• 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!

Abrahamic - Mormons

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Katzpur said:
Well, how about these...

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...

To begin with, the indefinite article (a great God) at least implies that God is being singled out from among multiple divine beings. And the phrase "God of gods" surely cannot be understood to mean "God of idols."
One must interperet scripture from most to least. How many times does it say THE LORD in the Bible? When God says He is the Lord God of gods, (note the non capitalization), he is reffering to man-made gods, all the false gods of all the false religions, many of which ARE actual demons, like some of the Indian gods of death and destruction, etc., and possibly one like lucifer, who said he would ascend above God. God created the angel (fallen), lucifer, but not Jesus, Jesus was begotten and one with the Father from the beginning. When God says there is one God and he knows no other, there are no others.
 
That's merely interpretation. Its an extent. God of Gods, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Master of Masters, The beginning and the End. refers nothing to there being more kings.. and other lords.. Thats sort of out of context. Try this translation-
The Mighty One,God Jehovah, the Mighty One,God Jehovah, he knoweth;
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
joeboonda said:
One must interperet scripture from most to least.
Would you care to debate me on salvation by grace through faith alone versus salvation by grace through faith and works under your rule of thumb -- one must interpret scripture from most to least? It should prove to be an interesting debate.

How many times does it say THE LORD in the Bible?
Thousands. And I believe every last one of them.

When God says He is the Lord God of gods, (note the non capitalization), he is reffering to man-made gods, all the false gods of all the false religions, many of which ARE actual demons, like some of the Indian gods of death and destruction, etc., and possibly one like lucifer, who said he would ascend above God.
Okay, well I guess He's a God of false gods then. Have it your way.

God created the angel (fallen), lucifer, but not Jesus, Jesus was begotten and one with the Father from the beginning.
And I guess this is supposed to have something to do with the topic we're discussing?

When God says there is one God and he knows no other, there are no others.
Okay. I guess I'll just go cross out some of the verses in my Bible. Thanks for the tip.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
curiouslyminty said:
Try this translation-
The Mighty One,God Jehovah, the Mighty One,God Jehovah, he knoweth;
What do you mean, try it? I totally believe it.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry. I don't mean to stick on the black Mormon issue, but I mentioned earlier that if those who had said some of the quotes you mentioned were still alive, that they might apologize for their comments and admit that they were wrong.

Here is a comment from Elder Bruce R. McConkie (who you quoted earlier):

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things .... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.
He doesn't exactly apologize, but I believe he is admitting that he did not understand what he was talking about at the time.
 
How can all the past prophets who believed views like the modern time just have been wrong on such a huge issue though? Don't you find it convienent when the mormon church began turning around their thoughts in the 70's? they HAD to and I think everyone here knows it.

That sheds much doubt on which other views they hold to now would merely be abandoned in different circumstances. When do you know they are telling the truth.. I don't trust a God follows the social setting.

I would find it MORE reasonable to have just stuck by their views. As least you dont back down when the pressure gets tough. I would never disavow a SINGLE christian precept no matter the social climate. The bible is infallible, and the prophets who wrote in it were speaking the truth always.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
Katzpur said:
Who are the beings described in the Old Testament as "gods"?
i read somewhere that the sages taught that each nation of man has an angelic representative in the court of heaven except for one, the Nation of Israel, who is represented by G-d.
i also read somewhere, tho i can't remember now where, that who the nations may have thought were "g-ds" were, in fact, their respective angel.

there are probably a million and one ways of looking at this...
again i stress the belief that Mormons are no different in my eyes than any other form of christianity and i don't see any reason why your additional text is any less valid w/in the context of Mormonism or christianity. I mean, lets be honest, the Gospels were just tacked on to jewish text and considered the new and improved book:rolleyes:
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
curiouslyminty said:
How can all the past prophets who believed views like the modern time just have been wrong on such a huge issue though? Don't you find it convienent when the mormon church began turning around their thoughts in the 70's? they HAD to and I think everyone here knows it.

That sheds much doubt on which other views they hold to now would merely be abandoned in different circumstances. When do you know they are telling the truth.. I don't trust a God follows the social setting.

I would find it MORE reasonable to have just stuck by their views. As least you dont back down when the pressure gets tough. I would never disavow a SINGLE christian precept no matter the social climate. The bible is infallible, and the prophets who wrote in it were speaking the truth always.
Sorry you feel this way, CM. I don't believe any of the LDS on this forum have condoned any racist comments any of our leaders made in the past. My personal belief is that they were wrong in feeling as they did, but as I said, they were fallible men... no different from you in that regard. Maybe you think it would have been better for them not to change. I disagree. I think that any change that produces good results is for the best, and the 1978 decision was no exception.

I had planned on trying to give you some more of my thoughts on this subject, but I suspect my time could be put to better use. I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt when they first start presenting their perceptions of my Church, but since we very strongly believe that the spirit of contention is of the devil, it doesn't make a lot of sense to get into arguments over issues when minds are already made up. Maybe we will find something we can agree on down the road somewhere. But I'm just not interested in fighting.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
curiouslyminty said:
How can all the past prophets who believed views like the modern time just have been wrong on such a huge issue though? Don't you find it convienent when the mormon church began turning around their thoughts in the 70's? they HAD to and I think everyone here knows it.

That sheds much doubt on which other views they hold to now would merely be abandoned in different circumstances. When do you know they are telling the truth.. I don't trust a God follows the social setting.

I would find it MORE reasonable to have just stuck by their views. As least you dont back down when the pressure gets tough. I would never disavow a SINGLE christian precept no matter the social climate. The bible is infallible, and the prophets who wrote in it were speaking the truth always.
Do you believe that the second that Jonah, Noah, and Abraham became prophets that he suddenly had complete knowledge of everything related to God? :sarcastic

I guess there are some times where you just can't win. If you don't change you're a racist. If you change, you're weak in you're beliefs. If your church's policies change and you admit that you didn't completely understand what you were talking about when you made some statements and encourage members of the church to accept the changes being made, you're unreasonable.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
jewscout said:
i read somewhere that, traditionally in Judaism, it is believed that each nation of man has an angelic representative in the court of heaven except for one, the Nation of Israel, who is represented by G-d.
i also read somewhere, tho i can't remember now where, that who the nations may have thought were "g-ds" were, in fact, their respective angel.
That's an interesting perspective. I've never attempted to define the word "god" (with a lower-case 'g'), and I don't know that my Church's leaders have either. Whatever a 'god' might be, I suspect that such a being would have qualities we think of as divine. Anything beyond that is pretty much speculation.

again i stress the belief that Mormons are no different in my eyes than any other form of christianity and i don't see any reason why your additional text is any less valid w/in the context of Mormonism or christianity. I mean, lets be honest, the Gospels were just tacked on to jewish text and considered the new and improved book:rolleyes:
Well, it's nice to hear something like that coming from a non-Christian. It's always struck me as strange that most non-Christians are more tolerant of the Latter-day Saints than many Christians are. Go figure. :confused:
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
Katzpur said:
That's an interesting perspective. I've never attempted to define the word "god" (with a lower-case 'g'), and I don't know that my Church's leaders have either. Whatever a 'god' might be, I suspect that such a being would have qualities we think of as divine. Anything beyond that is pretty much speculation.

Well, it's nice to hear something like that coming from a non-Christian. It's always struck me as strange that most non-Christians are more tolerant of the Latter-day Saints than many Christians are. Go figure. :confused:
hey to me it's all apples and oranges
the only time i'll get in a tissy is if you try to tell me that they are the same.
They are different and as long as we can respect that then we're cool:cool:
 
jonny said:
Do you believe that the second that Jonah, Noah, and Abraham became prophets that he suddenly had complete knowledge of everything related to God? :sarcastic

I guess there are some times where you just can't win. If you don't change you're a racist. If you change, you're weak in you're beliefs. If your church's policies change and you admit that you didn't completely understand what you were talking about when you made some statements and encourage members of the church to accept the changes being made, you're unreasonable.
No i believe prophets are the vessels by which the perfect word of God comes through. If they were talking in conversation I would expect nothing. But if he says that this is from the Lord, that then it is later refuted I find it inexcusable.

And your right Kat...
Mormonism is the only other religion that really interests me so I become too engaged. :rolleyes: I really do hope that I present myself respectfully, but my opinions have become stronger lately.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
curiouslyminty said:
Mormonism is the only other religion that really interests me so I become too engaged. :rolleyes: I really do hope that I present myself respectfully, but my opinions have become stronger lately.
Well, you did start out on the right foot. If your opinions have become stronger lately, maybe it because they appear to be based on a slightly skewed interpretation of what we actually believe. Case in point: I'm 57 years old and a life-long Mormon. In 57 years, do you know how many times I've gone to church and heard a talk (i.e. sermon) or lesson on God once being a man? Exactly zero. Does that tell you anything at all? If this was a core doctrine -- or even a minor, but official doctrine -- don't you think we would occasionally hear it taught in Church? We're there for three hours every Sunday, for crying out loud!
 
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith- Page 346
[font=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana][size=-1]
Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you.
Same Book One page previous
[/size][/font]
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man.. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.. He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did..
edit- If this is unaccepted by the church as Katz was saying then I am just in the wrong here. I apologize, and back down not intending to harm relations here. :shout
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
curiouslyminty said:
How can all the past prophets who believed views like the modern time just have been wrong on such a huge issue though? Don't you find it convienent when the mormon church began turning around their thoughts in the 70's? they HAD to and I think everyone here knows it.

That sheds much doubt on which other views they hold to now would merely be abandoned in different circumstances. When do you know they are telling the truth.. I don't trust a God follows the social setting.

I would find it MORE reasonable to have just stuck by their views. As least you dont back down when the pressure gets tough. I would never disavow a SINGLE christian precept no matter the social climate. The bible is infallible, and the prophets who wrote in it were speaking the truth always.
You seem very adamant about this sticking and not changing thing so I hope that what I'm about to reveal to you doesn't shake your faith too bad...

When Jesus Christ first came to earth, he sent out his Apostles to preach the gospel, but they were not to preach his gospel to everyone. In Matthew 10, Christ sends the apostles out to preach the Gospel, but in verse 5 tells them to "go not into the way of the Gentiles." In Matthew 15:24 Christ says that he is "not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

But, guess what. Something changed. At first the Apostles were commanded only to preach the Gospel to the house of Israel. Later, after the resurrection of Christ, he commanded them to preach the Gospel to "all nations" (Matt. 28:19). Finally, Paul, in a vision was commanded by the Lord to "bear [his] name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel."

Do you hold Christ to the same standards that you hold the Mormon church? If so, do you no longer trust Christ because he stated one thing at one time and later stated another. Do you find it convenient that Paul began preaching to the gentiles after he was rejected by the Jews? Perhaps it was because they were just looking for converts to build up the numbers.

Do you find it discriminatory that Christ wouldn't want his Apostles to share his gospel with those who were not decendants of Israel?
 

jiin_caltro

Member
Hey, all!

People seem to have this strange idea that everything should be set into place, that everything we need is in the scriptures and that's that. People are actually mortified that the church has actually changed, not to mention that with the aid of revelation, we're being given the building blocks to eternal salvation.

I find the stoicism of most other religions (Mostly in Christianity) to be a bit funny. As has been pointed out several times throughout this thread, things were constantly changing: who would be taught, how many wives you can have, who you can and can't marry, etc. And then it struck me that we're the ONLY CHURCH THAT STILL WORKS ON REVELATION (To my knowledge). Doesn't that seem odd? That everything set down in scripture was done while having prophets (and apostles in some cases) leading the church? I dunno...It just seems kind of funny to me...

Anyway! Sorry for not presenting anything horribly objective...but maybe that'll get people posting again ;)
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Hi. I'm an orthodox (not Orthodox) Christian. I'm not here to "Mormon-bash," but someone had laid down the gauntlet for a non-Mormon to enter the debate, so here I am.

I think the problem most non-Mormon scholars have with the Book of Mormon, is that it isn't historically or anthropologically defendable. There are no extant ancient texts. Many sites mentioned (including the hill where the plates were found -- there is no hill where Joseph Smith said there was) cannot be geographically placed. Also, a critical reading of the BoM yields no compelling evidence of any literary style corresponding to the time the Book was written.

On the other hand, the Bible is steeped in history and anthropology. While there are some geographical problems, these can be attributed to the metaphorical nature of many Bible stories. There are several recognizable literary devices used, which fall into line with other writings of the same time periods.

The problem, as I see it, is that, by the time the Bible was subjected to critical analysis, it had already been long established as revelatory. When the BoM was apparently translated, that work happened in an age where skepticism, analysis and reason had aready overshadowed simple acceptance of a writing as being revelatory.

Another problem that I, myself, encounter is that the Bible is highly allegorical and metaphorical. The Bible is not to be read literalistically. As I understand Mormonism, the reading of both the Bible and the BoM is more literalistic. That creates a problem at the outset, for me, and for most Biblical scholars.

Then there's the apostacy issue:
Reasonable scholarship of the Bible shows that the canonical gospels were not written by people who actually knew or were disciples of Jesus. The earliest gospel was not written until after the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. The Biblical canon (the Bible as we now have it) was not set until the third century. If, as Joseph Smith maintained, authority was "taken away" from the Church by God following the death of the last original apostle, then the whole of today's Bible was compiled and edited by apostate Christians and, therefore, not authoritative. By definition, that point alone either 1) makes the basis of the Mormon gospel (as presented in the Bible, which Mormons view as authoritative,) as apostate and as unauthoritative as the rest of Christendom, or 2) The "restored" gospel of the Mormon Church must be different from the gospel of the Bible.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
I think the problem most non-Mormon scholars have with the Book of Mormon, is that it isn't historically or anthropologically defendable.
Read around on here and you'll find that many have the same problem with the Bible. People find plenty to critisize.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
jonny said:
Read around on here and you'll find that many have the same problem with the Bible. People find plenty to critisize.
You wanted to know why Christians feel that the orthodox gospel and the Mormon gospel are different. That's why. It's not meant to put down your holy Book. But, the only way we can arrive at the truth is to subject our writings and our beliefs to the acid test of criticism (in the analytical sense, not the disparaging sense).

I'm not one to tell you that you're wrong. but I am saying that there is definitely a difference between Mormon belief and doctrine, and orthodox belief and doctrine, especially where the gospel message is concerned. That was the original question, was it not? I'm not attempting to put a value on any one over the other here -- merely to point out that there's a difference.
 
Top