Do Mormons Worship the God of the Bible? Part 7

Post Author:  Darrell

When comparing the nature of the Mormon Jesus to the Jesus Christ of the Bible, several significant differences become readily apparent. Deut. 6:4 tells us emphatically that God is one in nature: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” In addition, in John 10:30, Jesus tells us that He “and the Father are one.” When Christ uttered these words, the Jews picked up stones to kill Him, because they knew precisely what He was asserting; namely, that He is one with God and that, as a consequence of God being one in nature, that He Himself is God.

The biblical assertion that Jesus is God is confirmed by several other passages of scripture. Col. 2:9 says, “For in him [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” In addition, in John 8:58, Jesus said, “before Abraham was, I Am.” Once again, when He said this, the Jews tried to stone Him, because they realized He was taking upon Himself the name of God by applying to Himself God’s declaration in Exod. 3:14: “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am’.” In addition, Jesus taught in John 8:12, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” At first glance, this verse may sound like it is simply a beautiful metaphor; however, a closer analysis reveals that Christ is referencing the Old Testament teaching in Ps. 27:1: “The Lord is my light.” Christ was literally proclaiming Himself to be the Yahweh of the Old Testament, and, thus, the God of all.

Verses such as those above place Mormons in a difficult position: how can their Jesus, a Jesus who was spiritually born of and is ontologically separate from God the Father, be God if there is only one God and God is one? The typical Mormon response to this problem is to say that God and Jesus are one in purpose and not one in nature; however, this answer falls decisively short of solving the problem, for Mormons are still forced to tackle the issue that their Christ has not always been God and had a God prior to Him, i.e., God the Father. The God of the Bible tells us that He has always been God and that there have never been any Gods besides Him: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me” (Isa. 43:10). Unfortunately for the Mormon Church, the LDS Jesus does not meet this standard and thus, cannot be the Jesus of the Bible.

In conclusion, as this series of posts has demonstrated, there are several significant differences between the God of Mormonism and the God of the Bible. The Mormon Godhead is comprised of three Gods who are separate and distinct in nature. However, the Bible teaches that there is but one God. Both the Mormon God the Father and the Mormon God the Son are embodied in flesh and bone, and as a result, cannot be in more than one place at a time. In contrast, the God of the Bible is said to be a spirit who is both invisible and omnipresent.

The Mormon God the Father is an exalted man who progressed and earned the honorific title God through a process similar to the one through which mankind is now going. However, the Bible teaches that God is not a man and has always been God. In addition, according to the Bible, God is not an honorific title that a being earns. Rather, it is something God simply is. Mormonism also teaches that God and man are the same species. On the other hand, the Bible makes it clear that God is self-existent and necessary, while man is contingent. Consequently, the idea that man and God are the same species is, from a biblical perspective, completely illogical.

The Mormon God the Son was spirit born of the Father and a Heavenly Mother, making Him ontologically separate from the Father. As a result, He has not always been God, and instead, progressed through obedience in a pre-mortal life to become “like unto God.” In contrast, the Jesus of the Bible is one with God. Consequently, the biblical profession of the eternality of God, i.e., that He has always been God, having no Gods before, after, or besides Him, applies equally to Christ making His nature inconsistent with the spirit born nature of the Mormon Jesus.  For these reasons, it is readily apparent that the nature of the Mormon God and the nature of the God of the Bible are diametrically opposed to one another. In reality, there is no meaningful way to view them as describing the same being. As a result, it can be decisively said that the God of Mormonism is most certainly not the God of the Bible.

  • Awesome post. Thanks for sharing, it`s bookmarked.

  • Kyle

    Wow you need some serious help :S if you cared to read the whole Book of Mormon you would have the answers you need to this rather silly argument. Also the (Mormon) religion accepts the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. There have been many changes to the bible over time, and if you understood how the bible came to be in its current state you would openely accept that it has been modified/changed many times by many people. You should spend more time receiving the answers you need through prayer and not through your own understanding. If you were really as strong and dedicated memeber of the (Mormon) faith that you claim you were, you could of easily of had these and many more of your concerns answered. Your understanding of the Book of Mormon seems very limited and your knowledge of the Church like wise. I implore you to stop your anti Mormon rantings, and get on with your life. There are only a handfull of reasons you would actively bad mouth and try and disprove someone elses religion, and the reason you have given on other pages of your blog are not an acceptable enough reason. I hope and pray that your heart will be softened and that you realise that what you are doing on your blog is wrong and counter productive. If you have read the Book of Mormon properley then you understand the consequences of your actions, I do this to warn you lovingley as I worry for your salvation. Enjoy your religion if that is your choice but don’t slag off and try and disprove other people choices religions. Thankyou and I hope you will see the errors of your ways.

  • NickyMac


    I am defensive of my faith because it is the most important thing to me, so I can understand your hurt when someone puts it down. You are allowed to confront a person that you believe has wronged you, otherwise you just sit in unforgiveness.

    However, you must also consider that Darrell has obligations too. The bible says in Jude verse 3 to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

    In Acts 15 when Paul and Barnabas heard that there were people who were teaching something in error they were so concerned that they travelled to Jerusalem and debated with the people and tried to correct the false teaching.

    Darrell is justifiably angry with the “new revelation” of Mormonism and genuinely worried for the people who are in bondage because of it. I’m sure he, and other Christians who care enough, will do everything they can to prevent its teachings from distorting the truth.

    The New Testament warns about false prophets, it doesn’t make way for them.

    I’m glad that you had the guts to read this post and I pray that the truth in the words stay with you.

    Consider this: the enemy doesn’t need to turn people away from Jesus. All the enemy needs to do is distort His words and confuse people enough that they can’t follow Him.

    With respect,

  • I find the idea of a great apostasy absurd, considering Matthew 16:18. This in and of itself discredits the Mormon doctrine.

    … and yet the Mormon persons live the Gospel better than those of us drenched in the culture of death. As we have seen, however, we cannot judge the truth of a claim by the behavior of its adherents, though we do.

  • anonymous

    Reading your comments are quite interesting.

    All I can say is that “the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” -John 4:23

    those who are sincere and are with real-intent would always long for the truth and would find it. and they would know by themselves where the true source of truth is.

    the absolute truth doesn’t change. whether you believe it or not it will not change. All of us would be held accountable for our own response.

    these absolute truths are being taught by the Spirit. These truths are “independent” in their spiritual sphere and are to be discovered spiritually.

  • Vandyke Candl

    Then believing in the Bible means also the Ten Commandments? So the not committing adultery thing wasn’t an issue for JS?

  • Sam

    How can you trust the Bible today. Do you know there are over 200,000 known changes in it? (Mormons say this all the time)

    That figure includes even one-letter changes in over 20,000 manuscripts. That is roughly 10 per manuscript, which is amazingly good. That compares to over 4,000 changes in the Book of Mormon and many in the Doctrines and Covenants. As one Mormon said, Joseph Smith wrote it, and Joseph Smith had the write to change it. That is the point: Joseph Smith wrote it and not God.

    Two examples of trivial contradictions in the Bible are Ezra 2 vs. Neh 7 and Matt 27:9. With corrupt scripture and a corrupt Medieval Church, true Christianity was not on the earth as John Wesley, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others said. That is why God needed to refound the Church with Joseph Smith, and that is why the Mormon church is the only one with the true authority.

    God gave His word without error, and He preserved His word without significant error. Ps 119:89-91, Isa 55:11, and Mark 13:31 promise, and archaeology confirms, that God preserves His word. Though many have fulfilled 2 Pet 2:1-3 and 1 Tim 4:1-3, every age had believers (such as the Waldenses in the Middle Ages). Our authority comes straight from Christ dwelling within us, and not indirectly through a convicted occult practitioner and proved counterfeit. The issue is not authority and organization, but following the right Jesus and the right God.

  • Joseph Smith said the Trinity is three gods, not one like Jesus said in Mark 12:28-29 and Shema Duet 6:4

    “I have always declared God to be a distinct
    personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father,
    and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three
    constitute three distinct personages and three Gods,” (Teachings of
    Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370)

  • I’m afraid Mormons are told not to have personal Relationship with Jesus or to Worship him.

    Our Relationship with the Lord


    Now, it is no secret that many false and vain and foolish
    things are being taught in the sectarian world and even among us about our need
    to gain a special relationship with the Lord Jesus. I shall summarize the true
    doctrine in this field and invite erring teachers and beguiled students to
    repent and believe the accepted gospel verities as I shall set them forth.

    We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son, and we do not
    worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about
    worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different
    sense–the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who
    has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the
    first, the Creator.

    Christ worked out his own salvation by worshiping the
    Father. After the Firstborn of the
    Father, while yet a spirit being, had gained power and intelligence that made him like unto God;
    after he had become, under the Father, the Creator of worlds without number;
    after he had reigned on the throne of eternal power as the Lord
    Omnipotent–after all this he yet had to gain a mortal and then an immortal

  • drew

    Darrel, the title of this series is tricky, since it invites the use of that old trick of only quoting the scriptures that support your point, while leaving out the scriptures that don’t. For example, you reference the “one God” of Deut 6:4 to prove your belief in the metaphysical oneness of the Father and the Son, but you leave out scriptures like 1 Cor 8:5-6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 17:3, and Eph 4:5-6, in which the “one God” clearly only refers to the Father, as it is always followed by “AND Jesus Christ”. For example 1 Cor 8:4-6 (which if you read completely, aligns perfectly with the Mormon view of God), reads: “to us there is but ONE God the Father… AND ONE Lord Jesus Christ.” The “one God” argument is always the first defense of the Trinity, but these other verses show that the concept is being misinterpreted. Your John 10:30 reference about the oneness of the Father and the Son is clarified a few chapters later in John 17:11 and 21 where Christ explains that the oneness he shares with the Father is the very same oneness that we should strive to share with them, and with each other. To define this oneness in a metaphysical way detracts from the real goal of earth life, which is to become one with God in mind and purpose through improvement and learning–i.e., to become like Him. Christ even went so far as to refer to men as gods (John 10:34), because as offspring of God (Act 17:28-29) we are not different in substance, but a family–and as his children, we can inherit his glory (Rom 8:16-17). The numerous verses indicating God’s corporeality also support Mormonism and contradict the God of immaterial, incorporeal substance. The normal defense is try to pawn these references off as allegorical–which can be extremely difficult to swallow. Take Ex 33:22-23, in which God told Moses he couldn’t see His face and live, so He told Moses He would put His hand over him until He had passed by, so Moses would only see His back parts. Does that sound allegorical? Granted, verse 11 tells us that Moses did manage at one point to speak to God face to face “as a man speaketh to his friend”, thus indicating that in some cases a human can undergo a change to enable them to see God’s face without dying–which is apparently what Jacob experienced, as in Genesis 32:30 he said, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved”.

    These are just a few of many Bible verses that very compellingly support the Mormon view of God. The typical Mainstream Christian reaction to these evidences is to ignore them and instead focus on verses that they believe support their view and/or or contradict the Mormon view. This ploy is not just used against Mormonism–for example, I’m sure you’ve noticed how Protestants ignore scriptures like Mark 16:16 when defending justification by faith. Anyway–all this “Bible bashing” just proves it’s impossible for man to agree on how to interpret the Bible. If it were God’s intention for us to derive doctrine from the Bible he certainly would have had it written differently. The only true way to establish and maintain true doctrine just happens to be another basic tenet of Mormonism–continued church-wide revelation through prophets. The “God of the Bible” called prophets throughout its entire 4000 year span. The Christian tendency to so confidently dismiss the possibility that God could continue this same pattern today stems from the same pride that caused prophets to be rejected from the beginning. A prophet’s job has always been to replace false beliefs and practices for truth, and most people aren’t interested in changing. This unwillingness to change is exactly why the Jews rejected Christ–after all, since Christ’s teachings didn’t align with their established beliefs and traditions, he HAD to be false, right? That was the attitude then, as it is now–for all but the pure in heart.

    As you can see, there is plenty of support that the “God of the Bible” is the God of Mormonism. What the Bible doesn’t provide a hint of, however, is the Mainstream Christian classification of God as an “immaterial”, “incorporeal”, “substance”. It is simply nowhere to be found in the Bible–if anything, the Bible contradicts it, as I have shown. I have found, however, that the use of these terms to describe God VERY closely mirrors the way the Greek Platonic philosophers characterized their notions of divinity. And it’s not a coincidence that the writings of Church fathers like Origen, Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, etc. indicate an undeniable influence of, and appreciation for, these very same philosophies. Add to that the well-accepted fact that all revelation having a bearing on the entire church ended with the martyrdom of the apostles. Since doctrine certainly qualifies as church-wide, this means that no post-apostolic doctrinal development was inspired by God. What does that leave? Some say these doctrines stemmed from tradition, yet theories on divine substance (ousia) didn’t appear in patristic writings until the 3rd century. Even then theologians couldn’t agree on details, like whether the Father and Son were the same substance, similar substance, etc. They finally arrived at a consensus that they were the same substance, and that the Son proceeded from the Father, but they never agreed if the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, the Son, or both–which was the main catalyst for the great East-West schism around 1000 AD. Arguments over minutiae like this just prove how far theologians had strayed from simple revealed truths. Of course it’s human nature to do so, which is why revelation is the only way. Thankfully, God again started calling prophets when the time was right, restoring the true gospel of Christ through revelation. This sounds like the “God of the Bible”–but pride keeps most from seeing the light…just like the “people of the Bible”!