Mormon Coffee

Video Now Online: “Those Abominable Creeds”, by Ron Huggins

December 15, 2008

By Aaron Shafovaloff

This seemed like a relevant post given the recent discussion on Jehovah.

This movie requires Flash Player 9

Direct Youtube link

Comments (97)

97 Comments so far

DefenderOfTheFaith on December 15th, 2008

I have gone through the first 10 minutes of this video.

I am wondering why this gentleman fails to explain why the Nicean creed has the word “and” after each member of the Godhead. This is screaming for at least some comment or glancing explanation, but nothing! Is that word insignificant? If it is not significant doesn’t it warrant some explanation? Doesn’t it’s very presence indicate they are different beings? If I thought Aaron, Sharon, and Falcon were the same being I would say I believe in Aaron, aka Sharon, or Falcon.

Next he jumps into this sovereignty issue saying that the Mormon God does not have juristiction over the whole universe. This is not our doctrine. We believe He is Lord of all the Universe. He should at least say they believe he has all power, knowledge, etc. but that doesn’t make sense. Instead, he misstates the doctrine from the get-go. How do I take him seriously now?

Nevertheless, If God promises us “all that the Father hath” Rev 21:7 does that make Him anything less than His is (like He gave up some of the pie)? One would have to say that He doesn’t really intend to do that (deny the scriptures) or that God must intend to divide up the power( becoming less of a God). If He did inherit the universe and all power therein from another God, does that make him any less powerful or sovereign? If I master the principles of Physics does that steal knowledge from my professor and thus strip him of his title?

I may watch the rest later, but so far this guy is not scoring any points for me
Aaron Shafovaloff on December 15th, 2008

DoF,

Trinitarians have always believed that the Divine Three are three interrelated persons who have eternally been in perfect, intimate, passionate fellowship. In fact, part of the reason we say they are one being, one God, one essence, is that they are essentially and necessarily in full relationship with each other. Mormonism has held to the position that the Godhead consists of three who are in a non-essential, accidental unity (and I’m using the term “accidental” in the philosophical sense). In other words, their very existence hasn’t been always dependent on being in a divine unity with the others in the Godhead.

Next he jumps into this sovereignty issue saying that the Mormon God does not have juristiction over the whole universe. This is not our doctrine.

This seems like an issue of semantics. I assume Huggins is using the term universe to refer to absolutely everything that exists everywhere. The point is that the Mormon God is a local or tribal deity in the sense that he is one among potentially trillions of other gods that have their own particular dominion with worlds and spirit children, etc. But I think you already know that.

He should at least say they believe he has all power, knowledge, etc.

Why? Not all Mormons believe that. You’re referring to the Prattian position. The Brighamite position does not hold that God has absolutely all knowledge or power, as Brigham held that God eternally progressed in knowledge and power. See more on this here. That article also deals with the inheritance issue:

When Romans 8:17 speaks of Christians as “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ”, it speaks of an infinitely large inheritance that will take eternity to appropriate. We will never get to the point where we can say we have fully appropriated and received the entirety of our inheritance in Christ. We will always grow in the knowledge and power of God, the God who is infinite and inexhaustible.

You should definitely watch the rest of the video. And can we please stay away from the language of “scoring points”? It sounds chesty.

Grace and peace,

Aaron

PS I encourage everyone to get a Gravatar so your mug doesn’t look like “Mr. Anonymous”. Sorry, I know some of you already did this with the IntenseDebate commenting system, but you’ll need to do it again.
DefenderOfTheFaith on December 16th, 2008

Aaron,

Not trying to keep score, just making the point that is someone is going to use a creed to support a position then the creed, in its entirety, should be fair game. To me the word “and” is important here. Since I cannot ask him ?’s, I am hestitant to consider his position when he leaves something like that out.

Nevertheless.

I just don’t understand your definition of the Godhead. I can accept everything you said except that they are one BEING. I don’t see where the scriptures ever say that.

Huggins says that the early Christians believed the scriptures that said God created “all things”. That they believe the scriptures for what they say and don’t try to change the meaning like Mormons do. If that is the standard, then how did the early Christians, according to Huggins, view such verses as “Let US create man in OUR image” or “the man is become as one of US”? Isn’t this a double standard? Did the early Christians try to make that conform to a trinitarian view or just take it for what the scripture actually says?

I will look into your article a little more on the power issue. I know of noone in the LDS church that does not believe God has all power and all knowledge. If Brigham believed that God reached that station, how would that detract from the fact that He has it now?
MDavis on December 16th, 2008

Put simply, I agree with DoF. This man’s presentation skips important parts of this creed, in which LDS would take issue with.

Two disputes can be made in regards to the Nicene Creed:

1. “…that is from the substance of the Father…” and “…of one essence with the Father….” I noticed that this individual in the video does not even comment on this but asserts that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is parallel to the creed. We take issue with these statements. The Bible gives no reference to God and Jesus Christ being of one substance or essence.

2. This dispute revolves around the whole point of the Nicene Creed in the first place. Why would a group of people have the need to convene and come to an agreement about God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit in the first place? Surely these questions would have already been declared by the Apostles who walked and talked with the resurrected Savior in the first place. To convene together to talk about the basic building blocks is simple proof in and of itself that knowledge was lost.
Megan on December 16th, 2008

DoF, if God has a father, and his father has a father, and on and on and on, where are those fathers now? Aren’t they all on individual planets still increasing in knowledge? If they’ve had more time to increase in knowledge than their descendents (namely God), than wouldn’t that make them more powerful than God? Or, if they’ve reached a certain level (I guess perfection in this case), wouldn’t that make them equivalent to God? If you are saying that God is all-powerful NOW, what happened to the other gods (his ancestors) on their respective planets? Did they just fade away into oblivion, leaving God as king of the hill? Or, let’s say you live a worthy life, and go to the CK, and gradually grow in knowledge until you reach perfection, and then you get your own planet to populate with spirit children from your numerous wives. So once you reach perfection, what happens to this God? It’s okay because you’ll have your own planets? Kind of a “you stay in your backyard, I”l stay in mine” kind of thing?
I know it sounds like I’m being sarcastic, but I’m not making fun of you. I’m serious, how does this kind of thing work? These are the kinds of questions I’ve been wondering ever since I found out Mormons believe God has a father, and the doctrine of humans becoming gods. Please don’t say that we can’t understand such things on earth, but we’ll find out in eternity.
DefenderOfTheFaith on December 16th, 2008

Megan,

You are asking questions that God has simply not revealed. You mentioned time. I will not get into Relativity here, but eternity knows no time. That is something God has created to accomplish His purposes.

When the Lord says he has ALL knowledge. I believe that. He is not increasing in knowledge. He says he has ALL power and I believe that. I do believe His glory continues to increase which is why He has created this earth. Just because He has all power and all knowledge doesn’t mean that He doesn’t intend to give us the same Luke 12:44.

Your assumption is that if God has ALL power that noone else can possess the same. Splitting up the pie scenario. Would you say that since I am a master of Physics (which I am not) that no one else can possess the same knowledge and all the power that would come from that? If I give you all my knowledge does that make you more knowledgable or better than me, or somehow diminsh the knowledge that I now have because I gave it to you? Sound ludicrous?

God can give us all that He has and still retain everything, especially His power and knowledge.
Megan on December 16th, 2008

FoF, God accepts no one as His equal. He HAS no equal, He never has, and He never will. He shares some of His power with us (yes, we are made in His image), but it is HIS image. Everything we possess or will possess in the future is what He deigns to share. We will never surpass Him, and there is no one who has ever or ever will surpass Him. You believe that God posseses all knowledge. Good. But you also believe that at one time He did not possess all knowledge, but was a weak, sinful person and that He progressed to His current state of perfection.
You say that God has not revealed these mysteries yet. But what about the mysteries He has chosen to reveal about Himself already, namely His claim to having always been God, and there being no other gods?
I have to go….but I hope to be on tomorrow. I would really like to get into all the Bible verses describing God’s unique nature and claim of being the sole God of the universe.
GRCluff on December 16th, 2008

I still think that the Nicean creed was a failed attempt to migrate Christian theology towards a concept of God that was more socially acceptable in Greek culture. Once the real Christians were killed and the gift of prophecy destroyed, the true concept of God was next on the chopping block.

The extent of this change is illustrated by the Harvard Theological Review’s recent publication of a skillful article by BYU’s David Paulsen, which documents that “ordinary Christians for at least the first three centuries” after Christ believed that God had a body.
David L. Paulsen, “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 105.

It was 3 greek doctors who defined a new God for Christianity, and they claimed no gift of prophesy, just a commitment to greek philosophy. It took a true prophet WITH the gift of prophesy to bring the true concept of God back to the world. Every ancient document we can find dated prior to the Nicean creed continues to prove that point.
faithoffathers on December 16th, 2008

Megan,

You have mentioned as have others that we believe God was once a sinner. I don’t want to go off topic, but I cannot let that stand. We do not. There is absolutely no basis for that believe. Yes, we believe “As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.” But we believe He was like us only in the sense that Christ was “like us.” He had a mortal experience, but never sinned. Christ said he “did only those things which the Father did.” The doctrine is that Christ was like His Father, who too once had a perfect, sinless mortal experience.

Now back to your discussion!
DefenderOfTheFaith on December 16th, 2008

Huggins point about Colossians.

He is definitely making a big point about God being the creator of ‘ALL” things. His point is that LDS minimize God’s status.

However, verse 15 states that Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of ALL CREATION.

Wiki definitions: Birth is the ACT OR PROCESS of bearing or bringing forth OFFSPRING
Create: To put into existence To manufacture To design, invest with a new form, shape

If Jesus is God in every sense that Huggins is suggesting than that would make Him the CREATOR of ALL things, period, even before He himself (Jesus) was created. How can Jesus be the Firstborn of ALL creation and still be the Creation God that created ALL things? Jesus can be the Firstborn and the Creator of all things, just not by Huggins defintion.
Megan on December 17th, 2008

FoF: Sorry, I wasn’t aware that Mormons believe God, while human, was never sinful. I am always glad to learn something new! But wait, I have a question: If human beings are sinful, how can Mormons hope to become gods with their own planets some day? Wouldn’t Mormons bound for the CK and subsequent godhood have to be sinless in this life? I realize that LDS do not believe in original sin, but even they have to admit that there is no human who is going to live a sinless life (apart from Christ, who was sinless because He was God in the flesh).
Megan
GB on December 17th, 2008

DOF,

Your citation of Col 1:15 is supported by Jesus.

In Rev 3:14 Jesus declares Himself to be “. . . the beginning of the creation of God.”

Megan,

I find it interesting that some TOC’s such as yourself have a problem with the Mormon belief that God (the Father) was born of a mortal woman, lived a mortal life, died and was resurrected, when you believe that the “One and only” God (in the personality of the Son) was born of a mortal woman, lived a mortal life, died and was resurrected.

Please explain to me what the difference is.
mrgermit on December 17th, 2008

Megan and others:

Quite possibly, this is a case of

THE OLD GREAT GOD(S) JUST AIN’T WHAT THEY USED TO BE.

had to throw it in……..cause I’m sinful, no doubt.

Mr.GERMIT
GB on December 17th, 2008

MDavis,

That is exactly the point I wanted to make, but for some reason was unable to post yesterday.

I could only stand to listen for about 10 min. At that point it was obvious to me that the presenter wasn’t going to address the real disagreement that we LDS have with the creed.

A quick search for “essence” in the KJV found NO hits.

And although I did find numerous “substance”, not a single one of them was in the context of the relationship of the Father to the Son, but only in the context of something tangible (usually material wealth).

So I don’t see how the full Creed is supported by the Bible.
Sharon Lindbloom on December 17th, 2008

“…the Beginning of the creation of God…” (Revelation 3:14)

According to Norman L. Geisler and Ron Rhodes, the Greek word used here (arche) and translated “beginning” carries the meaning of “one who begins,” “origin,” “source,” or “first cause.” Recognizing that our word “architect” comes from this same Greek word also helps us understand that Jesus is the architect of all creation, not a product of it.

Regarding Colossians 1:15 and the statement that Jesus is the “firstborn,” Geisler and Rhodes say, “Firstborn does not carry the meaning ‘first created.’ In biblical times the word meant ‘first in rank’ or ‘preeminent.’” See Psalm 89:27 where Jesse’s last-born son, David, is called “firstborn” due to his preeminence as king.
Lautensack on December 17th, 2008

Defender
When you write: Did the early Christians try to make that conform to a trinitarian view or just take it for what the scripture actually says? You know you’re creating a false dichotomy correct? You are saying that Genesis 1:26;3:22 cannot, in a very plain sense, be a Trinitarian passage, thus you’re assuming polytheism from the beginning.

As for Christ being the firstborn over all creation, you are engaging in the root word fallacy. According to your logic butterflies must be flies made out of butter. Firstborn can not only refer to a physical birth, but also first in eminence as seen with Jacob and Esau. Also if we follow this logic then we must say that Jesus created Himself which is absurd since he is created and all things were created by him and for him (v.16) Try not to fall into the group Peter warned about. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Lautensack
Brian on December 17th, 2008

The simplest explanation of the Trinity I have read is as follows:

* Heavenly Father is God
* Jesus Christ is God
* The Holy Ghost is God

There is only one God.

That’s pretty short, but I think it helps to explain this.

What do the LDS people believe about this? I’ve found it varies quite a lot depending on the individual you are talking with. For instance, one person I know of believes that God is not all-knowing, and did not create everything. Evidently, this stems from the LDS god being neither self-existent nor unique. Pretty depressing. Yet I have no doubt that others of the LDS faith would be surprised by such assertions.

I seems to me that if one’s god is a glorified man, one is left with a very little god. A god that bears no resemblance to the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible.
mrgermit on December 17th, 2008

Well said, Lautensack, and a similar mistake made by several surrounding Ps.82. How could Jesus POSSIBLY be referring to this group of judges as “gods” in the sense off Almighty deity when verse 7 clearly says

“Nevertheless you will die like men, and fall like any one of the princes.”

the inability to take scripture AS A WHOLE, and in context, leads to all kinds of silliness: i.e.: Jesus suggesting that we , as men, are intended to grow up to be just like dear old Dad, Deity and all. The nature of men, AND God, get horribly garbled in our inability to rightly divide the Word.
I think these kinds of mistakes happen when someone holds to a view, and then looks to scripture to support it, instead of getting the meaning of scripture FIRST.
mrgermit on December 17th, 2008

DOF:
I would say that your post contains at least two presuppositions:

ONE: we have the ability, or capability, to hold, have, or contain all of WHO GOD is, or we can GAIN that ability. In other words, if GOD wants to give us HIS divine attributes, we have the ability to take that gift in.

TWO: God has the desire (GOAL) of giving us all of Himself in a way that reproduces Himself in us. Perhaps put another way: God Himself wants to generate more gods/goddesses, that is HIS goal in having children.

would you care to comment on, and amend these two comments ???
gundeck on December 17th, 2008

I think if you look both Paulsen’s and Robinson’s theories have been contested as most of the references they use are in fact referring to the Incarnation of Christ not the Father having a human body.

What 3 Greek doctors defined a new God for Christianity? Think carefully before you answer.
SteveH on December 17th, 2008

Brian,

As you stated:

The simplest explanation of the Trinity I have read is as follows:

* Heavenly Father is God
* Jesus Christ is God
* The Holy Ghost is God

However, that is three not one. Most other religions (Islam, Hindu, Judaism etc.) look upon Christianity as definitely being polytheistic. This is an understandable conclusion given the Christian formulation of God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. It take considerable mental gymnastics to reconfigure the three personages as one being.

Only in the Hellenistic formulation of the Nicene Creed do we get such a complete illogical and self-contradictory description of God. It makes no sense – but that’s the beauty of it!
Megan on December 17th, 2008

FoF: Okay, this will take many posts but I might as well get started. If the Bible taught these 2 facts, that 1. God is 3 persons, and 2. Each person is fully God, there would be no logical problem. (This would be the heresy Tritheism; 3 gods). However, the Bible is adamant that there is one God.

We can get into the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit too, later on. For now….

There is one God. The three persons of the Trinity are not only one in purpose and in agreement on what they think, but they are one in essence, one in their essential nature.
Deut. 6:4-5 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” This is the famous “shema”, meaning “hear”, emphasizing God’s unity. This passage states that there can only be one all-powerful, infinite, limitless and perfect God. Christians believe that God is a tri-unity, or Trinity–one being expressed in 3 persons. Jesus, the Son, is identified with Yahweh, (the LORD) God the Father, in both the OT and the NT.

Is. 45:5 “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.”
Is. 45:6 “…men may know there is none besides me, I am the LORD, and there is no other.”
Is. 45:18 “I am the LORD, and there is no other…..I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right.”
Megan on December 17th, 2008

Cont:
Is. 45:22-24 “…I am God, and there is no other. BY MYSELF I HAVE SWORN, my mouth has uttered in ALL INTEGRITY a word that WILL NOT BE REVOKED: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, “In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength.”
Or what about this one, gods-in-training?
Is. 46:5 To whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?”
Is. 46:9-10 “…I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is noone like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.”
Is. 40: 13-14 “Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge or showed him the path of understanding?”
Is. 40:25 “To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.”
Is. 40: 28 “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. ”

I know many of these verses say the same thing over, (namely, there is one God, and there is none like him), but I think it is important to see the wealth of verses that state these truths. God has testified over and over as to who He is in the Bible. More verses tomorrow!
gundeck on December 17th, 2008

SteveH,

Hellenistic? Prove it. Greek culture was so much a part of life in Palestine of the first century that everything was “influenced” by it. The NT was written in Greek.

The Old Roman Symbol (Creed) is essentially in the Nicene formula and dates from the 2nd century. Not the 4th century.

Tertullian wrote in Latin, not Greek, and was a Berber. He first used the term “Trinitas” not the Greek fathers. He did this in the 2nd Century not the 4th. Justin, Theophilus, Tatian, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Origen; second and third centuries. Each of them struggling with the complexity of how the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit are all God and the fact that there is only one God. Did these men use extra-biblical language? Yes. So what. Did these men er? Yes. So what. Did these men defend the Church from the heresies of their day? Yes. Thank God!

Your Church has chosen to ignore this mystery, your prophets tell of heretofore unknown gods and goddesses, of worlds and spirits, of rituals and signs. The Christian Church has chosen another path, we have embraced and trusted in God’s revealed Word.

Through all of Redemptive History God has chosen to Name Himself. First to bring about the Abrahamic Covenant he calls himself El Shaddai “God Almighty” Gen 17:1. Then to Moses bringing about the Covenant of the Law he reveals his name as ’Ehyeh “I am that I am” Ex 3:14. Now in the Covenant of Grace he tells us his name “Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” Matt 26:28.

“Listen, Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!” (Deut 6:4) and his name is “Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:27).

You do as you wish, “But as for me and my house we will serve the LORD.”

And please when you do respond use more of David Paulsen’s or Kent Jackson’s work.
falcon on December 17th, 2008

I can’t figure out why Mormons don’t just worship one of the higher gods in the Mormon pantheon of gods since the Mormon god is progressing just like all of the other gods. Why not go for the grandfather god? He’s further up the spiritual chain. Orson Pratt said that “in worshipping any one of these Gods, we worship the whole”.
The Mormon logic here is that they have to believe two different theories at the same time. First, they belive they are co-eternal with the rest of the gods. On the other hand, they believe they were born spiritually to the God Elohim and existed as spirit children in heaven before they came to earth to take on a body. So throughout the universe men are becoming gods, receiving dominion over their own planets and conceiving spirit children in heaven so they can send them to earth to be born in mortality and repeat the process.
See this stuff is clearly taught in the Bible…..oops…..the giant conspiracy left it all out along with plural wives, priesthood, free masonry temple rites, sacred undergarments and magic rocks that can be used to translate ancient writings when placed in the bottom of a hat…….that is when the magic rock isn’t being used to find Captain Kids treasure.
GB on December 17th, 2008

Sharon,

1) Implicit in your response is the admission that the Bible is insufficient to self interpret. Thanks!!!

2) Norman L. Geisler is a Christian apologist and Ron Rhodes has authored (banned phrase, hence forth referred to as “LDS hyper critic”) books. As I have come to understand from MRM, apologists can’t be trusted and as I have come to understand from interacting with them, “LDS hyper critics” can’t be trusted either.

3) The Greek word arche is used in;
Matt 19: 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Matt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Mark 1:1 THE beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Philip 4:15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.

Heb 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

2 Pet 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Just to show a few. From the context of these verses it is clear that Geisler and Rhodes are biased and sloppy “scholars”.

4) “Firstborn” in Col 1:15 is translated from the Greek word “prOtotokos” which literally means “BEFORE-most-BROUGHT-FORTH”, which certainly expresses “preeminence” among a larger group (or set). One can NOT be preeminent among a group (or set) of one.

This is verified by Paul in Col 1:18 and Rom 8:29

5) I think it is obvious that Psalm 89:27 is referring to Jesus not David. And yes it is Jesus that is called “firstborn” due to His preeminence as King of kings and Lord of lords.
Lautensack on December 17th, 2008

GB,
Apparently wordpress limits the amount of replies aloud to a specific post, however in your post on December 17, 2008 at 9:14 pm you wrote:

“Firstborn” in Col 1:15 is translated from the Greek word “prOtotokos” which literally means “BEFORE-most-BROUGHT-FORTH”, which certainly expresses “preeminence” among a larger group (or set). One can NOT be preeminent among a group (or set) of one.
This is verified by Paul in Col 1:18 and Rom 8:29

First no one is saying Christ is preeminent among a group of one. He is preeminent over creation as specific to Col1:15ff, though He is also preeminent over the church (Rom 8:29), the resurrection (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5), and His second coming (Heb 1:6). Also you are still engaging in the root word fallacy, that is you are assuming that the word πρωτότοκος means of πρωτς + τἰκτω. This hermeneutic would require butterflies to be flies made of butter (it is neither) and the root of “nice” is the Latin word for “ignorant.” According to your hermeneutic all nice people must be ignorant? Clearly this isn’t the case. Also the theory that one must be in a group to have preeminence over it is just silly. The Vice president isn’t a senator but he does have preeminence over it.

Lautensack
GB on December 18th, 2008

Lautensack,

I am making no such assumption. I am merely using as my source the work of non-LDS Christian scholars, who have bent over backwards to keep bias out of their work.

Do you not trust unbiased non-LDS Christian scholars?

Just look at the definition of preeminent. It clearly implies the membership of a group (or set).

“having paramount rank” pretty much says it all. But hey, don’t let the real meaning of words deter you in your “hyper critical” mode. Other “hyper critics” don’t.

Merry Christmas.

And as the Apostle Paul would say “Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. “
falcon on December 18th, 2008

It will come as no surprise to anyone here that my confidence level in LDS scholarship is about zero when it comes to translating Hebrew or Greek or any other language with the possible exception of Reformed Egyptian. And even when translating Reformed Egyptian it was necessary for that linguistic expert Joseph Smith to use a magic rock in a hat to get the job done. I don’t know if, like Frosty the Snowman’s hat, Joseph Smith’s hat had any magic properties, but I do know that just like our buddy Frosty, Mormon scholarship melts when the light and heat of real scholarship is turned on it.
The bottom line is that until Mormons can bring themselves to acknowledge that they are indeed polytheists, this discussion is going nowhere. I don’t care how many gods they worship. They can worship the whole lot or pick their favorite one, but anytime there is a claim that there is more than one god, the religion is polytheistic. Christianity and Judism from which it comes, are monotheistic religions. I challenge our Mormon friends (again) to go and find an orthodox Jewish rabbi and ask him about the nature of God, specifically how many Gods there are. For that matter go and ask a Muslim how many Gods there are or a Hindu. Joseph Smith took a little from column A and a little from column B and came up with a mish mash doctrine regarding the nature of God. It’s not what the Jews of the OT believed about God nor first century Christians. It’s not exaltation to godhood and a personalized planetary system that awaits our Mormon friends in the here after. God has demonstrated that He does not deal lightly with those that worship other gods.
Sharon Lindbloom on December 18th, 2008

GB, I disagree with your conclusion (Dec 17th comment above) about the scholarship of Giesler and Rhodes regarding the Greek word “arche.” Nevertheless, non “hyper critics” also grant that “origin” or “active cause” is (at times) a valid interpretation of “arche.” See Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
Martin_from_Brisbane on December 19th, 2008

Folks here would know that my interest in interpreting anyone’s writings (including the Bible) is to try to discern what the author was thinking when he (or she) committed pen to paper (or parchment, or whatever).

I also believe in the principal of consistency; each Biblical author was consistent with himself and that the various Biblical authors formed a consensus on the nature and character of God. The trick, of course, is finding what that consensus was. However, some things are abundantly clear, for instance, there is only one God, he created all things, and it is this God that enters into a covenant relationship with Israel.

So, its rather surprising to me to hear how inconsistent Joseph Smith was with himself. It seems he starts with the monotheism of the Book of Mormon, and ends with the polytheism of the Book of Abraham.

My conclusion is that Joseph believed none of this. He adopted monotheism to start with in order to establish his credentials in a Christianized culture, and later adopted polytheism to prop up his increasingly convoluted theories about eternal progression.

The reason why Joseph declared all creeds an abonimation was that they stood against his ambition to rule the Church.
DefenderOfTheFaith on December 20th, 2008

Laut,

My point has nothing to do with a polytheistic presupposition. Huggins is saying that Mormons are different than early Christians because “they took the scripture for what they say”. I am just playing the game. If he is saying that the early Christians were “literalist” then what did they think of the very first book of the Bible? If they take “all” to mean “everything that was ever created” in a literal sense, then on what basis can they interpret the Genesis account stating “us” in the “man has become one of US” or “let us created man in OUR image”. Huggins has now bound the early Christians into accepting those scriptures just as literal. He cannot now switch and say “oh that is just allegorical or symbolic of God preeminence”.

As far as your root word fallacy theory. Are you seriously telling me that God is using the term Firstborn to state His preeminence? How does that make any sense? Why would He use that term if it didn’t have some Eternal significance? Why were the Israelites so big on the Firstborn anyway? Where did they get the idea? Because the Firstborn (in a very real sense) was to deliver them.

Even if I take Firstborn to symbolize preeminence (which I do) the scripture still says “the Firstborn OF all creation”. OF being the key word here, meaning being a part of creation itself. If He was the Creator of ALL things then He could not be OF creation.
Martin_from_Brisbane on December 21st, 2008

DOF says “Even if I take Firstborn to symbolize preeminence (which I do) the scripture still says “the Firstborn OF all creation”. OF being the key word here, meaning being a part of creation itself. If He was the Creator of ALL things then He could not be OF creation.”

…then Scripture is at war with itself. Surely, you have read the following verses “or 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: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (Col 1:16-17). Do you really think Paul would say one thing in verse 15 and then flatly contradict it in the very next sentences?

In the video, Huggins makes a very good point about not separating words from their meanings. Surely, “all things”, means “all things”?

I grant that the term “firstborn” makes us pause for thought, but I would agree that you’re on the right track in thinking in terms of “pre-eminence”, or perhaps even the “heir”.

The use of “firstborn” in a figurative sense is entirely consistent with the corpus of Biblical terminology. God calls Israel his “firstborn” in Ex 4:22, but he irony is that the literal “firstborn” was not Jacob(a.k.a. Israel) but Esau (Gen 25:25-26). The question that the author of Genesis points us to is not who was born first, but who was it that inherited the promise of his forefather, Abraham?

Similarly, Paul points us not to a question of whether Jesus got created first, but whether he is the inheritor of his Father’s work. If we read on and find that “all things” will be passed into the Son’s hands as his rightful inheritance, then we’re right on track with Paul’s line of thought.
Megan on December 21st, 2008

Sorry GB, I completely missed your question until now. The reason why Jesus was born of a woman, lived, and died, is because he was God in the flesh, the god-man. That was the whole point of Him coming to earth…..to be born, just like we humans were, to live, and to die and save us on the cross. That is why God sent Himself to us, because the only way to save us from our sins was for God Himself to be the ultimate sacrifice. God was the sacrificial lamb. I realize that Mormons believe Jesus’ death also exonerates us, but they believe that God was once a human who worked His way to godhood. In contrast, Jesus was not born to work His way to godhood, He already was God. He did not earn anything. His whole purpose of being born as a human was to tell us how to be saved, and to be the sacrificial lamb. Fully God and fully man.
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.”
I know we’ve already been over these verses before (I’m willing to bet that every person on this blog knows these verses), but look at them again. Jesus is the Word. So the verses say, Jesus was in the beginning (borrowing the language of Genesis 1:1), He was with God, and, most notably, He WAS God. All things were made through him (Genesis 1).
Jesus was fully God and fully man. That is why in the gospels He displays God-like characteristics. But He also displays human characteristics too. He got tired, scared, angry, etc. He even got hungry, just like us! John 1:14 refers to Jesus as the Word again: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jesus, the Word, became flesh and dwelled among us. God came to earth to dwell among us.
Megan on December 21st, 2008

Continuing on….
It’s important to remember that Jesus, God the father, and the Holy Spirit have different roles and functions. Jesus has many roles, (great high priest, sacrificial lamb, co-creator of creation, our mediator, etc), but one of his roles is as the Son.
In Heb. 1:3 says, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. ” There’s that reference to the logos (like in John 1). The Greek word for exact representation in this verse is the word “charakter”, meaning “exact representation or exact duplicate. All the attributes/powers God the Father has, God the Son has as well.
Oh, and I just found a wonderful passage for you, GB. I know Mormons interpret this differently: Heb. 2:14-15 “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death–that is, the devil–and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.” Vs. 17-18 “For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” Compare that last sentence to Heb. 2:10 “In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.” (“Made perfect” refers to Christ being ideally suited to His task, or having completed His mission).
I am sure there is more that could be covered, but this is what I came up with.
falcon on December 21st, 2008

Joseph Smith reduced God to a managable size. He took the majestic diety of the Bible and turned Him into a super man. Basically, Joseph Smith’s god is a reflection of what Joseph Smith saw hmself to be; not a mere mortal but a god in embryo. The sadness of all of this, of course, is how willing people were then and today to abandon God and settle for a lesser god in the hope that they too can become one. Mormons don’t even understand the first commandment. These are truly lost people. In reality they are no different than people who carve images in wood and worship them.
GB on December 21st, 2008

Sharon,

After seeing that the people at “antioch” have said that the scriptures are “God breathed”, I have absolutely ZERO respect for their scholarship.

No real scholar would profess such drivel.

But thanks for the entertainment.

As John would say “Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.”
GB on December 21st, 2008

Megan,

You failed to answer my question and instead posted a lot of non-interesting self contradicting mumbo jumbo.

Until you got to the “For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way”, which again confirms what I have been saying. Thank you for sharing it.

“For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way”, clearly expresses that an independent (in person/being) and greater power (that would be God, the Eternal Father) “made” Jesus “like his brothers in every way”. That is very interesting.

This phrase also clearly expresses that Jesus had brothers. This is very interesting also. Do you even believe what the Bible says?

Merry Christmas,

And as John would say “Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.”
Megan on December 21st, 2008

GB, please give me the benefit of the doubt. I thought your question was, what is the difference between the LDS belief that God the Father was born of a woman and lived a human life, vs. the Biblical teaching that Jesus (we would say God the Son) was born in human form on earth. I am sorry if you found my reply to be “self-contradictory mumbo jumbo”, but perhaps it would help if you re-stated your question. As far as Jesus being our actual, literal brother (meaning, we have the same mother and father), that is a figurative term, meaning he became a part of the human race, and is also our advocate. We could discuss that term further if you would like.
Also, would you please try to remember that there is an actual human being on the other side of this computer?
Martin_from_Brisbane on December 22nd, 2008

If God was not once a sinner, then you are not like him. His path is not your path; he didn’t need a saviour but you do.

Unless, of course, you are not a sinner (1 John 1:8). But then you wouldn’t be like me.
Martin_from_Brisbane on December 22nd, 2008

Megan,

If its any consolation, I liked your posts.

I also think its quite important, in the context of this discussion, to bang on an on about the monotheism of Second Temple Judaism, which stood in stark contrast to the polytheism of surrounding pagan cultures (not too dissimilar from today’s western culture). “Hear, Oh Israel, the LORD your God is one God…”.

I was reminded about this last night in the Nine Lessons and Carols service that we went to. One of the readings was from Genesis 22. In Gen 22:16, God says “By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD…”

Why does he swear “by himself”? Because there is nothing greater for him to swear by. Never was, never will be.
Martin_from_Brisbane on December 22nd, 2008

…then I suggest listening to the rest of the video.

I grant that you won’t find a discussion on “essence” in the Bible, but neither will you find a discussion on “refined matter”. You certainly won’t find a discussion about God living on a planet near a star called “Kolob”, or about his wives and forebears.

Another important point needs to be made; that the Nicene Creed, and others, is subordinate to Scripture. It is derived from Scripture, and it does a pretty good job of describing the God that is described in Scripture. I have some sympathy with the perceived problems folks might have with the Creeds or the Trinity (though these problems are usually associated with some dissatisfaction with orthodox churches) , but I still maintain that they are much better than any of the various alternatives that have been advanced since NT times.
falcon on December 22nd, 2008

The pathetic state of Biblical hermanutics within Mormonism is one of the reasons the faithful buy into these absurd and truly blasphmous characterizations of the nature of God. Their dependence and arrogance concerning their supposed “revelation” leads to scriptural interpretations that remind me of amateur night at a third rank comedy club.
When speaking of the traits of God, A.W. Tozer said: “….words which are proper and necessary when we are considering created beings but altogether inappropriate when we are thinking about God. We must break ourselves of the habit of thinking of the Creator as we think of His creatures. It is probably impossible to think without words, but if we permit ourselves to think with the wrong words, we shall soon be entertaining erroneous thoughts; for words, which are given us for the expression of thought, have a habit of going beyond their proper bounds and determining the content of thought. ‘As nothing is more easy than to think, says Thomas Traherne, ’so nothing is more difficult than to think well.’ If we ever think well it should be when we think of God.”
Mormons do not “think well” when they think about and express who they say God is. I want nothing to do with a concept of God that reduces Him to nothing more than a more refined version of ourselves, those He created. Mormons, in their pursuit of God have nothing more than an image of familiar Mormon male friends. They’ve traded gold for fools gold.
Megan on December 22nd, 2008

Thanks, Martin, but I do need to remind myself not to take comments personally on here.
In any case, GB, do you think you could be more specific in your reply? You said that my comments were “self-contradictory”? How so? If you make a blanket statement like that, it would be very helpful if you explained exactly why. I gave an exegesis of specific passages that describe Jesus’ role and function as the Son of God. Would you care to explain the parts you disagree with? Looking for further discussion.
mrgermit on December 22nd, 2008

Liked your post and the insight on JS’ inconsistency. And if I were to make a ‘description list’ for JS, his work, his writing, his thinking, INCONSISTENCY would be in the top five for sure. This may strike most newcomers as just plain weird, but really , it’s not any different than many a “huckster” in both business and religion. The goal is not consistency, or staying true to a message, the goal is being BELIEVABLE to your target audience, and JS was able to pull that off, as was Elmer GAntry, etc,.etc.

This fluctuation of message, the prophet’s message for today’s generation, is as good a place as any to land on a start a discussion. Those with ears to hear will take note, and pull on the first of many a thread.

One irony is that the believing LDS take what is really a character flaw and turn it into a “plus”: God is just tailor making the message to THIS generation……that is just SLICK

Examine everything, hold fast to that which is good (after it has been well examined).
Sharon Lindbloom on December 22nd, 2008

For the benefit of other readers, Antioch (web site) did not produce Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words. They merely posted the information. Here is info about the scholar who compiled the dictionary: “The late W.E. Vine (1873-1949) is recognized as one of the world’s foremost Greek scholars. His expository dictionary, first published in 1939, represents the fruit of his lifetime labors and is an unsurpassed classic in its field.”
Martin_from_Brisbane on December 22nd, 2008

DOF said “You are asking questions that God has simply not revealed. ”

I contend that God has not revealed these things because they are not true. In fact, what he has revealed is the exact opposite, for example (and for the seventy times seventh time), Isaiah 44:6 “…apart from me there is no God”.

Why is this so difficult to understand? If Joseph Smith got it right, then Isaiah got it wrong. If Isaiah got it right then Joseph Smith got it wrong. Why carry on the charade? Why not honestly acknowledge that the two cannot be reconciled?
GB on December 22nd, 2008

Sharon,

(Nevertheless, non “hyper critics” also grant that “origin” or “active cause” is (at times) a valid interpretation of “arche.”)

Clearly shows that the usual interpretation of “arche” is NOT “origin” or “active cause” but beginning or original.

I find it interesting that you and others are pushing the unusual interpretation to try to show that the usual interpretation is inaccurate.

Just because Grace “is (at times)” a persons given name doesn’t mean that a given use of it was referring to a person and not a gift.
Martin_from_Brisbane on December 22nd, 2008

At the risk of getting a little off-topic, I as ruminating on the idea of the Son, being the “first-born”, or rightful inheritor of the father’s work (e.g. Heb 1:2).

The trinitarian view provides, I think, a very powerful argument against the skeptics who say that God is self-centered or self-serving. The trinitarian view holds that the Father creates the cosmos through the Holy Spirit in order to give it to the Son. The Son comes into his inheritance by giving himself in perfect obedience to the Father. This reciprocal giving and obedience is anything but self-centered or self-serving; it looks more like perfect love. And so we can safely conclude that God is love, because it is his very nature to give.

I suggest that the current slew of atheist propaganda has been allowed to fester because the trinity has been de-emphasized by the church (in the broadest sense). Chief among the villains, then, is the LDS leadership, which claims to represent the true Christian Gospel with its anti-trinitarian message.
Megan on December 22nd, 2008

Martin, I guess I am re-stating some of your comment, but here’s some of what I have:

God the Father spoke creative words to bring the universe into being, but it was God the Son, the Word, who carried out the creative decrees. (John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col 1:16, Heb. 1:2)
There are also distinct functions in the work of redemption. God the Father planned redemption and sent his Son into the world (John 3:16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:9-10). The Son obeyed the Father and accomplished redemption for us (John 6:38, Heb. 10:5-7, etc.) God the Father did not come and die for our sins; neither did God the HS.
The role of the Father in creation and redemption has been to plan and direct and send the Son and Holy Spirit. The Father and the Son relate to each other as a father and son relate to each other in a human family. The father directs and has authority over the son and the son obeys and responds to the directives of the father. The HS is obedient to the directives of both the Fathe and the Son.
The persons of the Trinity are equal in all their attributes, but they differ in their relationships to the creation. The Son and HS are equal in deity to God the Father, but they are subordinate in their roles.
GB on December 22nd, 2008

Megan,

“That is why God sent Himself to us”

Wrong!!! God sent His Son! The Bible is clear on this.

“but they believe that God was once a human who worked His way to godhood.”

Although that doesn’t accurately describe our belief, I will say that what we believe is clearly stated in John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what HE SEETH THE FATHER DO: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (emphasis mine).

If you look at what the Son did, then you know what the Father also did. Jesus, Himself said it and we believe it. Now you are free to not believe Jesus if you don’t want to.

“In contrast, Jesus was not born to work His way to godhood, He already was God.”

Another inaccurate representation of our beliefs. We believe that prior to the physical creation, the Father fully authorized the Son, thus making the Son divine. This is clearly shown in John 1:1-3.

But Jesus Himself declared that He had not yet achieved perfection. Luke 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Now, one might ask what happened to Jesus on the third day that would complete His quest for perfection?

And yet Jesus Himself had already declared that the Father was already perfect and that we should strive to be like Him. Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Now I ask you, can you obey Jesus and be perfect like the Father without putting in effort?

“Fully God and fully man.”

Why do you use phrases that are NOT found in the Bible and yet claim that the Bible is complete and inerrant? That is a contradiction.

“He was with God,”

That makes two beings any way you look at it. And you have to go through a lot of mumbo jumbo to try to make the two beings into one being.

“It’s important to remember that Jesus, God the father, and the Holy Spirit have different roles and functions.”

True, because they are separate beings.

In Heb. 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, . . .

In other words Jesus looks exactly like His Father. Again this verse clearly shows them to be separate beings/persons.

“The Greek word for exact representation in this verse is the word “charakter”, meaning “exact representation or exact duplicate.”

Again, you are clearly stating that They are two separate beings. One is the duplicate of the other. Thank you for supporting my position.
Megan on December 22nd, 2008

GB, the Bible (and Jesus himself) claim that he was both the Son of God, and, also, that he was God. That is why we believe that God sent Himself to us. How do you reconcile those 2 claims? In John 1:1-3, the verses state that Jesus was both with God and was God. I would love to get into evidence for Christ’s deity in the Bible. Maybe we could do that next. But let’s really look at the phrase “made perfect”:

This phrase in the verses you cited doesn’t mean made without sin, it means ideally suited to a task. When Jesus says in Luke 13:32 that on the third day He will be perfected, it means that his sacrificial task will be finished, and that He will be made perfected for His task.
Let’s look at Hebrews for more of this kind of context:
Much of Hebrews describes Jesus as our ultimate High Priest. Just as some background, the book was probably written to Jewish Christians who were starting to have doubts about the fact that they did not partake in the temple’s rituals. Hebrews stresses over and over the superiority of Christ to the old covenant. It seems that some readers were tempted to revert to Second Temple Judaism (it is almost certain that the temple was still standing at the time of the letter). The letter shows its readers that they don’t need temple rituals and high priests; they have the Great High Priest, Jesus Himself.
Through suffering Jesus was “made perfect” (Heb. 2:10). Jesus was made fit vocationally and functionally (we both agree that Jesus has specific roles), but not morally. Through suffering Jesus was fashioned to perform his role in the work of redemption. He is the mediator who makes peace between God and man. Jesus participated fully in human life, and was made perfect for his task in the sense that His suffering joins Him completely to humankind.
This is the context of Heb. 2:10-18, 5:7-10, 7:26-28.
“Made perfect” can also be seen as being “made complete”. Heb. 10:1-18, and specifically Heb. 10:12 are examples of this. “But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.” Heb. 1:3 also mentions Jesus sitting down after providing purification for our sins. One thing that is so interesting is that in the old temple, there were no chairs. The priests’ work was never finished. But Jesus, being both the sacrifice AND the High Priest, sat down afterwards. His work was finished. There were no more sacrifices to be made, representing completion.
Megan on December 22nd, 2008

Okay, I made an error. In Heb. 10:1-18, it does not refer specifically to Jesus being “made perfect”. But it does describe a sense of completion (Jesus sitting down). Off to bed…I am tired.
MDavis on December 23rd, 2008

Hopefully this comment will attach to the appropriate person. This is in response to Martin_from_Brisbane:

Your comment on December 22 was interesting to me, “I grant that you won’t find a discussion on “essence” in the Bible, but neither will you find a discussion on “refined matter”. You certainly won’t find a discussion about God living on a planet near a star called “Kolob”, or about his wives and forebears.”

I find an assumption in there that we LDS do not make, that is, that all authoritative answers must derive from the Bible. Thus, the strawman argument (intentionally or unintentionally) is made through two incompatible assumptions. The argument basically boils down to since essence is not talked about in the Bible neither are other LDS topics covered. Therefore it is ok for the Creed to talk about essence because LDS talk about other things not in the Bible.

Your second part of your comment interests me too:

“Another important point needs to be made; that the Nicene Creed, and others, is subordinate to Scripture. It is derived from Scripture, and it does a pretty good job of describing the God that is described in Scripture. I have some sympathy with the perceived problems folks might have with the Creeds or the Trinity (though these problems are usually associated with some dissatisfaction with orthodox churches) , but I still maintain that they are much better than any of the various alternatives that have been advanced since NT times.”

You say that the Nicene Creed is subordinate to Scripture. This is saying it is, in essence, of lower rank than Scripture. I could not disagree anymore considering this Creed is an attempt to describe God. What more important topic in all of faith, religion, scripture, etc. can be to describe the very author of our existance!

Regardless of whether the ranking is of these two texts (higher or lower), it is a fact that the Nicene Creed’s impact has been far and wide. The very nature of who God is comes from this creed as fact in most faiths today. It has usurped Scripture and placed itself on the throne as fact.

To me, the creed is illogical. No group of people would have to come together to discuss the qualities of God. Any acceptance of this fallacy is to accept the very fact that the Apostles, who knew and saw the Savior did not know who He was or His very nature. The logical conclusion to be made is the simple fact that the knowledge the Apostle’s had was taken away, distilled or perverted. Thus, there were many opinions and a vote…a vote was taken as to who God was. God was reduced to brilliant political move done by an Emperor trying to make everyone happy.
falcon on December 23rd, 2008

Megan,
Thank you very much for your posts. They help calm me down. I must admit, I get beyond irratated when Mormons reduce God to nothing more than an image of themselves. The pulling God down and diminishing Him to nothing more than a god among millions of others is not only Biblically inacurate but human lunacy. The harmony of God’s being is the result not of a perfect balance of parts but of the absence of parts. Between His attributes no contradiction can exist. God doesn’t need to suspend one to exercise another. In Him all of His attributes are one. All of God does all that God does; He does not divide Himself to perform a work, but works in the total unity of His being. Joseph Smith couldn’t find a place in traditional Biblical Christianity, so he did what all founders of heretical cults do. He attacked the nature of God, the inerrency of the Bible and God’s plan of salvation. He invented a new god, a new scripture and a new plan of salvation. No small ego had Smith. Mormons have decided to accept Smith’s invention and reject God and His Church, the mystical body of Christ. What a poor bargain indeed!
MDavis on December 23rd, 2008

falcon,

I do not believe that LDS “reduce God to nothing more than an image of themselves.” Quite the opposite actually. We realize our eternal heritage as children of our Father. We know who we are because we know who God is. That is not reduction, but rather that is expansion.

“The pulling God down and diminishing Him to nothing more than a god among millions of others is not only Biblically inacurate but human lunacy.” Failed assumption here. We pray to but one God, our Eternal Father in Heaven. It does not matter if there are millions of other Gods, we answer to but one. This is not pulling down but worshipping our Father in Heaven.

“The harmony of God’s being is the result not of a perfect balance of parts but of the absence of parts. Between His attributes no contradiction can exist. God doesn’t need to suspend one to exercise another. In Him all of His attributes are one. All of God does all that God does; He does not divide Himself to perform a work, but works in the total unity of His being.” There is no scriptural support for this statement. You contradict yourself here from your previous statement. You cannot on the one hand dismiss for human lunacy due to the fact of no support and on the other point to language and assumptions not supported either.

“Joseph Smith couldn’t find a place in traditional Biblical Christianity, so he did what all founders of heretical cults do. He attacked the nature of God, the inerrency of the Bible and God’s plan of salvation. He invented a new god, a new scripture and a new plan of salvation. No small ego had Smith. Mormons have decided to accept Smith’s invention and reject God and His Church, the mystical body of Christ. What a poor bargain indeed!”

Or restored what was once lost due to apostasy, the ultimate bargain or Good News.
Not “Those Abominable Creeds” again… « GUNDECK on December 23rd, 2008

[...] there is one thing that can send a Mormon straight to the moon, it is Those Abominable Creeds. Both Mormon Coffee and THE RELIGIOUS RESEARCHER have posts regarding the Nicene Creed. Published [...]
mrgermit on December 24th, 2008

MEGAN: I will echo Falcon here and repeat, GOOD POSTS; keep up the good work. I find a glass and a half of good merlot to be helpful when cranky posters get under my skin……just a thot.

falcon: good post as well, I’m sure you were not expecting the LDS audience to give you a rave review, but your points are well said. I am quite certain that JS had not a clue as to what he was REALLY doing regarding the nature of God or man, he was just winging it as seemed best to him, and from what I can discern (though he did have good friends) no one was about to correct or amend anything he said or did. That’s a red flag, FYI, for all of us TODAY and the current leadership situation we happen to be in.
I think JS had it in his mind to see man exalted to levels never imagined. Doesn’t seem that bad a goal until you realize that when the end justifies the means……..God got dragged down to our level so that we could all be ONE. Yukkkkk.
Anyway: good job and keep your truth and love lamps lit, everyone. MrGermit out

ps to MDavis: we will agree to disagree about how important it is or isn’;t concerning the “multitude of Gods”. I cannot, and will not, worship one God among many. Just my luck to get the minor league god with the lowest budget and lousy draft picks. No, I’ll stay with ONE TRUE God, but thanks for the offer.
Megan on December 26th, 2008

Falcon and Germit (or should I say MRGERMIT? ),
You are welcome. I don’t know if you remember, Falcon, but I was on here quite a bit a year ago. Not sure if you were on here then, Germit. I took a break from Mormon Coffee for quite a while because I used to get too worked up whenever I got on here. Last year I naively thought that if I just pointed out the verses that explicitly point to “one God”…..if they just knew that Smith had relations with married women….if they just knew that Smith preached that men live on the moon (moon-men)….well, you get the idea. The LDS worldview/scriptural view is so much more complex and convoluted than I originally thought (and I don’t mean that as a good thing, either). So, I’ve kind of given up. I can present what the Bible says (not that I’m always right, of course). I can pray that God uses our comments and this blog to plant seeds and minister to people. I can do my best to understand everything I possibly can about the LDS worldview/scriptural view. But it’s not up to me to change people’s minds on here. And besides, reading all the comments and doing my own Bible study has increased my knowledge of the Bible tenfold. I never would have examined scripture so closely if it wasn’t for my LDS friends in real life, and the commenters on this blog. I am sure both of you have experienced the same thing!
I think more than any thing though, coming up with the perfect biblical exegesis will not do much unless it is accompanied by prayer along the lines of 2 Cor. 10:3-5. A reminder to myself that whenever I put a comment up I should pray in that way. I have to admit I haven’t done enough of that!
falcon on December 26th, 2008

There’s no getting around what LDS believe about the nature of God. They can get all pious and wax eloquent about it but at the end of the day, the Mormon god is an exalted man…..period. It’s a fairy tale world the LDS live in with pappa gods and mamma goddesses procreating spirit children that can procur humaniod bodies and grow-up to become gods and goddesses themselves and rule planets and solar systems. They can see themselves in a long line of dieties. And the interesting thing is, the more bizarre this whole program becomes as it unfolds, the more Mormons battle to believe it!

Megan,
You and I have had a similar epiphany regarding apologetics with Mormons. I thought the same thing as you expressed in your last post. Not that I want to get into a discussion regarding “election”, but the more I do this the more I am getting bumped over into the Calvinist camp. I guess Mormons need a “I should have had a V8 moment” to get it. It’s so simple and obvious. My rage moment came about a year ago when one of the Mormon posters demanded evidence that the BoM wasn’t true. So I laid it out. His comment? “That’s not evidence because it comes from man, not from God.” WHAT?????? I screamed at my computer. I was beyond indignant. That’s when I learned that to the Mormon their revelatory testimony is, to them, reality and all evidence to the contrary is false. Then the other moment came when one of the Mormons said that Mormonism wasn’t in the Bible because there was a conspiracy to keep it out. Those two things put me over the edge. I couldn’t believe it. It’s encouraging to me when our exMo friends explain what it was like coming out of Mormonism. One told me it was like getting his finger tips torn off and new ones put on. That’s painful.
Keep writing Megan. The Falcon enjoys your posts and scholarship.
mrgermit on December 26th, 2008

Megan: I’m with you on the “ups and downs” of apolgetic blogging. Add to that the people , and I mean Bible believing folks (some of them), who just look at you like “why in the world would you WASTE TIME by doing x, y, and z ?? And sometimes I’m asking MYSELF exactly the same set of questions.

I recommend getting away from pure apologetics once in awhile, and finding something beautiful, humorous, true, or some combination of the above. “Blue Like Jazz” was good for me…….a web site run by Brant Hansen “Letters from Kamp Krusty” has been theraputic also. Walks, hikes, and nature trails come highly recommended. Reminding ourselves that WE are nowhere close to indispensable to what God wants to do, though we are dearly loved and cherished (indispenable to God’s own heart, perhaps…..)

anyway, keep your worship flame lit, and your brain waves awash with His pleasant surf
remind yourself that lost people are prone to act……..lost.

MrGermit
gundeck on December 26th, 2008

Megan,

I read somewhere that the process of leaving Mormonism, from the first questions until the final departure is 7 years. I do not know if it is true but I firmly believe that many people touch ex-mormons and help bring them to Christ. It might be a single verse or a single historical fact, but it is a help on a long process. I am also convinced that we may only get one chance to present the Gospel to a non-believer.

I applaud your effort and understand your frustration, in the end all we have is faith, prayer and patience.
falcon on December 27th, 2008

One of the basic problems with Mormonism, when it comes to understanding the nature of God, is the Mormon misunderstanding of the reason for the Councils that hammered out a basic creed which contains the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. There is this folklore meandering around Mormonism that supposes that an emperior called a bunch of people together for the purpose of “creating” a creed. Even an elementary understanding of the historic backdrop from which the Creeds emerged blows that concept out of the water. The purpose of the Councils was not to establish doctrine, but confirm what the apostles and church fathers had articulated and handed down regarding the basic tenents of the faith. The idea that the original was “lost” and had to be restored by Joeseph Smith may make it out in the wards, but anyone who takes the trouble to do some research can see through Joseph Smith’s self-serving and delusional proposition. For example, the thinking about the Trinity did not begin with philosophy but with the apostolic text, the Scriptures. Reading Paul’s benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:13: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” This was written in the early 50s. What we find embedded in this statement is a very early oral tradition that understands God in a triune way. Irenaus of Lyon (130-200) wrote in Against the Heresies: “What if there should be a dispute about some matter of moderate importance? Should we not turn to the oldest churches, where the apostles themselves were known, and find out from them the clear and certain answer to the problem now being raised? Even if the apostles had not left their Writings to us, ought we not to follow the rule of the tradition that they handed down to those to whom they committed the churches?”
There is no ancient written record or oral tradition for Mormonism. Joseph Smith created it out of whole cloth. Something can’t be lost if it was never there. Grasping at staws, Mormons must come up with plots, conspiracies and a total disregard for historical accuracy in order to perpetuate a myth and a hoax created by Joseph Smith. It wouldn’t matter much, I guess, if the stakes weren’t so high.
mrgermit on December 27th, 2008

GUNDEK: i’ve seen the exact same statistic used in context with the Muslims, so maybe someone applied it to the LDS as well, I don;t know. Interesting that the two faiths work (seems to me) basically the same:
1)accept the prophet (JS or Mohammed)

2)everything else (logical or not, consistent or not, what has been up to now known as moral, or not) then follows

this being the case, whether it’s exactly 7 yrs or not, the point is that this “trust in the prophet as the basis for truth” is a high mountain to climb, and the social, emotional, communal fallout is great for those who make the journey.

And yet there are some bold and Jesus loving enough to make the trip. Praise God for His ability and desire to find the lost coin, the wayward sheep (like ME). HIS love is so much bigger than any fog of darkness and error.

PRAYER intention: please pray that my step daughter would wake up and smell the mormon coffee and allow their daughter to go to something other than an LDS church, and that Gabrielle would not be too scarred by the experience. And that all this could happen quickly. THANKS MrGermit

PS: the fact that we (Gab’s folks and I) were able to talk about this over the holidays is a total God thing, all praise is due HIS name, HE loves us so much more than we love each other…..
GB on December 27th, 2008

Megan,

As far as John 1:1-2 is concerned, just look at the Greek. Literally it is translated (and I will add the definite article “the” from the original Greek in the proper locations) as;
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning toward the God.

The Greek is very clearly speaking of two separate beings.

If you want to get a better understanding of YOUR monotheism problem you could read evangelical scholar Michael Heisers peice here.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/MonotheismProblem.pdf

Although I don’t agree totally with his conclusions, I find his work honest, logical and thoughtful.

The supposed statements of “monotheism” found in the Bible are statements of preeminence NOT exclusion.

Being made perfect or becoming perfect means exactly that. Jesus, at His resurrection became perfect. Perfect in being, having an immortal body of flesh and bones from which His spirit would NEVER again separate.
DefenderOfTheFaith on December 27th, 2008

Martin,

You wrote that the scriptures are at war with each other if you follow my line of thinking. You then go on to state that “Surely, “all things”, means “all things”?”

And so then we go back to the age old question of whether God created evil. If I follow your line of thinking then I would have to accept that God created evil, which to me is blasphemous.

I just find this discussion silly because Huggins is suggesting that I must take all things in the scriptures exactly as they read. ie Christ is the God who created “all things” and so is he willing to then say that He also created evil? I doubt it, but I am curious as to what you think.
DefenderOfTheFaith on December 27th, 2008

Martin,
I am surprised that you would quote Isaiah. Here we have Jehovah speaking. From a trinitarian perspective if there is a God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit how would this statement make any sense? Wouldn’t Jehovah mention that there is also God the Son and God the Holy Spirit and they are one God in this statement?

There is no God beside Him as far as we are concerned.

I would submit that the Trinity theology was made up by the early church for one reason. They were being charged with Polytheism. Something the 1st century church was willing to take on the chin, because that is exactly what they were teaching, that God the Father was a seperate being from the Son. Not so in the third century. Smith is simply teaching the same doctrine as found in John 17 and I see no conflict with Isaiah.
DefenderOfTheFaith on December 27th, 2008

Falcon,

You said, “Mormons reduce God to nothing more than an image of themselves.”

If you lived in the time of Jesus I would have loved to see your reaction when the Savior told the multitude that “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father”. Your comments would have read like this instead

JESUS reduces God to nothing more than an image of HIMSELF.

When He appears, exactly what are you expecting to see? As for me, I expect to see Him as He really is!
Martin_from_Brisbane on December 28th, 2008

DOF said “I just find this discussion silly because Huggins is suggesting that I must take all things in the scriptures exactly as they read. ie Christ is the God who created “all things” and so is he willing to then say that He also created evil? I doubt it, but I am curious as to what you think.”

Its not just Huggins who suggests that you should believe Scripture. Don’t your articles of faith have something to say on the matter? If I remember correctly “We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, so far as it is translated correctly…”

Now, I think the ‘translation’ qualification is a red herring, so let’s move on to ‘interpretation’. The problem both you and I must face is that Scripture does say “all things”, and we the only way to deny it is to claim that we’ve got a better revelation than Scripture (btw, if this is the case, you’d better jettison your article of faith).

If we allow Scripture to guide our thinking, then we need to answer the age-old question of whether God created evil. Michael Palin came up with a theory in his film “The Time Bandits”, but it wasn’t at all Biblical. You’ll find a debate about the nature of Good and Evil in the ancient Greek Philosophers, but they weren’t guided by scripture either.

The Bible itself does not answer the question directly, but we do know that God cannot lie (Heb 6:18) and he cannot be tempted by evil (Jas 1:13). Philosophically, it is impossible for God to sin, because he would have to sin against himself, which would be oxymoronic.

My own view is that evil exists, but it exists in our actions, not as a created entity. It is definitely a present reality, but what is it and how did it get here? In reconciling Gen 1-3 with the corpus of scripture, my interpretation is that God has created an environment in which we can exercise free will, and we have chosen to act in ways that are contrary to God’s purposes for us.

The responsibility for evil rests squarely on our shoulders, corporately and individually. The Good News is that the Lamb of God has come, who bears away the burden of our sin (John 1:29, John 1:36). Blaming God for our sins is a sign that we have failed to acknowledge our culpability and that we are unwilling to turn from our sins.

I am sure we could get a number of opinions on the nature of evil from Christians of all persuasions. However, the Christian response is less “who created sin”, and more “what should we do about it?”
Martin_from_Brisbane on December 28th, 2008

MDavis said ” Therefore it is ok for the Creed to talk about essence because LDS talk about other things not in the Bible.”

Christians have been debating “essence” (and that long Greek word that I’ll probably misspell; homoousis?) for nigh on 17 centuries, so we’re not going to resolve it overnight. However, how else do you explain John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”? If the Word is somehow separate but the same, maybe describing him as being of the same “substance” or “essence” is not such a bad idea after all. The alternative is polytheism, which is repugnant to scripture.

MDavis also said “The logical conclusion to be made is the simple fact that the knowledge the Apostle’s had was taken away, distilled or perverted.”

Exactly what knowledge had been taken away? Perhaps the idea that God was once a mortal man, who married many wives and was not the ultimate creator of all things. Are you seriously suggesting that the Apostles believed something contrary to what they wrote? Or has the Bible been so badly corrupted that we can’t believe a word of it? If the latter is the case, why bother referring to it at all?

Contrary to your argument, the Creed does, in fact, summarize the Apostles’ view of God. It was written when the heretics came knocking at the door, and it shut them out.

As to the circumstances under which it was written, I’ll grant that Constantine wanted to unite his newly sanctioned Church and I see no stigma in that. I’ll also venture that it won the day because its proponents did a better job of proving it from Scripture than its opponents, namely Arius and his following.

Huggins does a good job in linking the development of the Creeds in the first few centuries AD and the circumstances about why they came about. He certainly gives a more researched and credible account than James Talmadge in his “Articles of Faith”.

I like Huggins’ conclusion; that the Nicene Creed does a much better job of describing the relationship between God the Father and God the Son than the alternatives put forward by LDS and other similar movements, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The opposing views fail because they either have to embrace polytheism, or they have to deny scripture. In either case, they profoundly depart from the beliefs of Jesus and his disciples.
Martin_from_Brisbane on December 28th, 2008

DOF said “I would submit that the Trinity theology was made up by the early church for one reason. They were being charged with Polytheism. Something the 1st century church was willing to take on the chin, because that is exactly what they were teaching, that God the Father was a seperate being from the Son. Not so in the third century. Smith is simply teaching the same doctrine as found in John 17 and I see no conflict with Isaiah.”

DOF, are you seriously proposing that Jesus and his disciples were polytheists?

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying something like this; Jesus and his disciples believed in two Gods (the Father and the Son) and it wasn’t until the 3rd century that the church forgot about it and kludged them together into one God, throwing in the Holy Ghost for good measure. It wasn’t until the appearance of Joseph Smith in the early 19th Century that the polytheism of the primitive church was restored.

OK, first up, you propose that the LDS church is indeed polytheistic. How do your fellow members feel about this? I’ll grant that JS was a polytheist in his later years (King Follett sermon and Book of Abraham), but he was monotheistic in his early years (Book of Mormon). I guess that gives you license to have it either way. Personally, I wouldn’t trust someone who so profoundly changes his story without acknowledging that his former views were wrong.

Secondly, you’re ignoring all the available evidence. Israel was monotheistic, Jesus and his disciples were monotheists, the Apostles were monotheists and we can see this in what they wrote.

If God has the “name above all names” (Phil 2:9), then there is no other name that is higher. If God is the “first and the last” (Isa 41:4, Isa 44:6, Isa 48:12, Rev 1:11, Rev 1:17, Rev 22:13), then there cannot be anyone before him or after him. The LDS doctrine of eternal progression fails because God is certainly not the first, because many have preceded him, and he is not the last, because many will follow him. Is God lying to us in his Holy Word?

So, if you embrace polytheism, then you reject a fundamental teaching of the early church. Of course, you don’t have to believe what the early church taught, but if that were the case, why promote the rather silly idea that you have somehow restored it?
Martin_from_Brisbane on December 28th, 2008

Megan,

You make a good and important point; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have distinct and separate roles. It seems they even have separate minds (Mark 13:32) and wills (Mark 14:36).

Much anti-trinitarian rhetoric is based on the idea that the trinity denies these scriptures. Actually, the ideas that deny these scriptures (modalism and Sabellianism) were the driving motivation for the correctives of the Creeds.

Getting to understand a trinitarian God is difficult for anyone with only a little Bible knowledge, but its understandable given the fact that most people start out with a concept of God that looks like a big bloke in the sky with a beard.

The question is whether we allow scripture to mould our understanding of God. I like the Creeds, but what were to happen if they weren’t there? I think that after considerable reflection of scripture, we’d come up with something that’s not too dissimilar to the Trinitarian formulae that are found in the orthodox creeds.
Megan on December 28th, 2008

Martin: ‘What would happen if we didn’t have the Creeds?” Absolutely nothing. Our doctrine would be the same. (I know you already know this, just thinking out loud). I wish Mormons would stop attacking the Creeds and just attack the scriptural basis for the nature of God itself. The Creeds are sort of a non-issue. Now that I go to an Episcopal/Anglican Church, we say the Nicene Creed at every service (it still gives me chills sometimes), but growing up in a non-liturgical church I only saw it a few times. Very occasionally the pastor would bring it out as a historical supplement to a sermon, but my general feeling of it at the time was as a sort of a historical oddity. Now when we stand and say it in unison every Sunday, I am thinking of the scriptures behind it. Thanks to you people here on Mormon Coffee, actually!
The Creeds are merely an expression of doctrinal truth, and, as you mentioned, were only written as a response to specific heresies of that era. Indeed, heresy about the nature of God has plagued the Christian Church since its earliest days, as is mentioned in the NT itself.
mrgermit on December 29th, 2008

Megan and all: it seems to me that what NOW functions in most churches as the replacement for the creeds are the official doctrinal statements of that particular church. These are statements that say: “We believe the bible to be saying x, y, and z. If you don’t like the doctrinal statement, then you sure won’t like the church itself. Like the creeds, the doctrinal statements are not scripture, but are built off of what that group believes scripture to be saying.

Here is my thot provoking question of the day: what do the Mormons have , if anything, that functions as a doctrinal statement , or doctrinal outline ?? Nothing comes to my mind, but my mind is remarkably small (if size matters…..). And perhaps with continuing revelation and all, maybe my LDS friends see such a statement as counterproductive. I’m wondering IF, and this is a big IF, some of the trouble in nailing down what the LDS really believe is the absence of just such a statement. Just wondering. MrGermit

Happy New Year one and all.
gundeck on December 29th, 2008

DOF,

I have a question regarding Mormon beliefs and do not want to misstate your views. Don’t Mormons believe that “Elohim” is the proper name for God and that “Jehovah” is the proper name for his son?

As you correctly pointed out the word used in Isaiah 44:6 for Lord is “Yĕhovah” (Strong’s H3068). The problem is that the word for God used in the same verse is “‘elohiym” (Strong’s H0430). So what you get is Jehovah claiming to be the first and the last and the only Elohim. A quick word search finds the same situation in Deut 4:35 and I Kings 18:45.

You should also understand that the Trinitarian nature of God does not change His essential Oneness. I think that the Athanasian Creed states this well when it says “…That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity… Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance…” Go check it out http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html I know that the Lutheran Church uses this Creed and I think it is beautiful in it’s simplicity.
GB on December 29th, 2008

Megan,

As far as John 1:1-2 is concerned, just look at the Greek. Literally it is translated (and I will add the definite article “the” from the original Greek in the proper locations) as;
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning toward the God.

The Greek is very clearly speaking of two separate beings.

If you want to get a better understanding of YOUR monotheism problem you could read evangelical scholar Michael Heisers peice here.

thedivinecouncil.com/MonotheismProblem.pdf

Although I don’t agree totally with his conclusions, I find his work honest, logical and thoughtful.

The supposed statements of “monotheism” found in the Bible are statements of preeminence NOT exclusion.

Being made perfect or becoming perfect means exactly that. Jesus, at His resurrection became perfect. Perfect in being, having an immortal body of flesh and bones from which His spirit would NEVER again separate.
GB on December 29th, 2008

gundeck,

Please explain how in Isa 47:8-10 Babylon is depicted with similar language? Is Babylon really claiming exclusion or preeminence?

Please explain how in Zeph 2:15 Ninevah is depicted with similar language? Is Ninevah really claiming exclusion or preeminence?

Also please explain the use of comparatives and superlatives in describing God if there is only one? Some examples are “the most high God” or “the highest God”, which clearly indicate that there are other Gods which hold stature, but of a lesser degree. See, for instance, Gen. 14:18, 19, 20, 22; 2 Sam. 22:14; Ps. 7:17; 18:13 ,47:2, 50:14, 57:2, 78:56, 82:6, 83:18; 91:9; 92:1,8; and Heb. 7:1.
falcon on December 29th, 2008

germit,
If you go to the website of the Community of Christ denomination of Mormonism, you get a real straight forward statement of faith/doctrine. They seem to me to be a lot more honest than the Utah LDS. They don’t sin by omission when it comes to what they believe. Utah Mormonism has raised obfuscation to an art form in order to look like Baptists. The other issue, of course, is that of continuous revelation. Utah Mormonism can change on a dime when it comes to doctrine and practice. To be a Utah Mormon, you have to have a high tolerance for ambiguity. That’s why Utah Mormons just shrug when one day you have to be polygamous to get to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom and the next day you don’t. That’s why blacks can’t than can hold the priesthood. That’s why “ancient” temple ceremonies can be omitted and the introduction to the BoM can be changed with a wave of the hand. You gotta love these folks.
GB on December 29th, 2008

mrgermit,

I am surprised that a hyper critic like yourself would be unaware of the LDS articles of faith.

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

3. We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul–We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Does that answer your question?
mrgermit on December 30th, 2008

GB: let me answer a question with a question: do your articles of faith (which I did cosider as I posted my comments) pretty much do it as far as your doctrine?? In other words ARE THERE ANY MAJOR OMISSIONS OR GAPS IN THIS LIST ??? I’d recommend thinking carefully before answering, I’ve got more to say, but I’ll wait to you deal with question #1. THANKS GERMIT
gundeck on December 30th, 2008

GB,

I don’t understand what these verses have to do with the question, “Don’t Mormons believe that “Elohim” is the proper name for God and that “Jehovah” is the proper name for his son?” They are not even using the same hebrew words. We were looking at ‘elohiym” (Strong’s H0430) and “Yĕhovah” (Strong’s H3068). The word translated “I am, and none else beside me” in your KJV is “opa ‘ephec” (Strong’s H0657). But I will be happy to look at these passages with you.

The 47th chapter of Isaiah is in a part of the book (chapters 40-55) where Isaiah the Prophet is showing how God’s glory will be revealed in the future. Chapter 47 is addressed to Babylon. In verse 8 we read Isaiah call Babylon a lover of pleasure who while sitting securly says ” I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children.” The key hear is that this is Isaiah quoting Babylon. Isaiah then goes on to Prophesy about what is going to happen to Babylon, proving that he is a true Prophet of God passing the Deuteronomy 18:21-22 test of a Prophet (unlike some people who will remain nameless). We see much the same thing in Isaiah 47:10-11.

The Prophet Zephaniah, also passing the Deuteronomy 18:21-22 test (unlike some others who will remain nameless), Is doing much the same thing but this time to Assyria and the City of Nineveh who arrogantly boasted “I am and there is no one else.” Re-read Zephaniah 2:13-15 and note the judgement and prophesy of wrath.

Of interest is that both of these Cities are, from the prophets perspective (and has been from ours) punished severely by God for making such claims.

You ask about the use of comparatives and superlatives and the fact that there is Only one true God. My first response is that the use of a superlative such as “most high” does not in fact mean that there is a lower. My second thought is that the use of a comparative between God and an idol or some other pagan god does not in fact give credence or validity to the effectiveness or for that matter truthfulness of said idol or pagan god. My third thought is that one of the overarching themes to the OT is neatly summed up in the Law (cf. Exodus 20:1-18) Israel’s constant fall into Idolatry and Gods righteous Judgment.

Finally let me recommend you read Ezekiel 28:1-10. Ezekiel was anther Prophet who passed the Deuteronomy 18:21-22 test (unlike some others who will remain nameless) he has a couple of things to say about Idolatry and God.
mrgermit on December 30th, 2008

GUNDEK: this actually follows your response to GB above.

LOL: was there something you wanted to add about Duet 18 in your response to GB ?? Think carefully, I think you are holding back…………….NOT.

LOL: GERMIT
gundeck on December 31st, 2008

I must commend you again on a consistent argument. You do not shy away from the polytheistic, henotheistic, or Monolatristic (however you choose to define your beliefs I will leave up to you) implications of your religion. You are consistent in your denial of monotheism and I commend you for your honesty in this.

I disagree with your exposition on John 1:1-2. With your approach we can just toss out John, Paul, Jude, Peter, James, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, the Cappadocians, Augustine, Boethius, Gregory, Gottschalk, Bede, Lombard, Thomas, Bradwardine, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Brunner, Edwards, Neibuhr, Warfield, Machen, Berkof etc. Thankfully the point of John 1:1-3 is also found in these verses, John 1:14-18; John 8:58; John 10:30; John 17:11; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2 etc. So all is not lost.

Your claim that “the supposed statements of “monotheism” found in the Bible are statements of preeminence NOT exclusion”, would have us remove or ignore all of the singular exclusive language in the Bible. The easiest example of this is the Shema Deut 6:4-5. I know that some LDS apologists claim that this was a late redaction or that Deuteronomy was written after the exile but this fails to deal with 1 Nephi 4:38 and 5:11-16 in your BoM and Matt 22:35-38 and Luke 10:25-27 in the New Testament.
gundeck on December 31st, 2008

Does your interest in the work of Michael Heiser stop at his
speculation on divine councils, or does it continue into his theories
concerning UFO religions? http://michaelsheiser.com/UFOReligions/

Far from denying divine councils the bible does shows us some clear things. First, there is only one Sovereign Creator and God, divine councils are used to show God’s power and authority. Second, unlike Ugaritic texts there is no creation myth for God (i.e. how God came into existence). In this the Bible is not ambiguous, simply He always existed and always will. Third, Unlike Ugaritic texts there is not a 3 tiered pantheon of gods only the 1 God and those doing His bidding. Fourth, no matter the language used for those in attendance at a divine council there is no power sharing and no counseling of God going on. God makes his decries those in attendance comply. Sixth, and most important in the Bible God is always portrayed as unique and incomparable to those in attendance. He alone is God.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be pointing to divine councils as if they show some form of Jewish theology of eternal progression or confirm Joseph Smith’s teaching of a divine council where in a premortal state, Jesus Christ was chosen to be the Savior, and we chose to accept the plan of salvation. Neither of these is seen in Heiser’s work. You must admit that Heiser does not at all present some form of premortal democracy where we accept the plan of salvation. All that you can claim from Heiser is that he proposes a form of early Jewish Monolatristic belief.

Is there more to be known about the workings of heaven? John Calvin warns us about this very subject…

“Not to dwell on this, let us here remember that on the whole subject of religion one rule of modesty and soberness is to be observed, and it is this, in obscure matters not to speak or think, or even long to know, more than the Word of God has delivered. A second rule is, that in reading the Scriptures we should constantly direct our inquiries and meditations to those things which tend to edification, not indulge in curiosity, or in studying things of no use. And since the Lord has been pleased to instruct us, not in frivolous questions, but in solid piety, in the fear of his name, in true faith, and the duties of holiness, let us rest satisfied with such knowledge.” Institutes 1.14.4

It does not take a very close reading of the Old Testament to see that many of the Children of Israel must have believed in and worshiped pagan gods. It also does not take a deep study to see what the results were.
Megan on December 31st, 2008

GB: So wait….if you are saying that I have a “monotheism problem”, does this mean you are going on record by saying that technically you are polytheistic? If so, you are the only Mormon I have come across who is willing to admit as such. I think it would be a real shock to one of my real-life Mormon friends if I told her that you are actually polytheistic. She firmly believes she is monotheistic, even if it is obvious that Mormonism is technically polytheistic.
On another note, would you please stop treating me as your enemy? (And I have noticed this kind of mindset from both sides on here). You believe X. I believe Y. Let’s explain our positions, see if there is any middle ground (there must be something), and leave it at that. I want you to know, that even though I disagree with you on most things, I respect you. What I mean is, even though I do not agree with your beliefs, I respect the fact that they are important to you. Let’s disagree and leave it at that.
“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1. Pet. 3:15).
gundeck on December 31st, 2008

MrGermit,

Thank you, I always feel privliged when asked to pray.
GB on December 31st, 2008

Megan,

Be honest! The trinity is not truly monotheistic doctrine either.

There is a difference between acknowledging the existence of other gods and actually worshipping other gods. It is obvious that you didn’t read the link that I gave.

As Paul said in 1 cor 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Instead of throwing out stupid accusations of polythesim why don’t you read some of the research of your own “Christian” scholars?

Perhaps you might consider reading “The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God” by Margaret Barker

Or perhaps you could read a review of it here; atheistalliance.org/jhc/reviews/RPbarker.htm
GB on December 31st, 2008

mrgermit,

What part of ” and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” don’t you understand?
GB on December 31st, 2008

John?

2 Jn 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

John clearly separates the Father from the Son, making two beings.

Peter?

1 Pet 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Peter clearly separates the Father from the Son, making two beings.

Paul?

Phil 1:3 Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul clearly separates the Father from the Son, making two beings.

James?

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

James clearly separates the Father from the Son, making two beings.

Jude?

Jude 1:1 JUDE, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
. . .
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude clearly separates the Father from the Son, making two beings.

Now I don’t recognize the others you have mention as having authority to declare doctrine, (also they are not found in scriture) but I did find this.

Justin Martyr?

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 48, “Now assuredly, Trypho, [the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father’s will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election.”

Justin Martyr clearly separates the Father from the Son, making two beings.

Enjoy!!

I suggest you read that article you pointed me to. The one by Peterson. It was very deep and well documented.
Megan on December 31st, 2008

GB: You’re right. You got me. I didn’t read the article. I probably should have read it before responding, but I had to take my daughter to the playground. I actually did plan on reading it though.
But you really caught my attention when you said that I have a monotheism “problem”. I was being honest. Christianity is monotheistic. I don’t think it’s a stupid accusation to say that Mormonism is polytheistic. We can get into all the verses in the Bible that say there is one God next.
So listen….I am going to go read that article, and I also am going to look into the background of 1 Cor. 8:5-6. Did you read 1 Pet. 3:15?
GB on December 31st, 2008

Megan,

Yes you have a monotheism problem. At least the evangelical sholar I pointed you to says so.

Also you have this to consider.

Near Eastern archaeologist William Dever notes:
“A generation ago, when I was a graduate student, biblical scholars were nearly unanimous in thinking that monotheism had been predominant in ancient Israelite religion from the beginning—not just as an “ideal,” but as the reality. Today all that has changed. Virtually all mainstream scholars (and even a few conservatives) acknowledge that true monotheism emerged only in the period of the exile in Babylon in the 6th century b.c., as the canon of the Hebrew Bible was taking shape. . . .
I have suggested, along with most scholars, that the emergence of monotheism—of exclusive Yahwism—was largely a response to the tragic experience of the exile.”
William G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 294–95, 297.

The problem you have is that the idea that true religion has always been monotheistic is being exposed as error.

It is apparent that the Old Testament was “scrubbed” (although not thoroughly) of its polytheism by the Jews around the time they were returning from their Babylonian exile.

Of course the “sheeple” of the “flocks” aren’t being told about this. It could call into question the rightness of the abuse heaped upon the Mormons over this issue by “well meaning” (ha ha) defenders of “the” faith.
Megan on December 31st, 2008

Sorry, GB. You have the air of one pulling a rabbit out of a hat and saying, “Ah ha! What do you think now?” I read the article a couple times through, and looked up some of the scripture references. Tomorrow I would like to go through the whole thing again and look up all the scripture references. I would also like to contact the author (he has an email) and see if he replies with answers to a few questions I have. Hopefully I will feel ambitious enough for all that.
For the most part, my views are unchanged. I had always learned that the Israelites didn’t follow God until God called Abraham and his descendents to Him. (I think that is right–feel free to correct me, anyone). Even then there was a lot of flux for a long time. Many of the Israelites had household idols and worshipped Ba’al, etc, which the Bible relates in detail.
I guess monotheism really isn’t the best term. But even the gods worshipped by the nations of the earth were created by God, they started out as angels, and, after they followed Satan, became demons. The thing is, when I always read the Bible and saw the word ‘god’ or ‘gods’ (in the context of a being worshipped by either the Israelites or other nations), I read the term to be interchangeable with ‘demon’/'demons’.
I don’t really see how this helps your case. Mormons point to the verses mentioning gods and say, see, this means that we will be gods in eternity. But whenever the Bible speaks of gods being worshipped, it is referring to demons. Not how Mormons like to think of themselves in the afterlife! The ‘hosts of heaven’/’sons of God’ in the Bible, on the other hand, is usually referring to angels, whose work is to praise and worship God. They are never worshipped themselves. Regarding demons/idols, I am specifically referring to the 2.3 “The Host of Heaven: Idols Only?” section of the paper, and especially the Deuteronomy scriptures.
Well, it is 12:02 and a New Year, so Happy New Year!
gundeck on January 1st, 2009

GB,

Once again what does this quote have to do with anything? The title of Ch 48 is “Before the divinity of Christ is proved, he [Trypho] demands that it be settled that He is Christ.”

This quote, “they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens…” is also from Justin Martyr dialog.

What you cannot seem to get is that Just like Trypho, Justin’s protagonist, John, Paul, Jude, Peter, and James were all Jewish. Each morning they said the Shema , “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” (Deut 6:4-5). You just seem to have difficulty with that fact that Jesus Christ taught this (Matt 22:35-38; Luke 10:25-27) calling this the greatest law.

But your insistence that the early Church was pagan is not all that you need to prove from Justin. You should also be able to prove a new multi-tiered priesthood, a new temple system replacing the Jewish temple, a new temple ceremony system, new levels of salvation, a new understanding on eternal progression to godhood with all this entails including a newly changeable god, that man and God are now the same species allowing for progression, some form of polytheism, henotheism, or at least a Christian belief and acceptance of monolatrism, etc. If you cannot find it in Justin this should all be able to be seen early on in the writings of the first and second century and be systematically different from Christian teachings of the third century.

I did read the article I gave you. Try reading some of the people from my list (the ones you don’t know). Start with Berkof’s Reformed Dogmatics. He may show you a different scholarship.
Arthur Sido on January 1st, 2009

GB, the gentleman you are quoting is not someone I would trust in matters of theology. From William Dever…

“I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed ’stories,’ often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information. That hardly makes me a ‘maximalist.”

So you are turning to a man who is not even a theist at all to support your polytheism. Hmm. Well done, who are you going to pull out next, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens? Christianity is monotheistic. We have one God who exists in three persons. Pointing out that Jesus and the Father are separate beings is not a refutation pf the Trinity. That is a key aspect of Trinitarian theology. So congrats, you fellas have pointed out a major theme of the Trinity to refute the Trinity. The Trinity is a deep concept, as you should expect from a glimpse of he very nature of God. Just because it requires some mental efforts to begin to comprehend doesn’t mean you should chuch the whole thing and buy into the fanciful musings of a farm boy from the 19th century with an active imagination.

BTW, ironic that you bring up the sheeple being misled by their leaders. Kind of like the way that the mormon leaders have tried to bury innumerable crackpot theories and blatant lies by their predecessors.
GB on January 2nd, 2009

Megan says “The thing is, when I always read the Bible and saw the word ‘god’ or ‘gods’ (in the context of a being worshipped by either the Israelites or other nations), I read the term to be interchangeable with ‘demon’/’demons’.”

Megan says “But whenever the Bible speaks of gods being worshipped, it is referring to demons.”

I have a question for you Megan. If these “gods” you speak of are really demons, then shouldn’t your “infallible” and “inerrant” Bible call them such?

When Paul mentions 1 Cor 8:5 For though there be that are called GODS, whether IN HEAVEN or in earth, (AS THERE BE GODS MANY, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (EMPHASIS MINE)

Would these “gods many” “in heaven” be demons?

There are other scholars who also have something to about monotheism.

“Jewish monotheism, which gave birth to the Christian movement, was not, as clear cut and simple as is generally believed.” John J. Collins “Jewish Monotheism and Christian Theology,” 82.

Also you keep implying that we worship these other gods. How many times do I have to say that there is a difference between recognizing their existence and actually worshipping them?

We only worship the Father and the Son, thank you.

If you call that monotheism, then we are monotheists. If you call that dithesim, then we are dithesist. Regardless of what you “call” us, we worship only the Father and the Son.
Enki on January 21st, 2009

Meagan and GB,
After doing a simple search, I found a link which came to the conclusion that a fallen angel is NOT the same as a demon. I am sure this isn’t the end all of the discussion, but its input. It does say that the same word is used to discribe an angel and a fallen angel, using context or modifier to indicate that its an evil angel. It remains to be seen what ‘gods’ are refering to.
http://www.biblestudying.net/angels-demons3.html

Another source describes the term “daimon” as having a rather neutral character, mostly meaning “replete with knowledge.” But there could be good ones and bad ones, protectors, guardians. “Daimons, in Greek mythology, included deified heroes.” So its possible that ‘daimon’ in a sense could be a person who attained godhood. Not necessarily immediately pejoritive, using the original greek understanding of the word.

“Socrates said he had a life-time daimon that always warned him of danger and bad judgment, but never directed his actions. He said his daimon was more accurate than omens of either watching the flights or reading the entrails of birds, which were two respected forms of divination of the time.”
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/daimon.html

Wikipedia places Socrates about 400 years before the birth of christ. So, this term ‘Daimon’ predates that of the New Testiment. The general pejoritive understanding and pejoritive use of the word seems particularly connected to Christian understanding from New Testiment times and or later.

Another source takes an in-depth look at “Demons” in the Old testement. In actual fact, the original hebrew does not use this term, and does not have an equal for what is understood as demon in english, even though some english translations use the word ‘demon’ in the O.T. Mostly its used in reference to pagan gods and ‘abhorrent things’. Its interesting to note that there is a comment on ‘elohiym’. ” gods [they did not know] (אלהים, elohiym)

http://www.crivoice.org/demonsot.html

——————————————————————————–
mrgermit on January 21st, 2009

ENKI: welcome to Mormon Coffee, or welcome “back”, whichever the case describes your travels through the blogospher. Hope you gain something of heaven thru your time spent here. a friend asked me about “preterism” just yesterday, maybe I can use the link you gave, and others, to get up to speed on that .

thanks will that be “expresso” or “postum” sir/maam ???

GERMIT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Video Now Online: “Those Abominable Creeds”, by Ron Huggins

97 Comments so far

Leave a reply

Subscribe

Join the Discussion

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Links

Stay Updated

Categories

Archives