This ends up being yet another fruitless quest, because it’s so darned difficult to convince someone they don’t believe in something that they think they believe in. Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible, which is accepted by most Christians as being legitimate, so it’s not as though anti-Mormons can say they’re using a different version of the Bible than is commonly accepted.

One can point out that they don’t interpret scriptures the same way the rest of Christianity does, but this also poses problems, because there’s no way to prove what the correct interpretation is. You can amass evidence and build a case, but in most cases there’s no bulletproof proof, and of course Mormons aren’t going to accept what most Christian believe, because they claim to have modern-day prophets and other scriptures that tell them how to correctly interpret the Bible and they could care less what Christian scholars have said for the past 1,500 years. Actually, it’s not that Mormons care less, but they don’t give what has been commonly accepted much weight just because it’s been around for a long time.

So if you want to spend time trying to convince Mormons they don’t believe in the Bible you’re more than welcome to, but trust me, you’re just going to get frustrated in the end.

Q: How do Mormons explain Isaiah 44:6?

This verse says that God does not even know of another god. Now if Mormons believe that God the Father is married to multiple mother goddesses, who He would clearly know of if He was, then how can the possibly claim to believe the Bible and deny the basic doctrine of Isaiah 44:6.

A: Let’s start by reading the scripture:

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Sounds pretty cut and dry, right? Beside me, there is no God, right? Not a lot of room to interpret that any other way. Or is there?

If we skip forward in Isaiah just a tad to Isaiah 47:8, 10, we read this:

Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:

For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.

(emphasis added)

This isn’t God speaking, this is the city of Babylon. Is the city of Babylon saying that no other city except Babylon exists? As duly pointed out by FAIR, this would cause some consternation to the city of Ninevah, who in Zephaniah 2:15 states:

This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

So what are we to think? Obviously these words weren’t meant to indicate that no other cities existed. They clearly indicate the supremacy, authority, excellency, and/or superiority of these cities. Applying this same interpretation to Isaiah 44:6 we can see that what the scripture clearly means is that God is supreme, and there is no other God at his side, or on the same level he is on. In Isaiah 44:6 God is speaking to people who had a lot of trouble with worshipping idols or other gods, and this scripture was meant to say “You’ve got all these other gods you worship, but I don’t recognize them, they don’t even exist, there is no other god you’ve got that can compare to me. Drop your idol worship and your worship of false gods and worship me.” It was not a statement that there are no other gods, or that man cannot become like God, but rather that there is no other god man should worship, and that the gods these people were worshipping were false gods.

I’ve been having an extensive discussion with two chaps on another post on this blog, and they have posited that if the Book of Mormon were true, then there would surely be physical evidence to prove it. That is, there would be archeological evidence, supporting historical documents, etc., just as there are for the Bible. And while perhaps I’m putting words in their mouths, they seem to be making the argument that their entire belief in the Bible is founded on the physical evidence that supports the Bible.

However, in making this argument, they seem to be missing the point that if they applied the same logic to the Bible, they would have to conclude that the Bible is little more trustworthy than the Book of Mormon.

Why? Because while the physical evidence supporting the Bible is certainly there, it only supports parts of the Bible, while not supporting others. For example, what physical evidence is there for the resurrection of Christ? What physical evidence proves that we can be forgiven of our sins through Christ’s sacrifice? What physical proof is there for the divinity of Christ? In short, what physical evidence is there to prove that the Bible is not a work of historical fiction?

Historical fiction takes advantage of real places, people, and historical events, but weaves fictional elements into it. Thus, if the Bible were a work of historical fiction, it could still be supported in many ways by archeology and other historical documents. For example, you could point to many references outside the Bible that refer to Christ, portray him in artwork, etc., and say “See? There’s all sorts of evidence showing that Christ was real.” Yes, but a real person, or really who the Bible claims he is?

And so my question to you is if you believe the Bible to be true, especially its foundational tenets such as the divinity of Christ, the reality of his resurrection, and the forgiveness extended to us by his sacrifice, then how do you know those things are real?

I would put forth that there is no way to know if they are real short of revelation, that is, direct communication with God, and that if you accept revelation from God as a reality, then you must also accept that God can tell you if the Book of Mormon is true, and therefore whether or not there is physical evidence supporting the Book of Mormon is a moot point.

By the way, there is not exactly a total lack of evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as some claim.

My intent here is to explain to those of you who are prone to try and prove Mormonism false by the use of the Bible why it never seems to work. The root cause is that we understand the words of the Bible differently than you do, and our interpretation of those words is just as plain and obvious to us as your interpretation is to you. Thus, whenever you quote a Bible scripture to us, thinking that you’ve got us trapped, we merely read it and say “No, you see, that’s not what that scripture means. What it really means is…” And of course the meaning we ascribe to that scripture justifies our religion, rather than condemning it.

For example, take Galatians 1:8, which reads “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”

Someone who is looking for ammunition against the Mormon church reads this and thinks “Ah ha! Clearly the Mormons, with their Book of Mormon and strange teachings are preaching something new, an ‘other gospel’, and therefore they should be cursed. And they even claim it was delivered by an angel, just like this scripture says to avoid!”

But we Mormons believe that our teachings, our gospel, is the true gospel. It is not we who are teaching an “other gospel”, but rather everyone else. So when someone quotes this scripture to us, as though we should interpret it discrediting our beliefs, we think “Why are they showing us this scripture? We don’t believe in an ‘other gospel’. We believe the true gospel of Jesus Christ as he and the apostles taught it.”

Or someone might quote 2 Peter 2:1 “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.” They then imply that Joseph Smith, our first prophet in this dispensation, was one of these false prophets. After all, it seems pretty clear that he taught “destructive heresies”, “denied the sovereign Lord” by teaching that works matter to salvation, and he was “swiftly destroyed”, which just proves things.

But of course we Mormons read this and say “Actually, Joseph Smith is one of the true prophets. It’s those teaching doctrines contrary to those of Christ’s who are the false prophets and false teachers, not us.” We don’t see anything that we teach as a destructive heresy. We don’t see anything we teach as denying Christ or his teachings. And as for Joseph Smith being “swiftly destroyed” because he was killed while still relatively young, well so was Jesus Christ.

Now, I’m not saying that anyone should stop quoting the Bible, if you think you’ve got a scripture that contradicts the teachings of the Mormon faith. I, for one, enjoy the opportunity to learn from such interaction. Until I started this website, I had never confronted many of the questions asked here, and it’s been a great learning experience for me. I’m just trying to show that when you quote Bible scriptures to Mormons and they don’t react as you might expect, it’s not that we don’t believe the Bible, we just don’t believe your interpretation of it to be correct.

Q: Mormons believe that God used to be a man, like us, and that we can become gods, like God. But this doesn’t seem to make sense if you read the creation story in Genesis 1:1-19.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto bone place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And then in verse 27 it reads “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

First of all, it says “in the beginning” God created the earth. Then in verses 14-15 it says God created the heavens. So if everything was created at this moment, and man isn’t created until later in the chapter, then “man” didn’t exist before this, and therefore to say that God used to be a man doesn’t work, logically, because we see that man didn’t even exist yet when God was already creating all this stuff.

A: The logic of this question is sound…if you make a few assumptions. First, we would have to assume that “the beginning” is referring to the beginning of everything, not just the planet we live on. Second, we would have to assume that “the heavens” means the entire universe. But what else could it mean, you ask? Well, first, let’s think of the word “create” as being a synonym for “organize”. What if this passage of scripture is not talking about the “creation” of the heavens, per se, but rather their organization as we know them? That is, putting earth in its place, putting the other planets in their places and orbits, etc. From our perspective on earth, the “heavens” or the sky as we know it today did not “exist” before because there was no planet where earth currently resides, nor anyone upon it to observe the sky from this vantage point.

This starts to make even more sense when we start reading other Biblical passages, such as 2 Peter 3:13, wherein we read “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” Whether you accept my interpretation that “the heavens” is merely the sky from our particular perspective, or the entire universe, apparently God is in the habit of making “new heavens” on a fairly regular basis, so can we assume that the heavens described in Genesis is the first instance?

Finally, regarding the creation of man on the sixth day, after the heavens, who says that Adam was the first man in the universe? Evidently he was the first man on earth, and the first “man” we are concerned with, but there’s nothing here that says that a man had never been created before, somewhere else.

In a nutshell what Mormons believe is this; that we are all children of God, and that God’s plan is for us to become like him. An important step in that process is our mortal life here on earth. This earth, and our forgetting what went before, provide us with a unique experience to be free to choose for ourselves, unconstrained by any knowledge of who we really are. However, this freedom means we make mistakes, or sin. For every mistake there is an eternal consequence, although these consequences are “delayed” due to this space of time we have on earth. Thus the need for a Savior, Jesus Christ, who, in a way I don’t understand, paid for our sins. Now, instead of having to pay for our own sins (which we are incapable of), we merely have to do what Christ commands us to, that is, if we want the eternal life he promises. If we follow him and do what he wants, then after this life we become purified from the mistakes made in this mortal life, and continue progressing until we become like God, at which point the process repeats itself. New worlds are created, new heavens are created, new “men” are created, and the perpetuation of the “species” goes on.

The author of the comment then quoted this passage of scripture from Matthew 22:

25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother.
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh.
27 Last of all the woman died also.
28Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God[b] in heaven.

The short answer is that the marriages referred to in this passage of scripture were not eternal marriages, hence, as Jesus said, the woman would not be married to any of the brothers in the next life.

The somewhat longer answer is this:

First, we should understand that the men questioning Jesus were Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection at all. But the question appears to have been a common one amongst other Jews of the time, and the Sadducess were perfectly happy to use it to try and bait Jesus into giving them an answer that they could say contradicted Moses, who taught the children of Israel that if a man died, his brother should marry that man’s wife. What’s interesting is that there is brought up the idea that one of these seven brothers would indeed be married to this woman in the next life. Although the Sadducess clearly did not believe this would be the case, the fact that they asked this question shows that amongst other Jews of the time the idea of a marriage relationship after this life was probably commonly held. In other words, this passage actually lends support for the idea of eternal marriage having once been a common doctrine that was lost during the Great Apostasy that followed the death of the Apostles.

Second, we need to read carefully the words used in the scripture. The scripture nowhere says that a marriage relationship will not exist after death. It only says that the act of getting marriage, or being “given in marriage”, will not occur. This is in complete accordance with LDS doctrine, which teaches that eternal marriages can only be performed on earth, by living individuals. Even though Mormons practice proxy marriages on behalf of those who have died and were married civilly in this life (no, we don’t just marry random dead people to each other), these eternal marriages, which can either be accepted or rejected by those who have moved on, occur for those who have died prior to their resurrection, in a space that exists between the time of death and time of the resurrection.

Jesus further pointed out that the men questioning him didn’t understand the scriptures or the power of God, which is plain to see based on the question. If they had understood the doctrine of eternal marriage, then they wouldn’t have had to ask the question in the first place. The answer would be that the woman would be the wife of whichever brother she was “sealed” (the term used to refer to the performance of eternal marriages) to.

More references:

Doesn’t Matthew 22:23-30 Contradict the LDS Doctrine of Eternal Marriage?
Inasmuch as Latter-day Saints believe in marriage for eternity, how do we explain Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 22:29–30?
Is there Eternal Marriage?

Biblical inerrancy is, of course, not agreed upon in the mainstream Christian world either. But for those of you who do believe in biblical inerrancy, how do you explain the many versions of the Bible that are available? If one version is perfect, what reason is there to be more than one version? And if two versions use different words for the same passages, can they both be 100% correct?

Can you give any logical reason why God wouldn’t have prophets and apostles on earth today vs. thousands of years ago? Does the Bible itself say there would be an end to prophets and apostles? If it does state or insinuate such a thing, doe it state that prophets and apostles would never return?

Parley P. Pratt, one of the first apostles in this dispensation, asked this question quite well, albeit rather verbosely. This is an excerpt from the outline from a presentation he gave in the 1830′s to a group of Christian “truth-seekers” in Toronto, Canada.

“Friends, I am aware that the subject now under consideration is one of the most vital importance to the Christian world, and, though it may seem to be new to most persons, it is familiar to me. I have traced it in all its bearings, weighed it in every possible light, and am prepared to impart to others that which, I trust, will satisfy and enlighten the inquiring mind.

“It appears from our text, as well as from the general tenor of the New Testament, that certain definite principles existed, which, acted upon and enjoyed, constituted the Christian Church, or body of Christ, viz:

“First. An inspired priesthood or apostleship, authorized to administer salvation in the name of Jesus.

“Second. Faith in their words and testimony, on the part of those who heard them.

“Third. Reformation of life.

“Fourth. Obedience to certain ordinances, as baptism and the laying on of hands in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

“Fifth. The spiritual gifts imparted to the body thus organized, in order to its edification, growth and perfection.

“It may be presumed that every portion of the professed Christian Church, without any exception—I mean those who admit the Scriptures to be a record of things as they existed—will readily agree, that the five principles just named did exist, and did constitute the Christian Church or body of Christ. This, then constitutes the model or pattern of the object of our present search.

“We have only to compare modern presences with this ancient model, in order to judge of them at once. Either the same principles would be required to constitute the body of Christ in all succeeding ages, or else the New Testament must cease to be a standard, and be superseded by a dispensation of later origin; claiming power to nullify or make void the dispensation of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and to introduce another order of things in its stead.

“This last alternative none are so bold as to claim. All agree that the gospel was a perfect system, an unchangeable and everlasting covenant, never to be changed or altered by the Lord, and only perverted or altered by man under a severe penalty—a dreadful anathema. In physical matters men are not easily deceived or duped; for instance, a man sees or hears an exact description of a human body as existing in the days of Socrates or Plato; it has head, eyes, ears, mouth, arms, hands, legs, feet, etc. Can an impostor impose upon that man in this age? Can he introduce a wild beast, a fowl, a serpent, a man dismembered of his head, eyes, ears, hands, or feet? Could he pass any of these upon his fellow men as constituting the human body; the model or pattern answering to the former description? No, he could not. He would be considered out of his senses, and would be laughed to scorn for attempting such a thing.

“Why, then, are we at a loss in judging of the various systems which, in modern times, claim to be the church of Christ? Why do we not compare them with the model, and reject or receive at once? Perhaps you will say that such a course leads to consequences and conclusions so awful, that it opens truths so unwelcome, that it is natural to shrink from the view; and, like the ostrich in the desert, when pursued too closely, hides the head and eyes in a false covering, while the body is exposed to certain destruction.

“Says one, ‘if the ancient model or pattern is the standard, then the veil of modern Christendom is thrown off, and the entire world unchristianized—for we nowhere find such a pattern.’ Well, admit then that there is no Christian church in existence among men, and that there has not been for many ages. What then? is it a truth? If so, truth will not harm anybody. If the whole world has been for ages wrapped in mystery and deception, is it not better to find it out now than to continue in ignorance until Jesus reveals it at the judgment day, and sinks us in a moment from the highest pinnacle of hope and expectation to despair, rendered a thousand-fold more painful by a sudden reverse?

“But suppose, on opening our eyes to this great discovery, we search and find our observations and conclusions warranted by the whole tenor of prophetic writ? Suppose Jesus Christ and his Apostles and prophets all agree in bearing testimony, and foretelling the very order of things which we find to exist; also, its final end or termination, and the restoration of his Church and the reign of his Saints? Would not our own observations of what actually exists, confirmed by the prophetic declarations of such a host of witnesses, all testifying that it would be so, be a double assurance that we had opened our eyes to a snare in time to escape, and cause, us to leap forward with a thrill of joy and faith to that which is to come?

“We could then exclaim, in viewing the trumpery, pomp, splendor and greatness of Catholicism, or the scarcely less false and glaring systems of absurdity and priestcraft under the name of Protestantism, in their various forms, O, thou mystery of iniquity! thou art at last revealed, thou who deceivest all nations with thy sorcery, and with whom the kings of the earth and the nobles and great men have committed fornication, and lived deliciously; thy covering is removed, and the people shall see thy nakedness and abhor thee; and many shall be ready when the proclamation is made, ‘Come out of her, my people.’

“But suppose, on the other hand, we shut our eyes to these truths, and hug to our bosoms those systems of falsehood and error, which claim to be of Christ, but are not? The result will be a continuance on our part to build up that which the Lord purposes in due time to tear down, and to oppose that which the Lord will send into the world to accomplish his purposes. We would in this case be his enemies, and be found fighting against him.

Here is Hebrews 6:4-6

4 For it is impossible for those who were once ^aenlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have ^atasted the good word of God, and the powers of the ^bworld to come,

Why do you never hear a Mormon say, “Pray about the Bible to see if it is true.”? This has always puzzled me. God’s Word does not need verification. It simply is true. But the Book of Mormon, on the other hand, must be prayed about (so they say).

The primary purpose of Mormon missionaries is to bring people unto Christ through the doorway of baptism. If missionaries went out saying “Will you pray about the Bible and if God tells you it is true, will you be baptized into the LDS Church?” how many people would get baptized? Not too many. If the Bible is true, that doesn’t mean the LDS Church is true. Lots of churches use the Bible, so knowing the Bible is true doesn’t help you when it comes to selecting a church. But there’s only one church with the Book of Mormon, so if someone can find out the Book of Mormon is true, then they can know that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that the LDS Church is the true church of God upon the earth. That is why Mormon missionaries ask people to pray about the Book of Mormon and not the Bible.

However, Mormons are encouraged to pray about anything they want to know or anything they have questions about, including the Bible, if need be.