C.S. Lewis once wrote,
“It was when I was happiest that I longed most… The sweetest thing in all my life has been the longing… to find the place where all the beauty came from.” - Till We Have Faces
In his essay “Christianity and Literature,” he also wrote,
“[An] author should never conceive of himself as bringing into existence beauty or wisdom that did not exist before, but simply and solely as trying to embody in terms of his own art some reflection of eternal Beauty and Wisdom. (“Christianity and Literature,” Journal of the Society of Christians in the Arts, Inc. 1, no. 2 (1975): 22)”
And Jerram Barrs writes in his article, “Christianity and the Arts” (PDF):
“Our work in any field of the arts will be imitative. We will be thinking God’s thoughts after Him—painting with His colors; speaking with His gift of language; exploring and expressing His sounds and harmonies; working with His creation in all its glory, diversity, and in-built inventiveness. In addition, we will find ourselves longing to make known the beauty of life as it once was in Paradise, the tragedy of its present marring, and the hope of our final redemption. All great art will contain this element of being an echo of Eden: Eden in its original glory, Eden that is lost to us, and Eden restored.” (pg 7)
The last two of three quotes above were taken from this Desiring God blog post.
I’ve had this blog post in draft mode for quite some time, and I think its timing is ironic. This past Tuesday I had two LDS missionaries over for dinner and we got to talking about the glory of God. One of them, Elder J., described God’s gifts as “hand-me-down” gifts (that is his word), since God has what he has, especially knowledge and power, after having learned it from another God.
Is your God a “hand-me-down” Artist? When you find the God of this earth, are you really finding where all the ultimate beauty comes from? When you consider nature and beauty and happiness and eternal law[1] and the plan of salvation (whatever you think all that is), do you think of it all as ultimately coming from our God, or having been passed down a chain of gods?
I want to know where all the beauty really comes from, and then worship (worship, after all, is the consummation of my pleasure and delight). If our God is not the Ultimate Artist then I will go in search of the one who is.
[1] ”The laws and ordinances by which men and women are exalted in the celestial kingdom of our God are eternal and do not change—and because they are eternal, they predate even God.” (Alonzo Gaskill, Odds Are, You’re Going to Be Exalted: Evidence That the Plan of Salvation Works, p. 8, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2008)
Possibly related posts:
Back when I was at BYU, a person in the house where I lived had the "Habitrail Theory." Basically, the entire universe was artificial, like a Habitrail or aquarium. A substitute environment for us to grow up in.
Just like a fish or a gerbil lives, sleeps, gets fed, all inside, so do we. All the stars are nothing more than those plastic plants the goldfish swim in.
I only mention this because I think it vaguely relates.
I get what you mean about the ultimate source of things. It's like, instead of God, we just report to a middle manager. The CEO never visits our plant.
And, of course, we can never even mention the name of the CEO's wife.
Goldarn,
Needless to say that the “Habitrail Theory” is not LDS doctrine notwithstanding the personal musings of some BYU co-ed.
Further, there are many instances of God the Father (your CEO figure) of being directly involved in the affairs of men.
=== MODERATED ===
The moderator issued a level 1 yellow card on this comment.
=== MODERATED ===
As a personal policy, I am up front with LDS missionaries, telling them that although I have curiosity on all things religious, and that I am interested in them as people, I shouldn’t be considered a “golden contact” or normal investigator. I have them over for dinner as much as I can, to make them feel warmly welcomed as neighbors, but not as fellow Christian brothers.
As for the “hand-me-down” phrase, that was the phrase of Elder J., not me. My wife was sitting right next to me, would you like an affidavit signed by her? Do you want me to start audibly recording the conversations for you? I’m sure that would really cause a stir…
Elder J. also told me:
1. God the Father was once a sinner.
2. God the Father is still progressing in knowledge.
3. We can only be certain that God created the planets in our particular solar system. We should assume there are other solar systems in the universes that other Gods and Saviors created.
People like Elder J. aren’t figments of my imagination. They are real, living, breathing Mormons who eat dinner at my table, who sit on my couch, and who shake my hand. And no, I cannot bend spoons.
Aaron,
Since you the doctrine so well, I would suggest that you remind the Elders that their calling is to testify and not speculate. Whether they or you think that is foolishness, remind them that if they believe what they are teaching is true, then they had better follow the command to testify and warn the people and not teach for commandments the doctrine of men (their own speculations). Probably won’t make for very interesting dinner dates!
Wow!
Aaron you are being rather harsh on FoF by sending him to the penalty box for a week. Really, there seems to be a double standard here wherein “Mormon” critics can say a lot of really nasty things about the LDS Church with no censure whatsoever.
This does not bode well for having a fair and balanced forum.
SteveH, if you see any non-Mormons going to the same degree of non-constructive personal attacks, then please feel free to e-mail us reporting the violation.
And by the way, FoF isn’t in the “penalty box”. The card lowers his daily limit of eight comments a day to six. Further violations lower the daily limit.
By the way, complaining about moderation isn’t constructive either. Stick to the subject of the OP and you none of this will even be a problem.
> Aaron,
Regarding your comments, I would disagree with your portrayal of LDS doctrine wherein God is a “hand-me-down” artist – in other words there is no originality in His creations.
God the Father spoke to Moses face to face and declared:
Moses 1:3 – 4
And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless? And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.
Moses 1:33
Worlds without number have I created.
For what purpose did God create this world?
God the Father declared to Moses:
Moses 1:39
For behold, this is my work and my glory – to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
Further God the Father declares:
Moses 2: 1
I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten (Jesus) I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.
It would be inaccurate in LDS doctrine to portray God the Father as a “hand-me-down Artist”.
Steve, please use the “reply” feature so that your responses are connected to the relevant comment.
I’m aware of lots of things in your Standard Works that don’t jive with modern institutional and mainstream Mormonism. Please see here where I argue, “We must not naively assume that any given religion is functionally equivalent to the original meaning of its historical canon.” If I equated your extra-biblical canon with Mormonism, I would have to conclude that Jehovah is the Father, that Mormonism is a religion of modalism, and that being subject to the devil is the final state of those who procrastinate their repentance. But none of those three notions are representative of modern Mormonism.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Aaron,
I read those links provided and I would disagree with your statement that:
“lots of things in your Standard Works don’t jive with modern institutional and mainstream Mormonism”.
It would appear that critics such as Ronald Huggins are being somewhat selective in the use of sources to build an argument for the notion that Mormonism was ever a religion of modalism. This is simply not the case. The same can be said of the notion that being subject to the devil is the final state of those who procrastinate their repentance and similarly with Section 109 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
Nevertheless I can see how someone who is not familiar with LDS doctrine and culture can make those errors of interpretation.
Aaron,
extra-biblical canon with Mormonism:
Jehovah is the Father: we “become” sons and daughter of Christ through the atonement. Jehovah doesn’t appear until Genesis 2, while Elohim (speaking to someone else) comprises Genesis 1. Just because Jesus is the Son of God doesn’t make Him any less of a Father to us since he is the author and finisher of our Faith.
Modalism: If Jehovah is the God of the OT and runs the affairs of this world under the direction of His Father, why is any prophet wrong in calling Jesus (Jehovah) the Father. To them the atonement was/is eternal, thus making Him the Father in a very real sense.
Being subject to the devil: All those who do not reach exaltation will have become eternally subjected to the will of the devil. What is his will? To oppose God. In what way? Stopping the progression of His children to what was their divine heritage. Exaltation is the design of God and anything short of this means we have been taken captive by the will of the devil.
I don’t see how these are not mainstream Mormon theology today.
Good post, AARON; it may not seem like much to you, but the fact that you regularly have mishies over for dinner (eating WITH them, not upon them, I’ll assume….) speaks volumes for your concern and friendship with them as people. To do that and keep an edge on your doctrine and views is tricky and admirable. Keep it up.
The article makes me think of how carelessly we use the word ‘create’ and ‘creative’ when it comes to people. We really only REFLECT (however imperfectly) GOD”S unique creative ability. Add that to the list of what ONLY GOD HIMSELF can, and will, do.
The web-site looks bright and sparkly . GERMIT
like the edit function , as well
is there a way of seeing RECENT comments in the right margin, like the old days, instead of having to scroll down an individual thread to see those ????
I do not see Heavenly Father as a ‘hand-me-down artist’. Just remember that phrase was from one person and was most likely his own ideology (and possibly others) but its not mainstream and its definitely not doctrine. There is much that can be created differently and much that can be presented in a different manner. Look at music – there are basically 12 notes in music and there are millions of different pieces of music and representations of music and it has not yet finished being created by artists. Some compositions sound similar, some are remakes but many are original. Some use influences and so are constructed along a similar vein while others are out of no where. Again, look at painting – there are many different styles and a near infinite number of colours. Artists are still painting original art works.
This is how I see Heavenly Father – an artist that can change and mould what He has at will and create it into anything He wants and how He wants – and it can be different to what was in the past or it can be the same or it can be similar. What’s to stop God from making them the size of watermelons and grow at the drop af a hat? Or what about creating a fruit that tastes like apple, banana and mango, because that’s a nice juice mix. And the list can go on. If you look at many scifi movies and books, look at all the life forms imagined there. We do not have anything that looks like some of those on this planet. Yes they could be in existence elsewhere, but if not that does not mean that God cannot create them. So yes I disagree with that missionaries point of view.
Everyone, please take a second look at Ralph’s comment. There are things in it that I theologically and philosophically take issue with (which I will note later), but I think it is a great example of a substantive Mormon comment that added something constructive to our interaction here on Mormon Coffee. Thank you, Ralph, for your consistency in this. I don’t agree with you on most things, but I really value the way you interact with us.
Just so people know, this is TXNathan. Nathan16 is my wordpress username.
Being an amateur (and probably quite poor) poet, author, and musician, I personally love the idea of God being an artist. It also shows why there are so many classic literary devices in the Bible; God is the source of literary creativity.
I think if we look at Mormonism logically, it shows that their god is limited in creativity.
Think of it this way: an artist in our universe never makes his medium out of nothing. He uses paint, or paper, or writing. He may make his own medium, like oils or pastels, but these are made out of other substances, and so forth. Therefore, the artists of this universe are necessarily limited to his mediums, however vast these may be. We can say that for practical purposes, our mediums are limitless, but if we are seeking truth, we can’t just stick to what is practical. Our mediums may be even less limitless than it seems, not knowing a universe without these limits.
So it is with the god of Mormonism. He did not create his medium out of nothing; he was limited to pre-existing matter. The triune God of mainline Christianity, however, did make His medium out of nothing, as He invented matter. He could conceivably create another medium beyond our comprehension. He could conceivably create something where a “medium” is irrelevant. Therefore, logically, the Mormon deity would be more limited in artistry than the Christian God. I would say nothing about the originality of the Mormon deity, as Steve H suggests above that the Mormon deity is very creative. I don’t think that’s the issue, and if it is, it’s quite subjective. If we look at it logically in terms of mediums, then necessarily the Mormon deity is more limited artistically than the Christian God.
Nate
=== MODERATED ===
The moderator issued a level 1 yellow card on this comment.
=== MODERATED ===
Respond with more constructive, mature comments than this.
LDS view-God created worlds without end out of nothing (particles of matter in thier most basic form, without composition, without use, comprising no element, nor form that could be recognized…nothing)
Nathan/Ev’s view-God created worlds without end out of nothing…
What is the definition of nothing? God does not go into great detail as to how miracles are brought to past…and I’m not surprised that it was not written “…created worlds without number out of clouds of subatomic particles”. Although I would never put my eggs in the basket of science alone, there are truths that can be dicerned from the practice. Energy never ceases to exist…matter never ceased to exist…they just change forms.
How much more creativity is needed to sculpt and mold materials with set properties and limits and yet be limitless with your creations rather than having genie like abilities and -POOF-, its there.
“How much more creativity is needed to sculpt and mold materials with set properties and limits and yet be limitless with your creations rather than having genie like abilities and -POOF-, its there.”
The analogy is flawed. You see, it’s not as simple as “having genie like abilities and -POOF-, its there”. You could say, “God just thought of a world, and POOF, it was there.” But strictly speaking, that means God would have to invent ideas (information that is thought). God would have to invent the process by which His ideas are turned into creations. God invented matter, God invented abilities. See, you seem to have the idea of God saying, “Let’s make a world,” when the idea of world, or making, didn’t even exist. God had to invent those. A closer analogy would be more like, “Let’s make something out of something other than matter or energy, and other than any of its opposing forms, like antimatter.” Can you think of anything like that? It requires a creative mind to think of that. Much more creative than a genie that imagines something that already exists, at least as an idea.
By the way, by saying that matter and energy do not cease to exist by our means, it does not automatically follow that they were not brought into existence by something beyond our means, and that they will not cease to exist by means of something beyond our means. Casual assumptions like this make for bad philosophy. And God makes it very clear that He created the world out of nothing: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Colossians 1:15-17) If by God all things were created, what does that leave God to create something out of? Nothing. If all things were created by God, then there is nothing that God had to create something out of.
Nate
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Colossians 1:15-17)
“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.” Genesis 1:1-2
The Bible does not say that God created out of nothing. It tells us that whatever we see, or don’t see (gases) was created by Him, but it does not give an accounting that fits your conclusion, exclusively. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”….a statement…a summary.
The rest of Genesis 1 describes, in brief detail, how God continues to organize the elements and setup a habitable planet. He is God…when He speaks, the elements obey. When He declares, “Let there be light” there was light…Christ was able to calm the seas with His words…verily, each particle obeys the Word of God…surely all He must do is speak and the work is commensed and accomplished.
And notice the order in which God creates, forms, brings to life…He starts with the basic elements of life…light, water, dry land…and progresses to more sophisticated forms of life until He finishes with Adam and Eve. It was organized. From the most basic to the most complex. Even if science forces a symbolic analogy, we see stages, we see order and no surprise for God is a God of order, not chaos.
The context is simple. The words plain. Verily He did create. Nowhere does it say “out of nothing”.
“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Genesis 3:19
“For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.” (Eccl. 3: 19-20)
One of few examples of how God creates…man was created out of dust…repeated in the Bible as the smallest and lowest state of physical form for not man only. God does NOT make it “very clear” that He created the world out of nothing…men with degrees did…not the Word of God.
Walrus: just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying “DUST” is the smallest, most basic, physical element of man , and perhaps of other things as well ?? Are you saying that is wath is meant in Genesis ?? Is this a Mormon thing , or just Walrus on a balmy day talking ?? Thanks Mr.Germit
I won’t pick at what an individual Mormon missionary said, but I would stand by AARON and say his (the missionaries) comment tells us something……he did not come up with that idea in a vaccuum.
In looking at the picture you posted, and of course nature itself, I think about JS pathetically absurd idea that WE could one day become an entity that could send planets and stars whirling about in celestial splendor…..that kind of hubris would be laughable, if it were not so damnable. I say this in as measured and ‘trying not to incite” a way as possible: that man, Joseph Smith, did not have a clue as to GOD, the Maker of the Universe, that he was talking to. We are, and will forever be, so NOT LIKE GOD.
the biblical idea and teaching of ‘becoming like God” knows nothing of this kind of progression or outcome (world making/creating) God is not honored by such a specious “raising of the bar” reg. sanctification or growth.
Germit,
Contrary to your assertions, Joseph Smith did indeed know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ – perhaps better than any man who has ever lived. That you limit yourself in believing that man will only be as he is now in this life does not negate the truth of man’s divine potential.
As Psalm 82:6 states:
I {God} have said Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High”
Jesus himself impressed the importance of this concept by quoting it to the Pharisees
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
That we are to become like our Heavenly Father is made evident by such statements by Christ.
Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
It is the religionist of Christ’s time and our own day and age who persist in false notion that there is an unfathomable chasm between man and God. Modern revelation (as does the Old and New testaments) teaches us that we are indeed the sons and daughters of a loving Heavenly Father and that we, as such, have the divine potential to become like him.
SteveH,
The first rule of understanding the Bible is the a verse taken out of context is only a pretext.
Take a look again at Psalm 82. In verse 1 we see, “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” The question is who are the “gods”? They are those who judge unjustly and accept the wicked. They have failed to follow the law by defending the the poor and doing justice to the needy. They do not know or understand the law and walk in darkness.
I am not sure how you can think that this passage defends your position that man has the potential to become a god.
Taken in it’s proper context, and understanding that Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6, John 10:34 can only be seen as Jesus condemning the Jews who were about the stone him. He is telling them that they have judged him unjustly.
Clearly this passage does not help your case either.
Gundeck,
The meaning of Psalm 82 is plain and clear in its context; namely the Lord declaring that we (albeit unjust) “are children of the most High” and as such “Ye are gods”. It this were not so then why, why, why would the Lord proclaim it as such. Perhaps it is you who has misinterpreted this scripture.
This is the great problem of Protestant theology in that so many biblical scholars and theologians come up with starkly contrasting interpretations of the same scripture. Thus that is why there are over 5,000 Protestant sects each interpreting the same scripture in their own fashion and disagreeing one with another on every imaginable doctrinal topic. Hence the great need in this day and age for modern revelation and the authority of prophets of God to rectify doctrine and understanding of God’s Word.
I think we had a similar discussion over Corinthians 7 concerning Paul’s views on marriage.
SteveH, you are aware that your own leaders have offered conflicting interpretations of John 10:34, right (cf. Talmage’s agreement with the traditional Protestant interpretation)?
See more on this subject here.
SteveH
I hope that all is well with you. This is my last post for the day.
It is true that there are many Protestant Churches and some of them hold differing views on every subject in the Bible. Your choice of 5000 is interesting and shows that you either fail to understand or to admit that there are far fewer theologicaly driven distinctions than you propose. Christ’s Church has sadly been devided more by geography and global politics than theology.
For instance what is the theological difference between the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and the Presbyterian Church America (PCA)? Verry little if any, they both subscribe to the Westminster Confession. Simply these are two denominations that have in their own time split from their respective Northern and Southern Presbyterin Mainline denominations. These Mainline denominations PCUS and PCUSA were devided in 1861 do to the “Late Unpleasentness” but have reunited into the PC(USA).
One should also recognise the serious congrgationist influence in the United States. Many of these Churches hold the same views theologicaly but choose to act indpendant of a denomination.
This does not mean that there has not been division on theological grounds. The Lutheran and Reformed Churches and the split over the views on the Sacriments comes to mind. This also does not mean that there has not been serious and devergent views held inside the same denomination.
When you take all of this into account and look at the great number of off shoot churches and theologies inside your own denomination I think you will come to agree that the 5000 denomination argument is a straw man.
The second rule of interpriting Scripture is to use scripture itself as the judge of interpritation. The Westminster devines said it better than I can, “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” (WCF I, IX)
I will refer you to Deuteronomy 6:4, 5. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
I would also recomend the NET bible with translation notes available online. http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Psa&chapter=82#n4
In John 10:31-38, the Jews are seeking to stone Christ…“…It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (vrs33)…to which Christ qoutes Psalms
“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—; do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (vrs34-36)
That is to say, why is it blasphemy for Chirst to call himself the Son of God when it is written that God named those who recieved his word as gods? It is NOT blasphemy for God himself said it was so.
As an extension, whenever we exercise pure charity, when we commit an act that Christ himself would have done if he were here then we, for that one moment, are truely Christlike…Godlike…for what we gave is what would have been given, yet we did so in the stead thereof.
Walrus,
I think that this has been explained above but please consult the NET bible with translation notes it is helpful. You are misunderstanding the use of the word translated “god” and assuming that it is referring to a divine like being that has some relation to God.
Looking at the NET translation note we see:
“the present translation assumes that the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (’elohim, “gods”) here refers to the pagan gods who supposedly comprise El’s assembly according to Canaanite religion. Those who reject the polemical view of the psalm prefer to see the referent as human judges or rulers (אֱלֹהִים sometimes refers to officials appointed by God, see Exod 21:6; 22:8-9; Ps 45:6) or as angelic beings (אֱלֹהִים sometimes refers to angelic beings, see Gen 3:5; Ps 8:5).”
We see that there are three possibilities presented; 1 pagan gods, 2 human judges appointed by God, or 3 angelic beings. Each of these possibilities is more consistent with Scripture than the assumption that this passage shows the potential for future godhood.
Steve, it was common for ancient cultures such as Israel’s to call kings, judges, and other authority figures ‘gods’ or ‘sons of god’ because of their power and position. The psalmist was specifically speaking a word of judgement against corrupt Israelite leaders. They refused to rescue those who had no defense (verses 2-4). Vs. 7 reminds the ‘gods’ that although they have power, they too will someday die “like mere men” and “like every other ruler”. Vs. 8 ends the Psalm with a plea for God, the ultimate Judge, to judge the earth (and, by extension, these ‘gods’, or judges).
How could a society which condemns idol worship call their leaders gods (and is condoned by God)? Why, if God sees it as blasphemy, would God call us such on many a different occasion? These leaders, these kings and priests were called by God to their positions (safe to say since God has been shown to call prophets and kings ei-David)…They were to be an example as well as a leader. God spoke to them, taught them, that they may teach those ‘subjected’ unto them. God used/uses symbolism to teach. Ancient Isreael looked to the High Priest as the supreme authority in the temple…in the acts of atonement, just as we now look to Jesus Christ as the Supreme High Preist to whom we look to for redemption.
The Book of Mormon shares many insights on the role of leadership…how the king, prophet or priest was to work the land for their own sustaining…that to be the greatest is to be the servant of all (not excusive to the BoM)…to be in the service of your fellow man is to be in the service of God. Our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are glorious to behold for although they be Gods, they bless us, they are there for our every need, despite our naturally sinful state!
I dare say that ancient Isreael had an idea about their divine potential, and it’s appropriatness for consideration. A principle that was comfortable for open discussion in the scriptures has, as had been with the Pharisees, been misunderstood to be blasphemy. Truely, the context in which this topic has been introduced is inflametory. Its the context, not the content, that is to blame. Such common usage and thought in biblical times denotes a broader perspective than evangelists are willing to allow.
Aaron,
I am not familiar with Talmage’s interpretation of John 10:34 and somehow I doubt that his interpretation is what you claim it to be. Nevertheless, Talmage most certainly affirms that Psalm 82: “we are children of the most High”. My point is that if this were not the case (i.e. “we are the children of the most High” and “Ye are gods”) then why, why, why would the writer of psalms make such a declaration in the first place and why, why, why would Jesus affirm the correctness of this declaration “Ye are gods” by quoting it to the Pharisees who were about to stone Him precisely because Christ was proclaiming that he was the Son of God.
It is precisely on this issue of claiming to be a god that the Jews were about to stone Christ. As Gundeck said, it is important to place a scripture in its context. The very preceding scripture John 10:33 the Pharisees state:
“For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”
Christ retorted and quoted back to the Pharisees what is clearly written in Psalm 82; namely that the Lord, Himself, declared that “Ye are gods”
I would like to stress that Christ’s quoting of Psalm 82 has noting to do with the Pharisees making an unjust judgment on Christ but rather concerns Christ’s claim to be the Son of God which the Jews took to be blasphemy.
Steve, Merry Christmas! (See bottom of p. 501)
Do you think the Pharisees of John 10 are good candidates for godhood as understood by Mormonism?
To quote Talmage accurately would be helpful.
‘In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by DIVINE APPOINTMENT are called “gods.” ‘ (emphasis mine).
Sorry but the self appointed Pharisees don’t meet the requirement, unless you are claiming that Jesus’ was then and there APPOINTING them to be His judge.
How is Jesus’ declaration, (if as you claim that he was referring to the Pharisees as judges), a defense against blasphemy?
Still waiting for an answer!!!
Romans 13:1
You seem to be implying that we should just willingly submit to the whims of government leaders. Then why do we have defense attorneys? Were our founding fathers justified in rebelling? So when they want to usurp our liberties we should just let them?
Sorry but that doesn’t answer the question.
Shall we try again?
How is Jesus’ declaration (as you suppose) that the Pharisees were judges, a defense against the accusation of Blasphemy?
I do not suppose anything of the kind. It is not a defence it is an accusation. Once again from my post above…The question is who are the “gods”? They are those who judge unjustly and accept the wicked. They have failed to follow the law by defending the the poor and doing justice to the needy. They do not know or understand the law and walk in darkness.
This is not a deffence, Christ is calling his accusers wicked.
“If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—”
Doesn’t sound like an accusation of wickedness. Your assertion doesn’t fit the context.
But feel free to continue grasping for non-existent straws.
This is a clear example of two people who read the Bible differently. We simply have a different hermeneutic. Rather than talking past each other let me explain the method that I am using. Then If you care to you can explain to me how you come to your conclusion.
I cannot simply read the verse I need to read it in it’s historical and grammatical setting. Looking at the grammar, syntax, word meanings and identified figures of speech. I will admit this is hard for me because I do not read Biblical languages, so I rely on translation notes and other tools to help.
Then I look at the canonical context, is this a literary illusion or quote to some other part of the canon. If it is (as we see in this case) then I look at how the quote or illusion is being used.
Finally I look at my understanding of the passage it’s redemptive historical setting. This is simply that the Bible is one cohisve revelation pointing to Jesus Christ.
So in it’s context Christ has just declared the He and the Father are One and the Jews are going to stone him for “blaspheming.” His response is to quote out of the Book of Psalms Psalm 82:6. When I read Psalm 82 it is about unrighteous judges, and the fate that awaits them. Taking this into account when I read John 10:34 the “gods” (little g) is unrighteous judges. Moving into John 10:35 once again “so if he called them gods…” (little g) is once again unrighteous judges. Christ then goes on in John 10:36 to tell the unrighteous judges “You are blaspheming…” Why are the Jews blaspheming, He tells us it is because He is the Son of God.
To see this in the canonical context first Read all of Psalm 82. Then reread Psalm 82:7 tell me that “But ye shall die like men, and fall like any one of the princes.” means these people are destined for eternal godhood. No these are unrighteous judges.
To understand it in it’s redemptive historical setting reread John 10:34 and note what it dose not say. It does not say, “Ye shall become gods.” This whole section from John 10:22 to John 10″42 is Christ boldly proclaiming that He and the Father are One, and that he is the Son of God. This is powerful stuff and you are missing it.
The reading of this passage that you present brings up problems. Can explain how your reading of these two passages squares with the numerous places where God tells His people that there is only one and always will be only one God. Consult Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11; Isaiah 44: 6-8 etc.
Finally to change my view you would need to show me where God tells us that He really didn’t mean all the “one God stuff” and the wrath that He poured down on Israel, well it wasn’t because He is the One God exercising His sovereign judgment. Show me where Jesus tells us that the Old Testament is wrong and in fact there are “gods without end”.
gundeck,
So basically you make the presumption that Ps 82:6 is about “inrighteous judges” and then you run with it.
The problem is that you provide no support for your presumption.
Ps 82:6 uses the word elohim which literally means gods (plural of eli or god).
For you to presume it to mean “unrighteous judges” provides absolutely NO weight to your argument or position.
You have absolutely no basis for telling anyone that it doesn’t mean “gods” when clearly the text and the context says otherwise.
I, on the other hand, have the evangelical scholar Michael S. Heiser whom I quote, “The plural <ĕlōhîm of Psalm 82:1, 6 are divine beings, not human judges or humans fulfilling any role.”
gundeck,
Finally, it is not my job to change your view and I have no intention of trying. If you really want to know how many beings can be “one” (with) God, study John 17. Jesus made great effort to teach His diciples the concept and importance of unity.
If you are one with God in every aspect except being or person, what would that make you?
GB,
Ok because Michael S. Heiser says so… Is that the hermeneutic that you want to defend? I found an evangelical who taken out of context agrees with me is not an exegetical approach I would want to defend. I may have been taking too much for granted. You may not be familiar with the historical grammatical exegetical approach. If you look at the NET bible translation notes for Psalm 82 you see that these translators believe that this Psalm is a polemic against Pagan gods. But they also note that ’elohim (אֱלֹהִים) has been used in Biblical Hebrew to mean, “…officials appointed by God.” The Definition human judges or rulers is in fact supported by other uses in the Bible (cf. Exod 21:6; 22:8, 9; Psalm 45:6).
We do not have to take the NET translators word for it, I use it because it is available online and I can link to my sources. It is valuable to be able to read source material in context, it keeps everybody honest. Strong’s definition is here http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=430. The Condensed Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon can be found here http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t=KJV.
It also appears that you very own Talmage agrees more with me than you. He never refers to the potential godhood of man in his comments on this passage. I do not agree with his thought that these men were honored by God with this title of god (little g) (see above). This honorific title god (little g) that he proposes only weakens your position.
Your evangelical taken out of context agrees with me exegetical approach does not answer any of the redemptive historical questions. Can you explain how your reading of these two passages squares with the numerous places where God tells His people that there is only one and always will be only one God. Megan on the “Those Abominable Creeds” has a slew of these if you need more than the few I provided. Or should I take the reference to John 17 and Christ’s Priestly prayer to mean that Michael S. Heiser does not have an answer for this.
One last comment. You say it is not your job to change my view. I find this to be patently false. The claims of your church, and the charges your church has made against orthodox Christianity, its Creeds and its Ministers obligate you to either defend them or repudiate them. It is in fact sir, your duty to do this. By your doctrines you boldly proclaim yourself a god in the making while my claim is that I am a sinner Justified by the blood of Christ. You have made an audacious claim, defend it.
Follow the example of the Reformers. Demand trained ministers from your church who are qualified in the biblical languages and are able to teach and explain the grammar and history of the Bible. Demand systematic and biblical theologies from your leadership that use exegesis not eisogesis. Take down your Bibles and apply a rigorous exegetical standard to your own personal study and devotion. Test your dogma against the Word of God.
I didn’t take Heiser out of context. I quoted exactly one of several points he was defending. Heiser has the benefit of having many sources available to him that were not available to Talmage. And Talmage does NOT agree with you. You seem to be stuck on the word “human” in both Talmage and Heiser’s work. To Talmage the difference between gods and humans is a matter flesh and blood, whereas to Heiser they are a separate species entirely.
Talmage calls them “invested by DIVINE APPOINTMENT”, whereas Heiser calls them members of “the divine council”.
And you called them “those who judge unjustly and accept the wicked.” To which I asked you to explain how such an understanding could be a defense against the accusation of blasphemy.
By the way it is clear that you don’t believe that the Bible is sufficient, because you have to go to other sources to support your position.
I also find it interesting that you are claiming I am in error by taking the Bible as it was translated (by using the usual meaning of a term) and you are claiming that the UNusual meaning is the correct one. And the sources you quote say things like “occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates” and “God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2, angels 1, exceeding 1”. A quick look at the number reveals that I am 521 times more likely to be correct than you. Thank you for providing the data.
“He never refers to the potential godhood of man in his comments on this passage.”
He didn’t need to because he had already spent an entire chapter on the topic.
“Can you explain how your reading of these two passages squares with the numerous places where God tells His people that there is only one and always will be only one God.”
Shall we get something clear here? The Bible, in several places clearly declares the preeminence of Jesus Christ. His teachings supersede ALL others.
He in John 17 clearly explains the unity or oneness of the Father and the Son while being separate beings.
Heiser is perfectly capable of defending his own positions. I don’t agree with him all of the time but I do appreciate his logical, honest and thoughtful approach.
I am curious, who is responsible for your salvation? Is it me?
“Test your dogma against the Word of God.”
This I have done, and it compares far more favorably than the Traditional Orthodox doctrine that is being preach by the unauthorized.
GB,
Thank you for the time that you spent responding to my comments. You have shown a consistent argument throughout and I commend you for it.
As you are aware Hesier’s speculations do not coincide with Mormon views on the future godhood of man. If you prefer I accept that you did not take Hesier out of context but I maintain that you did cherry pick his speculations that best suited your position.
Daniel C. Peterson one of your own writes about Talmage’s veiw as:
“With such considerations in mind, and in view of the obvious fact that the use of the passage in John 10 requires that it apply to ordinary human beings, “This interpretation of the psalm enjoyed considerable popularity during a certain period of Johannine scholarship.” It was, for example, the position adopted by James E. Talmage in his 1915 treatise Jesus the Christ, presumably drawn from the readings in conservative nineteenth-century Protestant biblical scholarship that informed his book generally.”
See this link http://farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=46&chapid=258#r27 We can only wish Talmage had read more conservative nineteenth-century Protestant biblical scholarship.
I apologize for this but I must use a resource not available online. I refer to the new “Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, specifically the section on John written by Andreas J. Kostenberger. I will summarize the thoughts.
One assessment of Jesus’s argument or defense against blaspheme is that he was making a typical rabbinic argument starting from the lesser and progressing to the greater. He used a similar lesser to greater argument in John 5:47 albeit in a different context. In this case He is placing all of the weight of the argument on a single OT passage (Psalm 82:6) and saying that his claim does not involve blaspheme because there are places in the Hebrew Scripture where humans are called god (אֱלֹהִים / ʾělohîm).
A second assessment, and one that is not mutually exclusive of the first, is that practice that Jesus has of confounding his accusers by asking questions that they are unable to answer. This is seen throughout the Gospels (Matt 22:41-46). Christ’s point in John 10 being that if Israel or corrupt judges can be called god (small g) (אֱלֹהִים / ʾělohîm) how can the Jews accuse Him of Blaspheme whom the Father has sent (John 10:36).
As to the translation and meaning of אֱלֹהִים / ʾělohîm, I assume that you would accept that the meaning of a word must match the context not just the most popular definition. This is the same reason that אֱלֹהִים / ʾělohîm in Exodus 21:6 is translated “JUDGES” in your KJV. (cf Exodus 22:8-9; Exodus 22:28; Deuteronomy 1:17; 1 Chronicles 29:23; 2 Chronicles 19:6-7)
When looking at Psalm 82 we also have the Jewish traditions to go back to to help us understand how Jesus, John, and the Jews that Jesus was speaking to would have understood this passage. I have already commented about the Rabbinic argument style used by Christ. In the 11Q13II, 10-11 (Dead Sea Scroll Apocryphal Psalms) the reference to אֱלֹהִים / ʾělohîm in Psalm 82 is taken to mean evil angels or false gods (this comports with the NET translation that I described above). Conservative Protestant scholars do not think that this is the use in John because of the scarcity other angelic reference in the Gospel. (cf Targumic Texts)
Rabbinic tradition sites Psalm 82 as being addressed to Israel or a part of Israel, specifically at the time of receiving the Law ( ‘Abod. Zar. 5a). Textually we know that this quote is exactly as it is found in both the LXX and the Hebrew Texts.
You are going to have to be more specific about where else you see the future godhood of man in the Gospel of John. Certainly you are not referring to John 9 or any of the proceeding parts of John 10?
Can you also explain your reference to John 17? Do you mean that Christ is in fact denying the one God? I cannot believe that you mean the Christ’s teachings supersedes the ALL others. And I do not wish to misstate your beliefs. Christ amplifies, fulfills, he expounds upon the old and yes he adds to our understanding but he does not supersede it and he tells us so (Matthew 5:17-19; Luke 16:17; John 7:53 – John 8:11).
I do think that your comment regarding the sufficiency of Scripture requires special attention and space does not allow it. I am sure that you do not care to have your beliefs misrepresented. I have endeavored not to do so in my discussions on this site. When I have mistakenly mischaracterized the beliefs of Mormons I have apologized openly and publicly. Rather than go on about your misunderstanding of my views on Scripture let me instead give you this link, http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 1 clearly defines my belief on sufficiency of Scripture. It is short but comprehensive. I am going to assume that you were not trying to take a cheap shot but honestly did not understand the importance of biblical studies in our understanding of Scripture. Hopefully now you understand the importance of Biblicaly grounded scholarship and the difference between exegesis and speculation.
Finally, I do not think you or any man has anything thing to do with my salvation. J. Gresham Machen reported last words were “Thank God for the righteousness of Christ. No hope without it.” The righteousness of Christ is where I rest my salvation.
gundeck,
Thanks for the “farms” link. I have always liked Peterson’s work, but I hadn’t read this piece before. (And even now I find that I can’t read the whole piece in one sitting.) I will finish it as I am able.
I have been given the assignment to preach this Sunday. so for the short term I will not have time for our dialog.
So until I have time, Merry Christmas to you and yours.
GB
FoF: Jehovah and Elohim are one and the same. Elohim is just the Hebrew’s word for ‘God’, like you and I would say ‘God’ in English. Specifically for the ‘God’ of the ancient Israelites, who they of course thought of as the one true God of the universe. Jehovah is God’s sacred, personal name, from the Tetragrammaton (meaning ‘the four letters’) YHWH. Anytime you see LORD in the Bible it would be translated as ‘Yaweh’ or ‘Jehovah’. This isn’t the best analogy, but imagine if someone wrote a book about me, and in the first chapter I was referred to as ‘Woman’, and in the second chapter referred to me as ‘Megan’. Does this look correct, Biblical scholars?
Megan,
“Elohim” should really be translated as “Gods” in English. The ancient Hebrews (ie atound Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’s time) were most likely polytheists according to many current archaeologists. In fact one TV show I have watched states that they believed in a head God (making them Henotheists), His wife/consort, their Son and a messenger. It is the only show/article I can find that states anything clearly like that about their ‘God-system’ so I cannot make any other observations about whether this is accepted by many or just that person’s opinion.
Just to let you know – the presenter/researcher was not and is not an LDS member. He was a British journalist that was held hostage in the Middle East for a period of time and forced during this emprisonment to read and compare the Koran and Bible by his muslim captors. The show is called “It ain’t necessarily so” and I wish I taped it as it was very interesting, even though he tried to debunk the Bible.
Ralph wrote: “Elohim” should really be translated as “Gods” in English.
Ralph this translation, Elohim as “gods,” is only valid in some places. Other places the verb usage demands that it be translated in the singular. Sort of you don’t really think Elizabeth II is two people when she says “We are the Queen of England.” We wouldn’t think she was more than one person. Not exactly the same but you get the point.
Lautensack
From what I have learned from various websites and TV shows, “Elohim” is the plural and “El” is the singular. If we look at Genesis and keep in mind that the ancient Hebrews were possibly polytheistic, then we get a better understanding as to the plural words in there like “us” and “our”, especially as the plural first person use of ‘we’ (and its companions) did not start getting used until Roman times.
Again, from what I understand from various websites and TV shows, it was not until Moses that strict monotheism was enforced. But that can be seen as getting the Israelites out of the Egyptian polytheistic worship system and back to the worship of the one true God (ie the Law of Moses is described as a school master to bring the Israelites back to their God) not removing all polytheism, as the ancient Hebrews are better termed Henotheists (if the polythiesm idea is correct) whereas the Egyptians were polytheists in general.
But that brings up a big question – If the ancient Hebrews were truely polytheistic/Henotheistic, then does this mean that the God of Christianity (ie the Bible) was one chosen out of many? And if so, then how was that one chosen? Does this not then parallel the Muslim religion where their ancestors were polytheists and then one (Allah) was chosen to be the one and only?
Megan,
Professor Robert Alter provides some fascinating commentary on the tetragrammaton (YHWH) in his “The Five Books of Moses: a Translation and Commentary”.
I’m going to have to do this from memory (and there’s no way I can write as fluently as the Prof).
As you probably know,Biblical names are more than just labels – they convey something of the attributes of the person (or thing) they refer to. Its a literary form that is particularly pronounced in the Five Books.
In the five books, there are several names starting with the ‘waw’ construction (the “Y” in “YHWH”), for example “Isaac” (he who laughs), “Jacob” (he who grabs [the heel]), “Israel” (he who struggles with God), “Jethro” (I forget this one). Then we come to “YHWH” (Ex 3:14), which translates best into “I will be what I will be”. Its more of a statement than a name.
BTW, my reading of Ex 3 is that Moses asks for God to give him a name to take back to Egypt “And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?” Ex 3:13. One reason why the Name declines the request may be that if he had given a proper name (say, “Bill”), then the Israelites and Egyptians alike would have said something like “Oh, like Seth or Osiris, then”. Perhaps the Name is telling us that we can’t compare him to anyone else; he doesn’t even belong in the same building as these other deities.
Anyway, back to the Prof. He observes that in all other cases, the “waw” construction tells us something of how the person derives his identity. Isaac derives his identity from the laughter of his mother, Israel derives his identity from his struggles with El, and so on.
The tetragrammaton is unique in the sense that the Name does not derive his identity from any external cause. No-one can give a name to God because he is the first and last, there is none before him and none after him. He must give himself a name, and the ‘name’ he gives is a statement that refers us back to his attributes as the originator of all causes and the only one who is not shaped by the circumstances of his existence.
So much for the notion that God emerged from, or was shaped by the cosmos. I guess JS missed this in his ‘translations’.
I am surprised that “Jehovah” is still persisting even among Evangelicals. This is another case of Joseph Smith copying the KJV without knowing it was inaccurate.
We know now that the Jews inserted the vowels for the word Adonai in between the consonants of “The Name” (Transliterated from Hebrew as “Y” “H” “W” “H”). This was done so that someone reading from the text would not slip up and pronounce “The Name” by accident. Our early English translations did not take this into account (and might not even have been aware of it) and thus came up with Jehovah in translation.
I take great delight in telling Jehovah’s Witnesses this bit of trivia…as they pride themselves on using the “right” name…HO HO HO!! Blessings!
LDSSTITANIC, I am a bit slow these days, but could you add on to more of what you were saying about Jehovah? I did know that one reason why the Book of Mormon has “and it came to pass” (to numbing effect on the reader), is because Smith slavishly copied the Hebrew letter meaning the same, which Jewish readers would have seen as the capital letter meaning the beginning of a sentence. In any case, I knew that during NT times Jews called God ‘Adonai’ instead of using “The Name”. But doesn’t ‘LORD’ in the OT and NT translate directly to YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh?
Megan,
YHWH does translate to the LORD in the OT. However Jehovah is not in the OT it was created by simply taking the Name (YHWH) and adding the vocalic letters from Adonai to it. In the NT the word translated Lord is Kurios.
Lautensack
So I hauled out one of my old systematic theology books and workbooks to see what it has to say. Now realize, that’s one of the major differences between Christianity and Mormonism. Christianity has a systematic theology while Mormonism prides itself on being unsystematic. In fact the less systematic the better for Mormon tastes. That way nothing is really nailed down in Mormonism and the flow of continuous revelation moves along unabatted. The Mormon god has a way of changing his mind and these Mormon prophets……..well let’s just say that sometimes it’s kind of difficult to know which of these dead guys to trust. Besides, what they said and did was a long time ago and really shouldn’t count……except for the claim that they spoke for the Mormon god whom we have established switches doctrine quite often.
Elohim; God the ruler a Hebrew plural noun foreshadowing the Trinity in the OT. When the people of the OT referred to God in the plural form, what were they acknowledging? God who is God. Kings in the OT times used the plural form also in referring to themselves denoting that they were more than an ordinary mortal. Elshada: God the Almighty One, (EL) power and strenghth. Jehovah; personal Lord, the covenant name, He is personal. Everything said of Jehovah in the OT is said of Jesus in the NT. Jehovah-Jireh, provider; Jehovah-Rapha, healer; Jehovah-Nissi, Victory; Jehovah-Shalom, peace; Jehovah-Raah, Shepard; Jehovah-Tsidkenu, righteousness; Jehovah-Shammah, present; Jehovah-Mekaddaschem, sanctification
Adonai; Master, Ruler, Lord
Anyway, this was a way for the Hebrews to acknowledge the various aspects of what they saw as God’s nature, attributes and character. Now the Mormon god is not the God of the Bible as has been established quite often here on Mormon Coffee. So when we get into discussions such as this, we need to clarify if we are talking about the Mormon god of this planet system (at least) and God.
Falcon,
The only “systematic theology” I see at work here is to continually re-interept the scriptures in order to make the scriptures say something to fit a particular doctrine already committed to. This is Debate 101 to the tee! This lot, (I will not try to represent “Christianity”) has taken the position of the Trinity. A word that never even appears in the scriptures. Nevertheless, once committed you feel the need to explain the scriptures away despite all the evidence in the world.
Elohim is plural in the Hebrew for a reason! Even if your explanation is correct, how do you explain the conversation mode in Genesis? “the man is become as one of US” or “let US make man in OUR own image”. We now have a plural word (really referring to a single God) talking to someone else (but really to Himself). How does one “systematically” dismantle that when that is how God has revealed Himself from the very beginning? I will tell you. By your (actually Aristotle is the father of this practice) reworking the scriptures to agree with your doctrine (I have utilized the Trinity as one example). Are we talking about the God who is first recorded in the scriptures (Elohim) or the Falcon god you are presenting?
Fof: Actually, the plural form “one of us”; “in our image”, is evidence of the Trinity. John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” Jesus was the Word who was present at creation, and he was both with God and is God. It is not by chance that the language of John 1:1 is so similar to Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Jesus is the Word “made flesh” described in John 1:14.
Megan,
The plural sentences you have refered to in Genesis not only support a “Trinity” but they also support, even more so, the LDS view of God and the Godhead. So no you do not have a monopoly on those phrases for proving the Trinity.
Thanks, Lautensack. I knew that LORD was translated as ‘Kyrios’ in the NT, but was confused about ‘Jehovah’ in the OT. I have to go….my daughter just scribbled black marker all over her face.
Ralph: Well, would you care to explain why then? Unfortunately, the subject of the nature of God/Godhead/Trinity is probably beyond the scope of this thread, but I am looking forward to discussing this subject further on a future thread. I am interested in what you have to say on this, however. I naturally get into tangents, so I have to be careful that I stay on subject, but maybe we can post things on this and they won’t get deleted for being off-topic. Good night, or I guess I should say Good morning to you in Australia!
Take care, Megan
Well DOF what a tremendous statement you make re. explaining away the scriptures despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Fantastic. Perhaps you would like to apply that to Mormonism, the BoM and the Prophet Smith in particular. This is way funny! If you want to stand by Mormonism regarding the nature of God, that’s fine, but it’s based on a theology (term used loosely here) that has no resemblence to Chrisitanity or Judism. Mormons indeed take a revealed premise and then scurry about looking for some historical or scriptural evidence to support it. And after all of that, when it falls apart, we hear the old “I bear you my testimony” routine. Now being a Mormon, you kinow that evidence is not all that important, really. It’s the personal revelation that counts especially if it runs contrary to the evidence. The testimony is the evidence right? Mormonism, by it’s very nature, aligns itself with the enemies of the Cross of Christ. Mormonism confesses a different God, a different Jesus, a different Spirit, a different plan of salvation and a different “revealed” scripture all of which is 180 degrees out of phase with historical Christianity.
“When the Scripture states that man was made in the image of God, we dare not add to that statement an idea from our own head and make it mean ‘in the exact image.’ To do so is to make man a replica of God, and that is to lose the unicity of God and end with no God at all. It is to break down the wall, infinitely high, that separates That-which-is-God from that-which-is-not-God. To think of creature and Creator as alike in essential being is to rob God of most of His attributes and reduce Him to the status of a creature.” (A.W.Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy) This is Mormonism. The Mormon god is way to small and yes, simply a glorified man. Not much of a god really!
To which Christianity do we not resemble? That of todays or that of 0-400AD?
Early Christian theologists such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Athanasius and even Augustine and Jerome made statements regarding the deification of man as communally accepted.
According to Christian scholar G.L. Prestige, the ancient Christians “taught that the destiny of man was to become like God, and even to become deified.”
(William Ralph Inge, Christian Mysticism (London, Metheun & Co., 1948[1899]), 13, 356.)
Joseph Fitzmyer wrote:
The language of 2 Peter is taken up by St. Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, ‘if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods; (adv. Haer v, pref.), And becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the fourth century St. Athanasius repeats Irenaeus almost word for word, and in the fifth century St. Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons ‘by participation’ (Greek methexis). Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St. Maximus the confessor, for whom the doctrine is corollary of the incarnation: ‘deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfillment of all times and ages’,…and St. Symeon the new theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, ‘he who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face…’
Finally, it should be noted that deification does not mean absorption into God, since the deified creature remains itself and distinct. It is the whole human being, body and soul, who is transfigured in the spirit into the likeness of the divine nature, and deification is the goal of every Christian. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: a brief sketch (Prentice-Hall, 1967), 42. AISN B0006BQTCQ)
The consensus among those who lived just after the apostles is contrary to your current perspective. It appears as though Mormons resemble the early Christian church more so than you stated. MUCH more so.
In Against Heresies Irenaeus is opposing second century gnostic belief in the progression of gods. Your single quote of him out of context proves nothing. The Eastern Churches view on deification is in fact closer to the Reformed principal of sanctification and has nothing to do with becoming a god.
If you would like a better understanding of the orthodox Christian belief I recommend “The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship” by Robert Letham. He has a substantial breakdown on both Eastern and Western views of the Trinity as well as the language used outside of the Bible to explain the incomprehensible.
The concept of plural Gods in ancient times is fairly well documented. And the passages of the Old and New Testament alluded to in this blog are not as simple as some make them out to be- sorry falcon.
Paul Owen, an evangelical scholar who does not agree with our interpretation, nevertheless said the following:
“Many OT scholars believe Elohim and Yahweh were originally two separate Gods, who have now been blended together in the deuteronomistic revision of the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, it is commonly believed that Israelite religion evolved from an initially polytheistic faith to the monotheism of the post AD 70 rabbinic period. Many believe that even in the New Testament period, Israelite religion was still in flux with respect to monotheism.”
It is not something mormons invented. I know we are all scholars in our own minds, but statements like “explaining away the scriptures despite all of the evidence to the contrary” sounds like a rush to judgement based on a narrow view of the scholarship on the topic.
On one hand, the evangelical view is to take the Bible literally to the extreme in some instances, then to ignore the obvious implications in the case of these scriptures. God refers to Himself as our Father; we were created in His image (Our image); man is become as one of us; ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High God; we are the offspring of God; joint-heir with Christ; the Father of spirits;
Accidently hit submit, sorry- continued….
“when he shall appear, we shall be like him”; “him that overcometh will . . . sit with me in my throne.” etc. etc.
Our doctrine is based on revelation, ancient and modern. Although you may disagree with the meanings of those ancient passages, I think it reasonable to grant us our reading as reasonable, based on the breadth of present scholarship if nothing else.
I find it ironic that LDS are criticized for their 8th article of faith which reads “we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” Those same critics appeal to different translations of the Bible to support their arguments on definitions and contexts. It seems like a double standard doesn’t it?
a few thoughts.
Keep the faith!
FoF,
You mentioned scholarship…let’s talk about Mormon scholarship on just a few points you referenced. Let’s start with the passage “when he shall appear, we shall be like him” that you mentioned (1 John 3:2-3). I am gathering that you think that this verse means that you can become a god too (exaltation) since that is what most Mormons reference. Why doesn’t the Book of Mormon agree with your conclusions when Joseph Smith rewrote the verse in Moroni 7:48?
“when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.”
The context of the JS rewrite is talking about purification – not becoming a god. In all honesty, I agree with JS on this one. True Christians will be purified and sinless at the resurrection. We will not become a god, but be sinlessly perfect and able to stand in his presence.
In reference to a plurality of gods, I have a challenge for you: Show me the word “Gods” (capitalized “G” and plural) as stated in every verse of Abraham 4 in the Bible or even the Book of Mormon. If you can, I will renounce my Christian denomination, travel to where you live and give you the ward bragging rights of baptizing me into the Mormon Church. If you can’t, all you have to do is admit that the plurality of gods “Gods” is not in the Mormon KJV Bible or the BoM. After all, the BoM is “the most correct book on earth”. This fundamental teaching should be there. If not, then this nullifies the Moroni challenge in Moroni 10:3-5.
Deal or no deal?
FaithofFathers,
Do you have the source for that quote?
Lautensack
I know this is WAY off-topic, but I just want to tell everyone that there is a new study Bible out: “The Holman Christian Apologetics Study Bible”. I think I have that right; it’s a real mouthful. Anyway, I have asked for it for Christmas and am really excited about it! It has sidebars on common verses misused by cults (I know this will offend our LDS friends on here, but I think we’re all pretty upfront that we believe the other side is wrong about quite a few things.
)
Berean,
Long-time, no hear! Good to hear from you.
As far as 1 John 3 and Moroni, I don’t see any conflict between the two. Mormon had an additional statement about purity. The text in Moroni 7 doesn’t necessarily suggest this was a qualifying clause rather than another comparison between us and God. My general interpretation of the passage “we shall be like Him” is that when we stand again before Him, we will see that we are like God in many ways. I do not say we are anything near Him in power, virture, knowledge, etc. etc. Rather, I am saying that we are the same species, that He is our Father. And if we have accepted the atonement and the gospel, we will be able to stand in purity, feeling comfortable in His presence.
As far as your challenge, the Book of Abraham is a record of the writings of Abraham, or dictated from him. The passages from the Bible I cited are of course from the KJV Bible, showing a biblical connection to our doctrine. In addition, Defender of the Faith quoted Genesis as follows: “let us make man in our own image,” “ye shall be as the Gods,” “man is become as one of us.” These are clear passages suggested a plurality of Gods- you can interpret them to mean the trinity. But I think you must admit that our interpretation is very reasonable. And if we are to take the scriptures literally, we must accept the individuality of the Father and the Son.
The Book of Mormon is quite clear in its doctrine of the Father and the Son and their relationship. Among others, Alma 13 is a good one. But, yes- nowhere in the BOM is the word “God” used in plural. This does not necessarily show any contradiction in doctrine.
I don’t quite understand how any of this negates the promise of Moroni 10. Help me out. Not all truth is of the same value. The truths of greatest value are found in the Book of Mormon, laid out more clearly and powerfully than any other book. Not every principle or doctrine is found in its pages. The “fundamental teaching” of God and His Son are clearly outlined there, even though they are never referred to as “Gods.”
Lautensack,
The quotation from Owens was in an e-mail from him to James White dated April 9, 1998.
Yes, I’ve been gone for a while working on some research projects…thought I’d come by for a visit today to take a break. Anyway, I guess that’s a “no deal” on your part.
Correct, the word “Gods” is not in the Bible. Yes, the word “gods” is and it is not talking about deity but in many cases is referring to idols. Defender needs to look closely again at Genesis and tell us here where the word “Gods” (capital “G”) is located. The Mormon’s re-write of Genesis in Moses and Abraham doesn’t match up. Why did Joseph Smith need to re-write the Book of Genesis (namely verse 1:26) twice in the Book of Moses and Abraham? Why doesn’t Moses 2:26 and Abraham 4:26 match up? “God” in Moses, “Gods” in Abraham – is there confusion at Kolob?
You addressed the key difference between Mormons and Christians when you said, “I am saying that we are the same species, that He is our Father”. No, you aren’t the same “species” as the divine. He is God – you aren’t and never will be anything close to Him and neither will I. God is a spirit (John 4:24) and man was made in His image in which we have a spirit (Ecl 12:7). Were you made in the image of Christ in Genesis 1:26? If so, I guess there is a problem because at this point in Mormon theology Jesus does not have a physical body and is a spirit because He is still in the preexistent state. The Mormon holy ghost is a spirit man so two out of three in Mormonism at this point are spirits.
Just because man has a body of flesh, bones and blood doesn’t mean that the God of the Bible does. The BoM doesn’t agree with idea of the Mormon god having a physical body (Alma 18 & 22). Then again, the BoM doesn’t say that the Mormon god is an exalted man – “most correct book on earth”? If the author (Mormon god) didn’t tell the truth about who he is (an exalted man with flesh and bones), he broke the commandments of bearing false witness and lying. God doesn’t lie (Heb 6:18; Enos 1:6; Ether 3:12). The promise of Moroni 10 is nullified on these points among others.
Seems like you are backtracking on your earlier hints regarding 1 John 3:2-3. I know Mormons reference this when they talk about being just like God one day or becoming a god (exaltation).
One sure way to determine whether we are made in the image of God or not is to conduct an exercise. This requires getting up from the computer and going to look in the mirror to see if what we see is what the Bible says is the image of God according to the Mormon view if they want to take liberties with Genesis 1:26. I just did this after showering and nope, I guess I didn’t make the cut.
The Mormons say that their god is an exalted man and we are made in his image. Okay…I turned around in the mirror and didn’t see any wings or feathers coming out of my back so I guess I’m not made in the image of God since God must have these physical characteristics (Psalms 91:4). I also stuck out my tongue and realized that I am not made in the image of God (Christ) since I don’t have a sword for a tongue like Jesus does (Revelation 1:16). Jesus is also bread (John 6:41) and a door (John 10:9). I guess I missed out on obtaining those physical attributes as well.
You get the point? Mormons would be well served to do some studying in Biblical hermeneutics or do they even offer this at BYU? Anytime you make God out to be a big man, this is the “sword” you will fall on.
It’s been fun, but it’s back to work. I look forward to more discussions next year. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone!
Berean
The problem for Mormons is that the Mormon god is really not magnificent as is the God who is worshipped by Christians. Mormonism reduces their god to manageable terms. In fact the Mormon god is comprehensible while the God of the Bible is incomprehensible. The Mormon god is a former man who had a beginning, being the offspring of another Mormon god and his (goddess) wife. The Mormon god having been the spiritual offspring of the Mormon grandfather god then became a man. Through a series of tests, the Mormon god progressed and is still in a progressive mode. Having been a man, the Mormon god was subject to all human frailities including being sinful. The Mormon god is limited. The God of the Bible had no beginning. He is magnificent. We can’t comprehend Him. He is pure.
Joseph Smith arranged to have a god that allowed him, in fact demanded, plural wives to reach the pinacle of godhood. With this stroke of genius, Smith invented a god, to fullfill the desires of his sinful flesh and his maglomania. Smith’s doctrine allowed him to have an endless supply of sexual partners in this world as a man and to continue his lust in eternity as a god.
Smith’s deception isn’t that clever, but it is appealing and it feels good to those willing to take the bait. What a poor trade Mormons make. Abandoning God for a graven image of themselves.
God being incomprehensable serves as a problem…
John 17: 3
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
If you cannot comprehend God then you cannot truly comprehend the gospel or its meaning or its purpose. To not comprehend God is to not comprehend His son is to not comprehend ourselves as sons and daughters to a Heavenly Father.
As for your comments in general…they are combative, condiscending, divisive, and altogether unchristlike. Egging on a fight as to who’s God is better? Why would you incite contention?
No wonder those with whom you speak elapse to bearing their testimony for your heart is too hard to receive naught but what you yourself have placed into it, your neck too stiff to look to the right or left and absorb all the evidence that is around you. You mock the bearing ‘testimony’ …replace testimony with faith. That is what is being borne, an expression of faith. Faith IS required…not evidence. I know a person who will spit on your faith as readily as he would mine or anyone else of any other faith. He carries the same spirit you do, Falcon, except he favors athiesm. He asks, “Where is Noah’s ark? Where is this flood evidence? How is mankind only 6000 yrs old, or how isn’t Earth billions of years old?” Evidence is the crux of man, Faith the definer of the saints of God. His almighty hand is all around to be seen, but we must needs have believing eyes to see it…our hearts must be full of hope and faith, not doubt and scepticism. How would one ever know that the Bible was the Word of God if they approached it as you do the Book of Mormon or ‘mormonism’? They wouldn’t..nay, they couldn’t. Christ healed in front of all…but only a portion believed. Why? Because they had at least a hope that Christ was the Messiah. One of LDS faith could preform a miracle in your presence and yet you would not believe that it was wrought by the power of God.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. (Moroni 7:14-16)
Walrus,
God is incomprehensible yet knowable. Isaiah 40:18; Isaiah 55:8, 9; Job 11:7; Psalm 145:3; Romans 11:33-36 etc. You seem to be making the liberal theological argument in reverse. If I understand your argument unless we can comprehend God totally we have a lack of faith?
Rest assured the finite (creature) cannot comprehend exhaustively the Infinite (Creator), “finitum non possit capere infinitum”. Our knowledge of God is finite, incomplete, imperfect, and totally dependant on His Revelation.
Gundeck,
I meant to seperate the first portion of my comment from the rest with the phrase “As for your comments in general…” but that wasn’t made clear and i apologize.
I do not disagree with the passages you qouted…we, of ourselves, cannot search and find that which God has made unsearchable. We are very much dependant upon His revealing it to us. It is declared that He is unsearchable…not incomprehensable, not unknowable. Yea, we do depend on the Lord’s Revelation to understand…it is not to say that He cannot reveal, or we can in noway understand once He does. I find my everyday relationship incomprehensable…as in I havn’t a clue nor conjecture as to how today’s events is preparing me for the morrow (like, out of nowhere, you get a prompting to drop by a friends house to leave a heart felt note of appreciation…you feel a little foolish and out of place cause you really don’t know them that well…a week or two goes by and they approach you and thank you and wonder how you knew they needed that…”The Lord wanted to let you know that He’s aware” and we both feel His love!). The breadth and depth of His work is infinite and seemingly incomprehensable…until He reveals it to us.
As for the faith part…surely we won’t know, we won’t serve as much if we lack the faith. But i was speaking more on the attitude that one takes. Your statement, for instance, that we totally depend on His Revelation yet Joseph Smith is discounted as having received revelation. Those who have accepted, or who have been taught that there can be no more prophets will automatically dismiss the claim that Joseph Smith was called as such upon mere pretense. The Book of Mormon is dismissed because others have formed wedges between it and the Bible…so when it is searched out, one is looking for a confirmation of the faults, not truth. If you search the Bible for faults, you will surely think you’ve found them. Therefore, faith and hope or mere openedness to the possibility that the Bible is the Word of God will open a small crack in the door of your heart for the Holy Spirit to whisper to you…to teach you…to reveal to you the truth. That same faith, hope and openedness is required to discover the truth which lies in the Book of Mormon.
Aaron, the moderater, pulled together a few phrases from President Monson (our prophet today) and formed a phrase that seemingly contradicted basic doctrine…I reqouted the section in it’s completness and corrected the disparity…i mention this because in the same discourse, Pres Monson states some profoundly beautiful truths, and yet all that was recognized were phrases that could be combined and used to find fault.
Walrus,
You said, “Those who have accepted, or who have been taught that there can be no more prophets will automatically dismiss the claim that Joseph Smith was called as such upon mere pretense. ”
In this you are only half correct. There are many of us who have come to the cessationist position because of Joseph Smith. Sadly there are many others who have had their faith irreparably damaged.
Evan if I grant your position on Joseph Smith and the BoM, I must ask how do you know President Monson is the Prophet? Couldn’t it be President Stephen M. Veazey? For a substantial percentage of Mormons close to the Joseph Smith, Veazey and his denomination has just as much claim as Monson.
I have been thinking about the original post title God as an Artist. Dur ring this Advent Season while the Christian Church is looking forward to celebrating Christmas and the Incarnation we are also looking forward to his Second Coming. I look forward to that day when I can see God’s Art without the blinders of sin, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” I wish the same for you.
How do i know that President Monson is a prophet? How do you know that Moses was a prophet? That Peter, James and John were apostles? That Jesus is the Christ? How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God? It is by the same spirit that you came to know these things that I came to know Monson as a prophet.
Again…if you would have listened to the Pharisees, the Saducees and found understanding with them (which MANY did) the odds would be dim that you would accept Christ. It is easy to find fault with that which is true…specially when the truth is threatening.
Ever since the Apostles died, men have moved one their own accord. The founding fathers….or bishops…or popes…guided the Christian church into a direction…from which most, if not all, on this site have moved away from theologically (Reformation). Grasp this…the organization that reports the oldest and most direct ties to Christianity have been written off as deviating from the orginal sooo much that subsantially different faiths were organized into numerously different churches.
(We know, full well, that this is an LDS position regarding an apostasy….let not your preconceptions harden your heart to the impossibility of such.)
Where did the errors begin? Were the sprouts not seen in the various epistles to the early churches? Are they not repleat with correcting admonishments? Were the early saints not walking on the edge, in danger of falling, years before the Apostles were taken?
I have, as has the LDS faith, been accused of heresy for suggesting that God’s Word was compromised by man. “God is too powerful to let that happen.” “God wouldn’t allow it.” “God said He would curse those that did, so it’s not possible” …suggesting that i didn’t believe in the Almighty Power of God.
God would never allow His Work to be thwarted…who are we to say how He goes about it? Who are we to say what God can and cannot allow? What God can and cannot do? If God allowed truths to be lost, it is because He is all knowing and has a means by which those truths can be restored…or is God limited? God is bound to the promises that He makes to us…not the commandments that He gives to man. “Do not kill” doesn’t mean that God cannot command a nation to go to war. “Do not add to or take away” doesn’t confine God to giving more or taking away that which He gave.
Walrus,
Thank you for the reply, it shows that you have put some thought into my question. In response I would point you to the Bible. In Deuteronomy 18:21-22 we have the only test of a true prophet laid out in Scripture. Is this a test that your prophets have passed?
I am always glad to talk about the Reformation. Your view on the Reformation shows a misunderstanding of the Reformers goals and Church history. The reformers never claimed that Christ’s Church had been destroyed. They told us that some doctrines were in error and pointed the way to a …”true religion which is delivered in the Scriptures.” John Calvin, in the introduction to the Institutes, told the King of France “The Church of Christ assuredly has lived, and will live, as long as Christ shall reign at the right hand of the Father. By his hand it is sustained, by his protection defended, by his mighty power preserved in safety. For what he once undertook he will undoubtedly perform, he will be with his people always, “even to the end of the world” (Mt. 28:20).” See this link for the context http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.ii.viii.html
Far be it from me to place limitations on God’s sovereignty, but you also seem not to acknowledge God’s many promises that He would not allow His Church to fail. The Scripture clearly proclaims God’s promises that Church will last forever Matt 28:19-20; John 14:16; Ephesians 3:21 etc. Unfortunately this is another area of doctrine that we must disagree on, because I am sure that you will understand that as a Christian I must believe that God keeps His promises. Any claim to the contrary crosses the line past error.
gundeck,
“Is this a test that your prophets have passed?”
Yes!!
“The reformers never claimed that Christ’s Church had been destroyed.”
True, and in this they were wrong. The reason the doctrines had become corrupted is because the authority to declare true doctrine had been taken from among men.
“They told us that some doctrines were in error and pointed the way to a …”true religion which is delivered in the Scriptures.” ”
They were wrong with this as well. Biblically speaking the pattern has always been for God to call prophets to declare true doctrine. The availability of the scriptures has never been the guarantor of the perpetuation of true doctrine.
“ . . . you also seem not to acknowledge God’s many promises that He would not allow His Church to fail.”
That is because He never made such a promise. You misunderstand what was really being promised and to whom it was being promised. God does keep His promises to those to whom they are given.
One promise that was made was that the true church would have apostles and prophets “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:”
Do you believe that God will keep that promise?
From the article you gave to me earlier.
‘The prophet is the herald of the divine council. He delivers the decree of Yahweh, which is the decree of the council. The authority of the prophet as the herald/messenger of the assembly is that of the power which sent him. He is the vocal manifestation of the deity who dispatched him. The parallel position of the prophet and the messenger-deity in Canaanite literature makes this fact undeniable. . . . The Hebrew prophets, like the messenger-deities described in the Ugaritic myths, are clearly envoys who carry both the message and authority of the divinity who dispatched them. In the case of the prophets, this was Yahweh, and ultimately the council that surrounded him.’ (Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 226.)
GB,
I hope that you had a good Christmas. Maybe in the future we will have the opportunity to discuss how well your prophets have done according to the Deuteronomy 18:21-22 test.
I find it interesting that you would use any quote from Ephesians. Paul’s thoughts show that Christ has united people from all nations to himself and to one another in his church. This seems to refute your position of a great apostasy. In this short letter we see the Promise of God to support his Church over and over. We see Christ as the head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:15; 5:23). We have Christ as the cornerstone of His Church (Ephesians 2:20). Christ is described as the Savior and sanctifier of the Church (Ephesians 4:11-16) and how Christ loved and sanctified his Church (Ephesians 5:25). This is not all, Paul teaches that the Church and His faithful will dwell and grow in Christ (Ephesians 2:21-22; 4:15). God will manifest his wisdom (Ephesians 3:10) by means of the Church. We also see the Church described as the Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23; 3:6; 4:4; 4:16; 5:23; 5:30).
I think the Ephesians must have paid close attention to Paul’s teaching because Church in Ephesus had a reputation for being able to test doctrine and find out false prophets. (Revelations 2:2). I think I will have to side with Paul, the Church in Ephesus, and Christ on this one.
gundeck,
Just for your information nothing you quoted from the Bible contradicts LDS belief.
I had to chuckle when I saw you quoting Eph 4:11-16. Where Christ promised that the true church would have apostles and prophets “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:” KJV
Are you implying that there is a unity of the faith? LOL!!!
And you didn’t answer my question “Do you believe that God will keep that promise?”
Any time you would like to discuss prophecies feel free. I would be interested to see if you can come up with an accusation that I haven’t heard before.
AARON: I’ve had a DEVIL of a time logging in, so I re-registered as mrgermit; I’m still in the system as germit, so if you want to delete that set-up (germit) or tell me how to notify wordpress or whatever…..I dont’ want to be seen as bending the rules or I’ll NEVER get my own Kolob.
Welcome back FALCON and BEREAN, you guys have been missed, but we there is a time and a season for everything.
Walrus: in answer to your question a few posts ago: I”LL TAKE THE GENIE: a creative power over one that merely organizes pre-existing matter. Not a tough choice at all. Welcome to Mormon Coffee.
Berean,
You want to see where the word “Gods” is found in the Bible and not “gods”, look no further than Genesis 1:1. Throughout most of Genesis the word used was “Elohim” and as has been said many times, this is the plural form – so it should be translated into “Gods”. Now the question is – did the translators do the right thing translating it into the singular form rather than the plural form? And how do we know which is the correct form if the ancient Hebrews were polytheists?
So just because it is not in our English translation, it is in the original version of the Bible.
Ralph,
As the saying goes, a little Hebrew can be deadly, and your statement about Genesis 1:1 shows that you know a little Hebrew. Unfortunately context dictates that Elohim in Genesis 1:1 be translated as a masculine singular noun, not a masculine plural as you suggest. (brashith bara elohim) The key word here is bara which is in the is a verb in the qal third masculine singular form, dictating that elohim be translated as a singular noun. So while you are correct that the noun elohim apart from any context would mean gods, in this context it is a masculine singular noun in it’s usage.
Lautensack
Lautensack,
You missed the point. The ancient Hebrews (ie the ancestors of the Israelites and Jews) were most likely polytheistic. It was not until Moses that strict monotheism was pushed. It was the ancient Hebrews that would have written the manuscripts that Moses used to write the first part of Genesis. So if they used the plural form and were most likely polytheists and meant it to be plural, who is in error? Moses for making things singular? Someone else apart from Moses who transcribed the manuscripts? Any other options?
So the point – if the original writer made it plural because of their belief system did someone purposefully or ignorantly make it singular? It could be that the original writer did write it as singular as it stands, but can we be sure?
Well this is all pretty simple. Do the Jews worship the Mormon god? The Jews wrote the OT. Find an orthodox Jew and explain the Mormon concept regarding the nature of God and see the reaction (of the Jew). I don’t think we’ll see much of a kindered spirit there theologically speaking regarding the god of Mormonism and the God of the Hebrews. Mormons are pretty much on their own with their “man to god” program. Atheists do not believe in a Creator God. Theists believe in some kind of Creator. A deist believes in one Creator God. A pantheist believes that the universe is God. A dualist believes in a Good God and an Evil God who are fighting it out for the universe. A polytheist believes in many gods. Polytheism is the formula of Hinduism. Only monotheists blieve in the God of the Bible. The three monotheistic groups are Jews, Muslims and Christians. Their history goes back to Abraham.
Polytheism is an “ism” that believes that there is more than one god. To believe that there exists more than one god puts a religion in the poly camp. Polytheists fail to answer three basic questions; Where did the God I am worshipping come from? How was he created? If he is not the First Cause, who is?
Joseph Smith was by definition a paganist. He said “God found himself among spirits”. He said, “You have got to learn to be Gods yourselves….the same as all Gods have done before you…until you are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and sit in glory”. Brigham Young said “Man is King of Kings and Lord of Lords in embryo.” Orson Pratt said that there were more gods than there are particles of matter in a million planets like the earth. He further said: “We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds, and as a last resort, we wonder in our mind, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and how the first Father was begotten.” Pratt wasn’t interested in finding out about the first Father. He said “in worshipping any one of these Gods, we worship the whole.” Polytheism anyone?
Mormons are polytheists. “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become”. Do Mormons really believe they will become gods? Yes, of course they do. It’s the basis for Mormonism. The basic philosophical mistake of Mormonism is that there is no first Father, there is no Creator, there is no first cause. In Mormonism there is no God as defined by any rational definition. Mormonism cannot push it’s self back to the beginning.
In Christianity our God stands alone. There are no other gods. Mormons torture the scriptures as they must to come up with other gods. Mormon hermenutics is weak when it comes to the Bible. For a complete picture of the nature of God being One see Isaiah 43:10-11; 43:6-7; 44:8; 45:5-6.
Mormons are polytheists who fight to maintain a belief in the multiplicity of gods. What kind of religion is this where men deny God in the hope of becoming a god.
Falcon,
The Jews did not write the OT – it was a conglomerate of people from the tribes of Israel. Moses was a Levite. David and Solomon were from Judah (Jews). I don’t know much more about the other authors but they were not all Jews. Also, the Jews in Jesus’ time had apostatized from their true religion which is why Jesus was correcting them as well as introducing the new gospel. So instead of asking the question you asked “Do the Jews worship the Mormon god?” you should be asking “Are the Jews worshiping the god of their ancestors?”
You also said “The three monotheistic groups are Jews, Muslims and Christians. Their history goes back to Abraham.” Yes, the Jews history goes back to Abraham – but I have seen a few shows from archaeologists and historians that say that Abraham and his family/peers were polytheists. Many of these same archaeologists and historians say that it was Moses that brought strict monotheism to the Israelites. So according to these people, the Bible started out as polytheistic – meaning that the Jews background is polytheistic and so is the Christian background because of this.
In Christian apologetics, we need go no further then dealing with the doctrine of the existence of God and making a clear case for who He is; that is His nature. The Hebrew people were unique among their neighbors in that they were monotheists. Not all followed the path God called them to walk. God continually warned the men about intermarrage (with foreign women) because of the effect that the women’s idolotry would have on this monotheistic religion. We read continually about reformation leaders who would demand that the “high places” be torn down. The “god” that the Hebrews were worshiping in these cases was “Baal”. This was basically devil worship. When God sent His plagues against Egypt, it was directed at their “:gods”. The first plague of bloody waters was directed aginst Osiris the god of the Nile. The second plague of frogs was against the frog goddess Hekt. The third plague of lice was against Seb, the earth god. The fourth plague of beetles/flies was agains Hatkok, the wife of Osiris. The fifth plague of cattle disease was atgainst Apis, the sacred bull god. The sixth plague, boils, was against Typhon. The seventh plague, hail and fire, was against Shu, the god of the atmosphere. The eighth plague, locusts, was against Serapia, the god who protected Egypt against locusts. The ninth plague, darkness, was against Ra, the sun god. The tenth plague, the death of the firsborn was an attack on all “gods”. So the purpose of the plagues was twofold: a) to demonstrate to Israel the strenght of their God and b) To show the Egyptians the total inability of their “gods”. During the final days of Moses’ first forty-day meeting with God on Mt. Sinai, the Hebrews demanded that Aaron make them a “god”. After the Babylonian Captivity the Jews had enough of idolotry. They learned their lesson. Were these “gods” real gods. No of course not, but the Hebrews treated them as if they were (real).
In Mormonism we also have a manufacturing of gods. Mormons on the one hand search for Biblical references to argue for the multiplicity of gods and on the other argue that they themselves are monotheists. Welcome to a strain of “logic” that runs all through Mormonism. Like the ancient Hebrews, Mormons have to be willing to give up their “gods” and come to the one true living God. They can attatch Biblical names to their gods and to their savior, but in the end, these Mormon gods are false gods. Attached to this is the Mormon man’s desire to become a god also. Has Satan ever produced a bigger lie or a bigger deception? As with the Hebrews of old, Mormons need to give up their false gods and come to the One living God. They need to give up their pagan temples and rituals and become living temples dedicated to God. Only then will they know God and enjoy the salvation he offers.
What are you talking about? Really…what are you talking about? If we worship God(s) then you worship God(s). God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. One. Three. God. Gods. You taking remote circumstances and placing them at the heart of our intentions is as accurate or valid as me calling you a cannibal for wanting to partake of the blood and body of Jesus Christ during the sacrament. Cannibal. Repent Cannibal Falcon…it’s simply ridiculous is are your judgments upon the intentions of our hearts. Scripture advises against that.
“Attached to this is the Mormon man’s desire to become a god also. Has Satan ever produced a bigger lie or a bigger deception?”
We’re commanded to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect…the life of a Christian is to be Christlike. We cannot be perfect? We cannot be Christlike? We cannot be One with the Father, even as Christ is One with the Father? Who is Satan decieving, Falcon? Christ’s Atonement is just that…An At ONE Ment with God the Father and Jesus Christ…Christ’s atonement is NOT limited…it’s EVERLASTING and ETERNAL. God can do anything…but bestow His glory upon us? Nay Falcon…God IS all powerful, all merciful, all loving and nothing is beyond His capacity.
Ever wonder why Moses or Elijah was given power to smite the populace with afflictions? Why it says that with a particle of faith one can move mountains? How Christ did not limit just Himself to walking on water, but suggested that we all could? If we have the mind of God, if we are One with His Will, then God will give us His power to act as we ‘please’…for what we ‘please’ is God’s Will….He knows that we would not do anything outside of what He would do in the same circumstance…that we would move this mountain hither, not to get gain, not to show off, but for a greater purpose, not for our own. If one were given the gift of healing, would they retain it if they used it for gain? Nay. Being One with God means that we act according as He would…or Christ would…being thus Christlike.
Dare to throw out red-herrings based on your judgments of the intentions of our hearts…but our intention, our desire is to follow Christ, to be like Him, to be perfected in Him, to become One with the Son and the Father, and the Holy Ghost.
Genesis “gods” reference.
We keep hitting this softball served-up by our Mormon posters out of the park so often you’d think they’d learn and stop pitching it. But as so many things Mormon, if you wait long enough it comes around again. So here we go. “Does ‘gods’ and ‘us’ imply the existence of more than one God?” Not at all. The usual Hebrew term for “god” is lohim, which is the plural of loah. It is occassionally used as a true plural, referring to the imaginary gods of the heathen. But usually it refers to the one true God, and the plural ending is known to Hebrew grammarians as the “plural of majesty” like “dionim “(“lords” or “Lord”) and b’alim (plural of ba’al, “lord,” “master,” “owner,” “husband”), lohim also may be used to give a heightened impressiveness of majesty to God. As such, this plural is modified by adjectives in the singular and takes a singular verb.
I could go on but this has been covered on this site so many times that I’m beginning to think it should be posted in the margins of the comment section and we could simply reference it when it makes its rounds again.
found this on the net and decided to share
Blessings on everyone, including and especially my LDS friends and those in any other category
We can probably all agree that our Father has done some AMAZING work in this universe and for that, we can be grateful
MRGERMIT
Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844-1889)
Pied Beauty
Glory be to God for dappled things—
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced—fold, fallow, and plough;
And áll trades, their gear and tackle and trim.
All things counter, original, spáre, strange;
Whatever is fickle, frecklèd (who knows how?)
With swíft, slów; sweet, sóur; adázzle, dím;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is pást change:
Práise hím.
“Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” Exodus 15:11
The Dead Sea Scrolls version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9: “When the Most High parcelled out the nations, when he dispersed all mankind, he laid down the boundaries of every people according to the number of the sons of God; but the Lord’s (Jehovah’s) share was his own people, Jacob was his alotted portion.” Thus the Qumran reading suggests that the earlier Hebrew had read “sons of God.” Such is the opinion of Peter Hayman and Margaret Barker.
The Pseudo Clementine Recognitions (4th century text based on 2nd century source document) reads: “For the Most High God, who alone holds the power of all things, has divided all the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts, and over these He hath appointed angels s princes. But to the one among the archangels who is greatest, was committed the government of those who, before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High God…. Thus the princes of the several nations are called gods. But Christ is God of princes, who is Judge of all.”
Philo of Alexandria wrote around 30 B.C. “But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a son of God, let him press to take his place under God’s First-born, the Word, who holds the eldership among the angels, an archangel as it were. And many names are his for he is called: the Beginning, the Name of God, His Word, the Man after His Image, and ‘He that sees’, namely, Israel.” (Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 109).
Many early Jewish documents speak of Christ as the supreme or pre-eminent Angel of God in a subordinationist way. In other words, Christ was the greatest among the “angels of the Father.” This is true of early Christianity as well. Anglican historian Richard Hansen said “Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of the catholic theology.” (R. Hansen “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Centure AD, 1989, 153).
“My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)
Paul said the Father is “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 15:6) and that after the resurrection Jesus will be “subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:28).
Hippolytus of Rome said the Father is “the Lord and God and Ruler of all, and even of Christ Himself.”
Athenagorias wrote of the “diversity in rank” within the Godhead. Origen labeled Jesus as a “second God.”
J.N.D. Kelly says that at the council of Nicea, the most numerous group was the middle party who believed that there were three divine persons, “separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will.” J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines 1978, 247-48.
Now somebody show evidence of anybody in the first 3 centuries believing in three coequal persons in one being.
Origen and Justin both ascribed the anthropomorphic concept of God to the Jews in general. Origen also believed in the premortal existence of souls and referred to Jewish text to support such a belief.
Christopher Stead, a Cambridge scholar, argues that as Christianity moved out into the Hellenized world, there occured a transition from a Hebrew anthropomorphic conept of God to a Greek philosophical concept. Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, 89-90.
falcon, rhetoric will not argue away these evidence to which many others can be added. There is plenty to suggest that the early Christians and Jews believed in an anthropomorphic, physical God, and that the Father and the Son were separate beings. You do not have to believe it, but the LDS theology is very much in line with ancient texts and thought.