Mormonism Is Not Confirmed By the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Returning_Home
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Returning_Home

Guest
Here it is, as promised.

I contend that Mormonism has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible and is not, nor will it ever be, confirmed by any verse contained in the Bible.

I’m starting this thread so any LDS members can give Biblical verses they think refers to Mormonism.
 
Do you think we should pick one or two topics to discuss as relates to Mormonism and the Bible? May be easier to keep the thread from being all over the place. 🤷
 
Do you think we should pick one or two topics to discuss as relates to Mormonism and the Bible? May be easier to keep the thread from being all over the place. 🤷
Well, perhaps, but since this has come up over and over in other threads, I thought it worthy of its own since it’ll take some space to refute each one on its own merits.

What I’d like to see here is Mormons posting Biblical verses and us pointing out what each one actually means. What they’re taught is that one confirms the other, which couldn’t be farther from the truth, and I’d like the platform to take those verses back.

Anyway, I’d appreciate any imput you have if you choose to participate.
 
Just to get the ball rolling, I thought I’d bring up the topic of the Pre-mortal Existence. This is one of the very unique Mormon beliefs that finds no analogous belief in traditional Christianity. It is the belief that we all lived with God in a spirit state before we were born on this earth.

What are the Biblical verses that you believe support this belief?
 
Just to get the ball rolling, I thought I’d bring up the topic of the Pre-mortal Existence. This is one of the very unique Mormon beliefs that finds no analogous belief in traditional Christianity. It is the belief that we all lived with God in a spirit state before we were born on this earth.

What are the Biblical verses that you believe support this belief?
Just to “roll the ball,” I think it would be possible to twist around John Chapter 1 to make sort of a lame argument since John Chapter 1 talks about the pre existence of Jesus or something, which I don’t really get.
 
When I was LDS, I used Jeremiah 1:5 to support the Pre-existance
 
Just to get the ball rolling, I thought I’d bring up the topic of the Pre-mortal Existence. This is one of the very unique Mormon beliefs that finds no analogous belief in traditional Christianity. It is the belief that we all lived with God in a spirit state before we were born on this earth.

What are the Biblical verses that you believe support this belief?
If I were Mormon I would probably use “before I knit you in your mother’s womb, I knew you.” Sorry, I don’t have chapter and verse for that at the moment.
 
If I were Mormon I would probably use “before I knit you in your mother’s womb, I knew you.” Sorry, I don’t have chapter and verse for that at the moment.
How about John 9:1-3? How could the man’s blindness have been caused by his own sins, unless he had committed them before he was born?

And where did the great third century Christian theologian Origen Adamantius (c. 185–254) get his ideas of the preexistence from?
 
How about John 9:1-3? How could the man’s blindness have been caused by his own sins, unless he had committed them before he was born?

And where did the great third century Christian theologian Origen Adamantius (c. 185–254) get his ideas of the preexistence from?
I’m aware that Mormons refer to Origen on this issue. Please provide the relevant statements by Origen on this topic so we can see what he said and compare it to the LDS pre-mortal existence.
 
How about John 9:1-3? How could the man’s blindness have been caused by his own sins, unless he had committed them before he was born?

And where did the great third century Christian theologian Origen Adamantius (c. 185–254) get his ideas of the preexistence from?
This is a leap that isn’t supported whatsoever by the text. The blindness is our sometimes willfull ignorance of our own sins and our unwillingness to do anything about them.

The verse, in no way, implies any fictional pre-existance.

Beats me, but since we know that Joseph Smith didn’t start the fable of the Furst Vision with God and Jesus being separate and distinct, we know that man’s ideas are subject to evolution and being influenced by one’s environment.
 
When I was LDS, I used Jeremiah 1:5 to support the Pre-existance
Right, and it’s clearly refuted by both 1 Cor. 15:46 and Zech 12:1. Any Biblical support for Mormonism is one that’s been hijacked for the purposes of perverting the gospel.
 
How about John 9:1-3? How could the man’s blindness have been caused by his own sins, unless he had committed them before he was born?
The disciples ask Jesus whether the man sinned before he was born, and Jesus answers, “No.” That by itself does not provide much grounds for reading in a doctrine of preexistence. The only way it could is if you assume that the question was prompted by some teaching of Jesus, which made the possibility of pre-mortal sin occur to the disciples’ minds. That would be a hard assumption to substantiate especially in the presence of alternative explanations based on early Rabbinical teachings. Some Rabbis taught that children were able to sin in utero by the commission of auto-eroticism, and used this as a way to explain birth defects. The disciples ask Jesus about that teaching, and he rejects it.

To modern readers, the Rabbinical theory sounds both gross and ludicrous, so we don’t readily think of it as a possibility when we read the text. Yet the Isrealites took it seriously, and that is what matters. I have found this documented in one of E.P. Sanders’s books, though alas I can’t remember which one. It might have been Paul and Palestinian Judaism.

By contrast, it is easy to prove that authentic Biblical teaching does not involve preexistence, at least, not a preexistence in which people made morally significant choices, as Mormonism claims. This is clear from Rom 9:9-12:

For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

If there were a preexistence such as that described in LDS doctrine, then Paul could not make this argument, since it would not be a given that Jacob and Esau had done no good or evil, nor would it be clear that neither of them had done more or less good than the other, thus provides a reason other than pure election for God to favor Jacob over Esau. Since I can explain your proof-text, I am interested to know what you have to say about this passage, and if you can interpret it in a coherent and responsible manner.
And where did the great third century Christian theologian Origen Adamantius (c. 185–254) get his ideas of the preexistence from?
Origen’s theory is a speculation derived from Platonism. His philosophical arugment is thoroughly Platonist, and even his Biblcal arguments draw from Platonist principles. Here is the whole text of his argument in On First Principles:

And now we have to ascertain whether those beings which in the course of the discussion we have discovered to possess life and reason, were endowed with a soul along with their bodies at the time mentioned in Scripture, when “God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars also,” or whether their spirit was implanted in them, not at the creation of their bodies, but from without, after they had been already made. I, for my part, suspect that the spirit was implanted in them from without; but it will be worth while to prove this from Scripture: for it will seem an easy matter to make the assertion on conjectural grounds, while it is more difficult to establish it by the testimony of Scripture. Now it may be established conjecturally as follows. If the soul of a man, which is certainly inferior while it remains the soul of a man, was not formed along with his body, but is proved to have been implanted strictly from without, much more must this be the case with those living beings which are called heavenly. For, as regards man, how could the soul of him, viz., Jacob, who supplanted his brother in the womb, appear to be formed along with his body? Or how could his soul, or its images, be formed along with his body, who, while lying in his mother’s womb, was filled with the Holy Ghost? I refer to John leaping in his mother’s womb, and exulting because the voice of the salutation of Mary had come to the ears of his mother Elisabeth. How could his soul and its images be formed along with his body, who, before he was created in the womb, is said to be known to God, and was sanctified by Him before his birth? Some, perhaps, may think that God fills individuals with His Holy Spirit, and bestows upon them sanctification, not on grounds of justice and according to their deserts; but undeservedly. And how shall we escape that declaration: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid!” or this: “Is there respect of persons with God?” For such is the defence of those who maintain that souls come into existence with bodies. So far, then, as we can form an opinion from a comparison with the condition of man, I think it follows that we must hold the same to hold good with heavenly beings, which reason itself and scriptural authority show us to be the case with men.
 
But let us see whether we can find in holy Scripture any indications properly applicable to these heavenly existences. The following is the statement of the Apostle Paul: “The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” To what vanity, pray, was the creature made subject, or what creature is referred to, or how is it said “not willingly,” or “in hope of what?” And in what way is the creature itself to be delivered from the bondage of corruption? Elsewhere, also, the same apostle says: “For the expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God.” And again in another passage, “And not only we, but the creation itself groans together, and is in pain until now.” And hence we have to inquire what are the groanings, and what are the pains. Let us see then, in the first place, what is the vanity to which the creature is subject. I apprehend that it is nothing else than the body; for although the body of the stars is ethereal, it is nevertheless material. Whence also Solomon appears to characterize the whole of corporeal nature as a kind of burden which enfeebles the vigour of the soul in the following language: “Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher; all is vanity. I have looked, and seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity.” To this vanity, then, is the creature subject, that creature especially which, being assuredly the greatest in this world, holds also a distinguished principality of labour, i.e., the sun, and moon, and stars, are said to be subject to vanity, because they are clothed with bodies, and set apart to the office of giving light to the human race. “And this creature,” he remarks, “was subjected to vanity not willingly.” For it did not undertake a voluntary service to vanity, but because it was the will of Him who made it subject, and because of the promise of the Subjector to those who were reduced to this unwilling obedience, that when the ministry of their great work was performed, they were to be freed from this bondage of corruption and vanity when the time of the glorious redemption of God’s children should have arrived. And the whole of creation, receiving this hope, and looking for the fulfilment of this promise now, in the meantime, as having an affection for those whom it serves, groans along with them, and patiently suffers with them, hoping for the fulfilment of the promises. See also whether the following words of Paul can apply to those who, although not willingly, yet in accordance with the will of Him who subjected them, and in hope of the promises, were made subject to vanity, when he says, “For I could wish to be dissolved,” or “to return and be with Christ, which is far better.” For I think that the sun might say in like manner, “I would desire to be dissolved,” or “to return and be with Christ, which is far better.” Paul indeed adds, “Nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is more needful for you;” while the sun may say, “To abide in this bright and heavenly body is more necessary, on account of the manifestation of the sons of God.” The same views are to be believed and expressed regarding the moon and stars.

If you read this through, you can see that he does not attribute this teaching to historical Christianity. His view is a third-century novum, and his Biblical arguments are all premised upon contempt for physical matter - equating material existence with “vanity” - without which, none of his arguments follow. Little wonder then that his admittedly speculative theory never became orthodoxy. This does not support the historical or exegetical bases that Mormons claim for their version of pre-existence.
 
How about John 9:1-3? How could the man’s blindness have been caused by his own sins, unless he had committed them before he was born?
His blindness wasn’t cause by his sins. "Jesus answered ‘Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him.’"
(John 9:3)

I understand the implication but what the Jews believed was in error as evidenced by His response to them.
 
His blindness wasn’t cause by his sins. "Jesus answered ‘Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him.’"
(John 9:3)

I understand the implication but what the Jews believed was in error as evidenced by His response to them.
You are missing the point. Why would Jesus’ disciples want to ask that question, and why isn’t He surprised by their question? His reply implies that it is possible for someone to sin before they are born, but that in the case of the blind man that was not the cause of his blindness.
 
Here it is, as promised.

I contend that Mormonism has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible and is not, nor will it ever be, confirmed by any verse contained in the Bible.

I’m starting this thread so any LDS members can give Biblical verses they think refers to Mormonism.
Well, it does have something to do with the Bible, at least the KJV. Don’t you think that is why the BoM is written in King James English, in America, in the 1800’s? That’s how God talks, it’s right there in the Bible.

The problem I see throughout LDS posts is that when a conflict is pointed out it is due to the verses being tainted by the Catholic Church, which, at one time, were “clear and precious”. In other words the Bible is a flawed document and the only time one really knows what is flawed and what is not is when it conflicts with Mormon doctrine. If it conflicts, it is flawed. If it doesn’t conflict it is true. The BoM will always trump the Word of God.
 
You are missing the point. Why would Jesus’ disciples want to ask that question, and why isn’t He surprised by their question? His reply implies that it is possible for someone to sin before they are born, but that in the case of the blind man that was not the cause of his blindness.
No zerinus, you have missed the point and are morally accountable to answer the responses that have been provided to your argument before continuing the press your case. The only people in John 9 who conclude that a man can be sin before birth are the Pharisees who condemn the healed blind man saying, “Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?” The point is that when they say this, they are appealing to a false Rabbinical notion about the cause of evil, which is not endorsed by Jesus when his disciples ask him about it. You note that Jesus wasn’t surprised by their question. Why should he be? When in the gospels does Jesus ever say, “Gee, that question surprises me.” In any case, the question isn’t surprised, because I gran that the disciples question reflects common Jewish thinking, but not the kind of thinking you assume. As I already pointed out, the belief in pre-birth sin that was held among some Rabbis but it did not depend on a pre-existence doctrine and therefore provides no warrant for assuming one. You are confusing pre-birth with pre-mortal.

I also note that you have not interacted with the text from Romans that disproves pre-existence. Do you feel no responsibility for doing so? If not, what credibility does your testimony have if it does not involve a sense of accountability to those inspired words?
 
You are missing the point. Why would Jesus’ disciples want to ask that question, and why isn’t He surprised by their question? His reply implies that it is possible for someone to sin before they are born, but that in the case of the blind man that was not the cause of his blindness.
The Jews certainly believed that the sins of the father were visited upon their children which would not have been surprising at all to Jesus. However, Jesus never taught that doctrine, nor did he teach about pre-existence. Both points were in error. I don’t disagree that one could imply from those words exactly what you are saying, especially if one was looking at it with a preconceived notion that it was true, but one could also take the opposite stance. It would be interesting to know what was actually said in Aramaic. Do you have any other verses that might support your contention? This, by itself, is rather weak in my opinion without additional evidence.

This is kind of like the Sadducees trying to trick Jesus with the question of the widow and the seven brothers. The Sadducees didn’t even believe in heaven to begin with (that is why they were sad, you see :D). He didn’t go into some long discourse on the basic error of their beliefs, he just explained that there is no marriage in heaven.
 
Here it is, as promised.

I contend that Mormonism has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible and is not, nor will it ever be, confirmed by any verse contained in the Bible.

I’m starting this thread so any LDS members can give Biblical verses they think refers to Mormonism.
I’m not sure this is a good way to go. Protestants say that Catholicism has nothing to do with the Bible. I think the more important thing to ask is whether or not Mormonism is true. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Mormonism is true regardless of how we interpret the Bible. Biblical interpretation has proven to be a poor way to decide whether or not a religion that claims Christ is true. That’s why there are 30,000 denominations. I don’t think you can prove or disprove preexistence based on the Bible. Weren’t there early Church Fathers who believed in preexistence?
 
I’m not sure this is a good way to go. Protestants say that Catholicism has nothing to do with the Bible. I think the more important thing to ask is whether or not Mormonism is true. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Mormonism is true regardless of how we interpret the Bible. Biblical interpretation has proven to be a poor way to decide whether or not a religion that claims Christ is true. That’s why there are 30,000 denominations. I don’t think you can prove or disprove preexistence based on the Bible. Weren’t there early Church Fathers who believed in preexistence?
And how do you determine whether or not Mormonism is true? We must have a basis with which to compare purported truth. Some Protestants do say that Catholicism has nothing to do with the Bible but as you know, they are very wrong. We can demostrate from the Bible that they are wrong. When Mormons claim that the BoM and D&C are on equal or greater footing as far as being scripture, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to compare those claims with the one thing that we both agree is the word of God, the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top