is considered speculative. Anyway, the Catholic objections seem clear enough, and they do appear to regard it as an unusually strong departure from Christianity.

What President Hinckley actually said (with respect to whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man) was: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

I don't know how he could have made it more clear. He said that he understands the philosophical background behind it, but beyond that, the fact is that it really isn't something we emphasize. At the end of the day, he was simply being honest.

 

[psychoslice]

Well, I did answer. And with respect to the off-topic subject you were attempting to pursue, everyone else who has responded to your claim has agreed with me: The purpose of the first council at Nicea was not to determine the Christian canon. You really need to look for someone who wants to play your games, psychoslice, because I have neither the time nor the patience to waste trying to communicate with you.

But your the one who wants me to play your game, there is much debate about all this, and no one really knows the truth, of course we can believe we know, but that is just a lie, I myself know that I could be wrong, but when you truly look into it, it makes sense to me, as it does to you.

 

[Katzpur]

I knew you werent, but you are just insulting another RF contributor. Bad form. you can ridicule his beliefs all you want, but you can't insult him personally. That is disrespectful. Religion and ideas are fair game though.

Well, it's a fairly fine line between saying, "You're stupid," and saying "People who believe [such and such] are stupid." Maybe Scott's remark was personal, but when someone makes a statement like, "Mormons think that god knocked up mary by doing the horizontal hokey cokey with her (I'm hoping you now how sex works)", you've got to wonder about his maturity, intelligence and education. I actually love to debate this particular topic (i.e. Does LDS doctrine contradict the Bible?) but when I find myself interacting with someone whose posts sound like they are taken straight out of an elementary school recess fight, it's hard to remain composed indefinitely.

 

[Katzpur]

But your the one who wants me to play your game...

My game is sticking to the OP. Yours involves getting off on any tangent that happens to cross your mind.

 

[Katzpur]

Got harder and harder to stay racist, I guess.

Remind me to tell you sometime about the day in 1978 when the ban was lifted. I was working about a block and a half from LDS Church headquarters when it was announced.

 

[Katzpur]

No, you are assuming that my discussion about the priesthood was related to Lamanites. It came after I discussed the Book of Abraham, and its discussion of the lineage of Ham. You edited my comment to omit this: "Similarly, the idea that it is metaphorical makes far less sense once we take into account the historic teachings on the "Hamitic" line and priesthood holders in the Book of Abraham..."

I think that I was being very clear about the reference. What made you think that I was still discussing the Lamanites?

It was this statement:

This seems to go far beyond simply describing a metaphorical curse and does not seem consistent with opposition to racial discrimination, given that it prohibits the mixing of seed with the Lamanites, describes them as idle and full of mischief and "cursed" with a skin of blackness.

I thought you were assuming that the Lamanites actually turned Black (as in African). The fact that they most definitely never were actually "black" indicates to me that the "skin of blackness" was not literal. Have you ever seen a Native American you could mistake for a Black person?

It is very interesting that Kimball mentions race first, is it not?

I don't know. I don't find it anywhere near as interesting as you do, obviously.

Or what about this?

When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

Again, I believe his cautionary remarks were more of a statement about the prevailing social attitudes of the time than they were discriminatory.

I am not suggesting that Mormons are uniquely bad on this, from a historical perspective. However, your scriptures do plainly appear to treat black or dark skin as a curse in at least two instances (Lamanite and Hamitc), Brigham Young taught that interracial marriage with Africans should result in death and there was apparently some liberalization at later dates, so that now racial background is I guess just one of many things that married partners should ideally share, but no transgression if that is not the case. Is that a fair assessment of where Mormonism was and is, to you?

I'd say that's pretty close.

 

[Katzpur]

I'd admit it, I might do a little wee in excitement if it happened.

Wow, you really are into being crude, aren't you?

 

[Katzpur]

*cough* thats not from the book of mormon *cough*

Sorry about your cough, Pegg. I didn't say they were from The Book of Mormon. I specifically noted that the Bible mentions other "gods." Either I'm missing your point or you're missing mind.

 

[psychoslice]

My game is sticking to the OP. Yours involves getting off on any tangent that happens to cross your mind.

Everything I have said is all to do with the OP, where the bible came from is very important to that which you are talking about, for if there is no real truth in where it came from, then everything falls to pieces, can you see that ?.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe the Mormon Church has invested a lot into a public relations campaign to change their image in an attempt (which has been very successful) to be seen as Christian and be accepted by the Christian community. This has not always been the case, though. In the beginning of LDS church history Joseph Smith and other church leaders made a point of distinguishing their church from all the other Christian churches whose creeds they considered all wrong, apostate, of the devil, and abominations while only the Mormon Church had the true doctrines restored through Joseph Smith.

And somehow this is different from what the Protestant Reformers did? If you don't believe Catholicism to be an apostate form of Christianity, why aren't you a Catholic? Joseph Smith may have believed that none of the Christian Churches that existed in 1820 were completely true, but he never tried to deny that their members were Christians.

He actually said, "“The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves."

Clearly he had a more charitable attitude towards non-LDS Christians than they had towards us.

 

[zomg]

I think if you read the history, Jesus was put to death too, following imprisonment.

Did Jesus also destroy a printing press to hide his polygamy/polandry? Because that's what Smith did.

 

[Katzpur]

Everything I have said is all to do with the OP, where the bible came from is very important to that which you are talking about, for if there is no real truth in where it came from, then everything falls to pieces, can you see that ?.

If there is no real truth in the Bible, pal, this whole thread is a waste of time!