What Mormons Believe--according to a Former BYU Professor

[Prayer Warrior]

I literally just answered this:
My personal view: It's speculation. I don' t have more than that, and that's the end of it.
To explain other people's speculation requires a lot of explanation, examining Creeds, etc.

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22)

Is this not considered LDS doctrine based on LDS scripture?

Edit: You answered this above--that it is. Thanks.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

So you don't know if you think it is possible? I'm not asking if you believe it; I am asking if you believe it is possible? Does it even have a slight chance of being true?

For the fourth time: this requires a TON of background to even touch on as a speculative subject. I don't think anyone here, including me, wants to do so. If you for some reason want to, start by going back and examining my post on the Athanasian Creed.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Yes. Scripture statement: The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22).

The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, quote is not.

I appreciate this response.

I would look at that LDS doctrinal statement and say that it clearly contradicts this statement from the Bible.

John 4:24--God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

 

[Mjh29]

Scripture statement: The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22).

John 4:24 --> God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must also worship Him in Spirit and in Truth

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I appreciate this response. I would look at that doctrinal statement and say that it clearly contradicts this statement from the Bible.

John 4:24--God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

John 4:24 --> God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must also worship Him in Spirit and in Truth

Except is does not.

Do you believe that God (the Son) has a body?

In fact, this very quote was stated by the Son. The passage also is not talking about metaphysics, but being reverent/worshiping in spirit. LDS Christians believing the Father is like the Son is not a contradiction to the Bible.

Both agree that the Spirit is a spirit.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Except is does not.

Do you believe that God (the Son) has a body?
In fact, this very quote was stated by the Son. The passage also is not talking about metaphysics, but being reverent/worshiping in spirit.

Now don't change what the D&C says. It doesn't say God the Son.

It says, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22)

 

[Mjh29]

For the fourth time: this requires a TON of background to even touch on as a speculative subject. I don't think anyone here, including me, wants to do so. If you for some reason want to, start by going back and examining my post on the Athanasian Creed.

I am not asking you to dive into the actual doctrine. All I'm asking is your personal opinion on whether or not it is actually possible. A simple yes or no question. No need to get deep into it, or anything like that. I read what you posted, but I am not asking for the entire doctrine; I'm simply asking if you, personally, think that this doctrine has any chance or possibility at all to be true? Is it even in the realm of possibility.

Not asking if it IS true. But is it POSSIBLE that it COULD BE true.

Not if it is the truth. If it is POSSIBLE for it to be the truth.

And, again. YOUR opinion. You. Personally. From your thoughts. Your take on it.

 

[Mjh29]

Except is does not.

Do you believe that God (the Son) has a body?

In fact, this very quote was stated by the Son. The passage also is not talking about metaphysics, but being reverent/worshiping in spirit. LDS Christians believing the Father is like the Son is not a contradiction to the Bible.

Both agree that the Spirit is a spirit.

God the Father is a Spirit. God the Son is the second person of the Trinity that has flesh, yes. But the Father does not have flesh.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Now don't change what the D&C says. It doesn't say God the Son.

It says, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22)

God the Father is a Spirit. God the Son is the second person of the Trinity that has flesh, yes. But the Father does not have flesh.

If you want to show a contraction with the Bile, then you need to provide a passage that says "God the Father is a being of Spirit". You cannot. And the John 4 passage isn't even talking about metaphysics.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I am not asking you to dive into the actual doctrine. All I'm asking is your personal opinion on whether or not it is actually possible. A simple yes or no question. No need to get deep into it, or anything like that. I read what you posted, but I am not asking for the entire doctrine; I'm simply asking if you, personally, think that this doctrine has any chance or possibility at all to be true? Is it even in the realm of possibility.

Not asking if it IS true. But is it POSSIBLE that it COULD BE true.

Not if it is the truth. If it is POSSIBLE for it to be the truth.

And, again. YOUR opinion. You. Personally. From your thoughts. Your take on it.

Dont' know. It's speculation.

Going further requires that deep dive.

I've now answered this same question 5 times.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

If you want to show a contraction with the Bile, then you need to provide a passage that says "God the Father is a being of Spirit". You cannot. And the John 4 passage isn't even talking about metaphysics.

When the Bible is talking about God the Son, He is called Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, or Christ. He is called other metaphorical names as well. BUT God the Son is not called "God" in the Bible.

So, "God" in that verse is not talking about God the Son, Jesus. Plus, we KNOW that Jesus had a physical body.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

When the Bible is talking about God the Son, He is called Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, or Christ. He is called other metaphorical names as well.

BUT God the Son is not called "God" in the Bible.

Again: If you want to show a contraction with the Bible, then you need to provide a passage that says "God the Father is a being of Spirit". You cannot. And the John 4 passage isn't even talking about metaphysics.

I'm not a Protestant. I don't believe in Sola Scirptura. But I do love and believe every word the Bible, even if it's not the same interpretation as a Protestant.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Again: If you want to show a contraction with the Bible, then you need to provide a passage that says "God the Father is a being of Spirit". You cannot. And the John 4 passage isn't even talking about metaphysics.

I'm not a Protestant. I don't believe in Sola Scirptura. But I do love and believe every word the Bible, even if it's not the same interpretation as a Protestant.

I'm not questioning your love of the Bible in the least. It's good that you love it.

I really don't have to provide another passage. I explained why that verse can't be talking about God the Son.

 

[brakelite]

I find it especially hard when contradictory "scriptures" are competing with the only true written word of God--the Bible. And the Bible is misinterpreted according to these contradictory "revelations." This is probably true of just about any cult, I would think. Either the Bible is added to, or the Bible is grossly misinterpreted, or both.

I think we need to be careful with this cult nomenclature for those who simply Jane a different understanding of scripture. For example, I could right off the bat name 2 or 3 foundational doctrines with which you and I would disagree. And I could substantiate all of them from scripture. And I don't doubt you would believe you can substantiate your understanding from scripture also. That's why we have such intense debated at times.

• Eternal torment... Not in the Bible.
• The co eternal consubstantial nature of the Godhead... Debatable.
• The identity of the Antichrist...
• Even what constitute soteriology...I think we may even differ somewhat with that.... So who is the cult member? You or I?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I'm not questioning your love of the Bible in the least. It's good that you love it.

I really don't have to provide another passage. I explained why that verse can't be talking about God the Son.

You put your interpretation on why you think it can't be talking about God the Son.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I think we need to be careful with this cult nomenclature for those who simply Jane a different understanding of scripture. For example, I could right off the bat name 2 or 3 foundational doctrines with which you and I would disagree. And I could substantiate all of them from scripture. And I don't doubt you would believe you can substantiate your understanding from scripture also. That's why we have such intense debated at times.

• Eternal torment... Not in the Bible.
• The co eternal consubstantial nature of the Godhead... Debatable.
• The identity of the Antichrist...
• Even what constitute soteriology...I think we may even differ somewhat with that.... So who is the cult member? You or I?

I defined the term cult earlier in this thread, and I use it very conservatively. I stand by my conclusion that Mormonism is a cult.

Are you saying that you don't believe Mormonism is a cult? What is your definition of a cult?

 

[Prayer Warrior]

You put your interpretation on why you think it can't be talking about God the Son.

Uh, no, I used the Bible itself to explain this.

Show me a Bible verse where God the Son is called "God."

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Uh, no, I used the Bible itself to explain this.

I'm sorry, but I do not find it to be so.
I'm also not see much profit in continuing to beat this dead horse.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

• Eternal torment... Not in the Bible.

• The co eternal consubstantial nature of the Godhead... Debatable.

• The identity of the Antichrist...

• Even what constitute soteriology...I think we may even differ somewhat with that.... So who is the cult member? You or I?

I don't believe that any of these are Christian doctrines that would be used to determine whether a group is a cult. No doubt, you and I would disagree on some of these. I would disagree on specific Bible doctrine with a lot of Protestants.

However, I would not go outside the Bible to prove my point. And this is the main reason I consider Mormonism a cult. They elevate other books to the authority of the Holy Bible (and even above the Bible's authority).
.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I don't believe that any of these are essential doctrines that determine whether a group is a cult. No doubt, you and I would disagree on some of these. I would disagree on specific Bible doctrine with a lot of Protestants. However, I would not go outside the Bible to prove my point. And this is the main reason I consider Mormonism a cult. They elevate other books to the authority of the Holy Bible (and even above the Bible's authority).
.

If your definition of "cult" = "somebody who does not believe Sola Scriptura", then yes I (and vast majority of professing Christians) are "cultists". I passionately do not believe in Sola Sciptura.