Mormons vs Mormonism



What is the difference between a literal and a literalist reading of the Bible?

+JMJ+

The entire Bible is literally true: this means to find the “literal” meaning, you must know what the mode of speech being used is, who is being addressed, etc.

For instance, an awful lot of Genesis is religious myth. Nowadays we tend to think of “myth” as something with is just not true, but that is not what myth is at all. A myth is a standard story trying to make a religious point.

from Modern Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J. Doubleday & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY 1980


Thus the first chapter of Genesis is a religious myth whose purpose is to teach that God alone created EVERYTHING from NOTHING. This is literally true. He did not do it in six twenty-four hour “days” of the earth revolving around the sun. That would be impossible, as the earth wasn’t created until the third day in this account, and the sun was not created until the fourth day.

But trying to get a time line or scientific account of creation from Genesis 1 would be doing violence to the text and trying to interpret it in a literalistic way.

In similar fashion, Our Lord taught using parables. A literal interpretation would be to accept the truth that Our Blessed Lord is trying to teach. The literatlistic interpretation would be to actually believe that there was a king who send all his servants and his son to be killed, or that there actually was a woman who swept her entire home to find a coin, and threw a party because it was found.

These are parables, and we believe that they are literally true, but not literatisticly so. Does that make sense?

Please note that there is no such word as “literatistic” but I am accepting it for the time being to try and show the difference in how a Catholic understands that the Bible is literal, and how that is light years different from how a Fundamentalist would understand the Bible is literal - the later I am willing to call literalistic.​
How does this verbiage have anything to do with Mormonism? hmm. Happy you're a literalist
 
It was a question. From a long time ago. Why are you dredging it up now?

God’s revelations to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore, the most important prophet, so far as you and I are concerned, is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet EZRA TAFT BENSON of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
February 26, 1980
 
God’s revelations to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore, the most important prophet, so far as you and I are concerned, is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet EZRA TAFT BENSON of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
February 26, 1980
? ? ? ? :p :ROFLMAO:
 

If you believe in biblical literalism, then you believe that the Bible is without historical or scientific error and should be read literally in all its details.
Not exactly, six days of creation, should that be literal?
 
Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.
Deut 18:15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.
You must listen to both. That Mormonism contradicts the prophets in the Bible shows it to be of the devil.
The prophets are also living in Christ, Matthew 22:32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." So you cannot put a "living prophet" ahead of the "dead" because there's no such thing as a "dead prophet".
 
Deut 18:15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.
You must listen to both. That Mormonism contradicts the prophets in the Bible shows it to be of the devil.
The prophets are also living in Christ, Matthew 22:32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." So you cannot put a "living prophet" ahead of the "dead" because there's no such thing as a "dead prophet".
Huh?
 
How does this verbiage have anything to do with Mormonism? hmm. Happy you're a literalist

The prophet Joseph Smith rejected biblical literalism. That’s why this topic is relevant.

“I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, chapter 17).
 
I don’t have a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Adam and Eve are an example of a Bible myth.
They are real, but the story surrounding their creation is symbolic, not literal. That should be easy enough to see from the six days it took to create the world we now live in. Evolution, the idea that man evolved from a lower lifeform, is a myth.

Logically, Adam and Eve were born to parents just like any of the rest of us were. It is illogical to believe that they were made from a pile of dirt or that Eve literally was made from one of Adam's ribs. The same is true of the birth of Jesus. We know how procreation works. His Father had to have the same DNA that we have. If he didn't then Jesus wasn't human.

The details of our creation, our origin, are not important. Theologically, the message is about how we arrived in this state, through transgression, and how we can get back, through propitiation offered to those who are willing to live after the manner of happiness which is what the scriptures teach us. That message receives a lot of static. There seems to be a willingness to twist the scriptures in a effort to obscure our part.

So, yes, the creation epic isn't literal. It is metaphorical. It's purpose is a teaching device. Sadly, most Christian religions don't get it.
 
They are real, but the story surrounding their creation is symbolic, not literal. That should be easy enough to see from the six days it took to create the world we now live in. Evolution, the idea that man evolved from a lower lifeform, is a myth.

Logically, Adam and Eve were born to parents just like any of the rest of us were. It is illogical to believe that they were made from a pile of dirt or that Eve literally was made from one of Adam's ribs. The same is true of the birth of Jesus. We know how procreation works. His Father had to have the same DNA that we have. If he didn't then Jesus wasn't human.

The details of our creation, our origin, are not important. Theologically, the message is about how we arrived in this state, through transgression, and how we can get back, through propitiation offered to those who are willing to live after the manner of happiness which is what the scriptures teach us. That message receives a lot of static. There seems to be a willingness to twist the scriptures in a effort to obscure our part.

So, yes, the creation epic isn't literal. It is metaphorical. It's purpose is a teaching device. Sadly, most Christian religions don't get it.
The truth of creation is in the sealed plates Joseph Smith was not allowed to translate...
 
They are real, but the story surrounding their creation is symbolic, not literal. That should be easy enough to see from the six days it took to create the world we now live in. Evolution, the idea that man evolved from a lower lifeform, is a myth.

Logically, Adam and Eve were born to parents just like any of the rest of us were. It is illogical to believe that they were made from a pile of dirt or that Eve literally was made from one of Adam's ribs.

Why is it "illogical"--because YOU say so?
Now, the Mormon god is too puny to have made man from the dust of the ground and Eve from one of Adam's ribs--but the true God of the Bible isn't bound by what man calls "logic." He is NOT held captive to our finite ability to understand His Nature and abilities fully this side of heaven. So, the true God of the Bible can and did make man from the dust of the earth, and breathed the breath of life into him, so he became a living being. And He made Eve from one of Adam's ribs--not from his head, so she would be over him and not from a bone in his foot, so she would be beneath him, but from a bone from his side, so she would be near his heart (the pastor at our wedding said this and I always liked it)...

God created man and woman--He did NOT procreate them. Jesus Himself says so!

Matthew 19:4​

New American Standard Bible 1995​

4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who CREATED them from the beginning MADE them male and female...

Jesus Himself affirms the Biblical creation of man and woman. So, are you going to call Jesus a liar?
The same is true of the birth of Jesus. We know how procreation works. His Father had to have the same DNA that we have. If he didn't then Jesus wasn't human.

OH, so you are saying that Jesus is the result of procreation between HF and his spirit daughter in the flesh, Mary? They had sex? Is that it? Wouldn't that be incest?

It is nonsense that Jesus had to have the same "DNA" as His Father. God is spirit, as Jesus says in John 4 and in context, He was talking about His Father! Spirit has no DNA. But Jesus got His humanity and DNA from Mary, not from His Father, Who was and is spirit and existed as such from all eternity.

Mormons say they believe the Bible but apparently only the parts they want to believe.
The details of our creation, our origin, are not important.

Yes, they are very important! One believes the Biblical witness--or not. Or rather chooses to believe the personal twisting of the Scripture.
Theologically, the message is about how we arrived in this state, through transgression, and how we can get back, through propitiation offered to those who are willing to live after the manner of happiness which is what the scriptures teach us.

The scriptures teach us that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for all our sins, and those that trust and believe in Him--the true Jesus Christ of the Bible, not the fake one of Mormonism, who is Satan's brother in the supposed pre-mortal spirit existence--for salvation, great and free, will have eternal life..."For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have EVERLASTING LIFE." Did Jesus add "whosoever believes in Him AND jumps through all of the Mormon temple hoops, and remains temple worthy until death, will have eternal life"?

Did He?
That message receives a lot of static. There seems to be a willingness to twist the scriptures in a effort to obscure our part.

Oh, baloney! It is the Mormons who twist scriptures--like saying the creation story of man is merely symbolic and not literal.

A perfect example of Scripture-twisting!
It's purpose is a teaching device. Sadly, most Christian religions don't get it.
Yes, it is. And we can use the actual creation story in God's holy word as a teaching device. I have taught it; I was taught it as a child in Sunday School. I have studied it in Adult Bible Class. So, yes we can use what is actually written in the creation account as a "teaching device."

It is the lost ones in Mormonism who do not "get it."
 
Back
Top