Mormon Theism
Christianity is a monotheistic religion, but what is Mormonism? Mormonism has been called monotheistic, polytheistic, henotheistic, tri-theistic, and more recently, monolatristic. I don’t know if there is a defined theistic category that fits Mormonism, but let’s look at what these five are, and see which seems best suited for the LDS belief system.
I checked three sources for definitions; they all said essentially the same thing. Provided below are the definitions as found in the Dictionary of -Ologies & -Isms at the Free Online Dictionary (also see The American Heritage Dictionary at the same url and the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry Dictionary of Theology). These definitions are simplistic, but they are adequate for our purpose here.
- Monotheism: the doctrine of or belief in only one God.
- Polytheism: a belief in, or worship of, many gods.
- Henotheism: a belief in one supreme or specially venerated god who is not the only god.
- Tri-theism: 1) the heretical belief that the Trinity consists of three distinct gods; 2) any polytheistic religion having three gods.
- Monolatry: the worship of one god without excluding belief in others.
Monotheism/Polytheism
In June of 1844 Joseph Smith preached a discourse that has been sub-titled “Plurality of Gods.” He said,
“I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, ‘Abba, Father!’ Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 375).
Mr. Smith also said that humans must “learn how to be Gods…the same as all Gods have done before” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346), and claimed that whenever he preached on the subject of Deity, “it has always been the plurality of Gods” (ibid, 370).
If we accept the definition of “polytheism” as “a belief in, or worship of, many gods,” according to the teachings of Joseph Smith, Mormonism is polytheistic. But polytheism is a broad classification comprised of narrower sub-categories, including (but not limited to) henotheism, tri-theism and monolatry.
Henotheism
Early LDS apostle Orson Hyde taught,
“There are Lords many, and Gods many, for they are called Gods to whom the word of God comes, and the word of God comes to all these kings and priests. But to our branch of the kingdom there is but one God, to whom we all owe the most perfect submission and loyalty; yet our God is just as subject to still higher intelligences, as we should be to him” (Orson Hyde, “A Diagram of the Kingdom of God.” Millennial Star 9 [15 January 1847]: 23, 24, as quoted in The Words of Joseph Smith, 299).
This does sound like the definition of “henotheism,” a belief in one supreme God who is venerated or worshiped above all other Gods. Yet we should also consider the teaching of a later LDS apostle:
“Three separate personages – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 576).
Tri-theism
Perhaps Mr. McConkie’s statement quoted above would fit here as well. Tri-theism defines the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three Gods. Joseph Smith’s teaching agreed with Mr. McConkie’s:
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370; emphasis mine).
Monolatrism
Monolatry is defined as the worship of only one God, though there are others that exist. As we have seen above, Bruce McConkie taught that Mormons believe in untold numbers of true Gods, but they worship only the three Gods that pertain to this world. On another occasion Mr. McConkie said,
“We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense–the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to Him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator” (Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 60).
Indeed, the Book of Mormon instructs people to worship Christ (e.g., see 2 Nephi 25:29 and 3 Nephi 11:17), and some LDS leaders have agreed (e.g., Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign 11/1998, 70). Nevertheless, sixth LDS Prophet and President Joseph F. Smith taught the contrary,
“And yet, while we give the honor and glory unto the Lord God Almighty for the accomplishment of his purposes, let us not altogether despise the instrument that he chooses to accomplish the work by. We do not worship him; we worship God, and we call upon his holy name, as we have been directed in the gospel, in the name of his Son. We call for mercy in the name of Jesus; we ask for blessings in the name of Jesus” (Gospel Doctrine, 139).
Where do we put Mormonism in this array of isms? LDS author Rodney Turner wrote, “Mormonism is simultaneously monotheistic, tri-theistic, and polytheistic. There is but one God, yet there is a Godhead of three, and beyond them, ‘gods many, and lords many’ (1 Cor. 8:5).” (Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., “The Doctrine of the Firstborn and Only Begotten”).
What do you think? Is it unreasonable to call Mormonism “polytheistic,” as Latter-day Saints often assert? Is the designation “monolatry” a better fit? Because of the lack of consistency in LDS teachings it may be impossible to figure out where Mormonism really belongs. We might, therefore, invent a new term: Mormontheism. But I rather like Aaron’s conclusion. He said, “Whatever they want to call it, it’s spelled i-d-o-l-a-t-r-y.”
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
Comments (147)
Very good Sharon.
That really cleared things up for me! What we have in Mormonism is a confused mess. It’s theological amateur night when it comes to Mormonism. Mormons will come on here and jump up and down and swear they believe in only one god and then whisper in hushed tones “of this world”. In his book “Have You Witnessed to a Mormon Lately” Jim Spencer says that in talking to Mormons about the nature of God, the following must be done.
1. Commit them to the fact of their polytheism.
2. Demonstrate the philosophical basis for monotheism. Walk them through to the logical conclusion that God could not have been created.
3. Show them that the Bible is clearly and absolutely monotheistic.
Very simply Mormons will say that they believe that “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Mormons will also say that they believe they will become gods. Mormon theology makes it essential for all gods to have first been men. So who was the first god and where did he come from?
The bottom line is that there is no “first” god or father so therefore no first cause. There is no god following Mormon logic.
Joseph Smith said; “….the soul-the mind of man-the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the ery idea lessens men in my estimation…The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)
The basic revelation of God is contained in the first commandment. “Thou shalt have no other gods beside me.” For those interested in knowing what God says: (Isaiah 43:10-11; Isaiah 44:6-7; Isaiah 44:8; Isaiah 45:5-6; Isaiah 45:18-22; Isaiah 46:8-9)
God spoke these things to remind Israel that He had chosen them and He was their God. The foreign “gods” where no gods at all but merely images in stone and wood. Mormonism violates the primary command of God by creating false gods.
(Attribution:Spencer)
Sharon,
As important as the gospel is, I do not think one can have a meaning conversation about it with a Mormon until one has the right deity. You can call the various Mormonisms that are out there henotheism, tri-theism, or whatever – but what it is not is monotheism. If one accepts eternal regression and progression then there are certainly more gods in Mormonism than there are in any Hinduism.
Yes, the polytheism charge carries a negative connotation but does that make it any less true? From the lips of its own leaders, Mormonism recognizes multiple deities on par with, or even greater than, the God of the Bible. The end goal of every Mormon is some type of deification, so how is that at least not polytheistic?
I suggest that the word “monism” and more specifically “metaphysical monism” be inserted into the conversation because it allows for the many shades that exist in Mormonism yet attempts to get at the heart of the Mormon worldview. There is one universal substance and way that all must obey, even the gods, and this is in fact how the gods “learn[ed] how to be Gods”.
I think mentioning the words “pantheism”, “panentheism”, and “humanism” in the conversation would help as well. If none of that suits you the reader, then I always thought the good-old-fashioned word “heretic” fits Mormons and Mormonisms well.
[...] The guys from the Mormon Research Ministry (MRM) on their blog, Mormon Coffee, <a href="posted an interesting article on Mormonism’s teaching about God. Mormonism has been called monotheistic, polytheistic, [...]
Falcon,
Number three above: Show them that the Bible is clearly and absolutely monotheistic–can only work if we shared the same premise regarding the Bible, which is that it is the inerrant Word of God. I have often maintained and still state that the reason Mormonismm goes everywhere is because the biblical text is not authoritative for their lives. Their source of authority are their leaders and their personal testimony. They measure nothing against the Bible. It is important to understand that Mormons believe they are walking around in true light while we muddle through in the darkness. I remember being taught that the Bible was written for the Church and not for those outside of her, which is why they believe Christians don’t know the Bible from the proper perspective which, of course, is from the perspective of ongoing revelation that commenced with JS. Coming to the conviction that the Bible is authoritative for my life–and that God is ABLE to preserve His Word–was another big step in my journey from Mormonism to Christianity. In our quest to understand the Mormon “mindset,” please keep in my that they have been deceived, and are in the boiling waters of idolatry without knowing it.
Peace…
Maybe ‘trilatry’ – worship of 3 gods without excluding belief in others?
Mormons are monolatristic henotheists.
Very good jack. I am enjoying your posts. There’s a perspective there that never-been-lds don’t have. In “Essential Christianity” Dr. Walter Martin lists the areas that cults and heretical groups always attack in order to undermine the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. Knowing these has served me well as I do the mental check-off list of religious groups. The first item on the list is “the Bible is the Word of God”. What someone thinks about God’s Word will shape their entire theology whether it has to do with the nature of God or any of the other basic principles of the Christian faith.
The prophet-wolf Joseph Smith had to degrade the Bible in order to sell his program. Once he was able to do that it was a total free flow of consciousness on his part in coming up with any whack-a-do idea he wanted to test on the people who accepted him as having some new truth. Having a proper respect for and understanding of the Bible, shuts Smith’s religion down in an instant. However, believing in Smith, will take folks on a nefarious spiritual journey from which many don’t escape. There’s something in Mormonism however, that causes it to have difficulty maintaining the membership. I would say that at the heart of it, people sense that Mormonism has a view of God that is in opposition to the God of the universe.
Falcon,
I have been amazed by how many former LDS there are, and it does indeed seem to be growing. I currently work with a woman who got out of Mormonism two years ago. Yes, there is something about the teachings of Mormonism that causes LDS to have some sort of lingering doubt–a doubt they fight against throughout their lives whatever it may be (why else the hyberbolic expressions when bearing their testimonies). This is evidence of the Work of the Holy Spirit and the power of Jesus Christ to call lost souls to Himself. The Holy Spirit is working right now even as we type in defense of biblical Christianity. He is convicting lost souls of the false teachings of Mormonism.
Sometimes, we as humans think of repentance solely in terms of behavior. However, Peter’s Christo-centric sermon to “God-fearing Jews” in Acts 2 went right to the heart of their false beliefs about Jesus. This is the context to their question: “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter says: “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you.” They had to turn away from their fallacious thinking and arguments they had about Jesus Christ. Understanding Who Jesus Christ is is vital in having true relationship with Him. That is why Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter’s response was the correct response, as he clearly understood what it meant to call Jesus “Messiah.” When Mormons are asked who they say that Jesus is, the responses are synchristic, and synchretism is nothing more than false religion and idolatry mixed with truth. Ultimately, their response to Jesus’ question can be boiled down to “the guy who made it possible for me to save myself through my own works.” That is not the meaning of “Messiah.”
(I hope we leave the “be baptized” clause to another discussion.
)
Peace…
2 Ne. 31:21 “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.”
the last line of “The Testimony of the Three Witnesses” near the front of the Book of Mormon:
“And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”
Doctrine & Covenants 20:28 “Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.”
Sharon
thank you, i hope my pleading for this was inspiration for, finally, a topic that has some substance to it!
i may need a moment to stretch and warm-up, i sense this discussion will intensely ’semantic’.
…and for the record, a graven “cross” around thy neck is idolatry.
falcon and jack
should we all leave so you can have a more private conversation?
setfree
now it seems you are coming to a true understanding of the nature of God. Do you now see why we specifically use the term “Our Heavenly Father”?
Let us not forget our tried and true friend “context” when we look for true meanings of the word “God”…..and “unity”.
in accordance with brevity…
Henotheism is the most aptly sized box, if one were to try and cram mormon theology thusly.
quite literaly monotheism is not a scriptural requisite of any significance (especially those that sternly contend that the Law is merely a trick)…mono-worship is significant, but not mono-believe.
John 14:3
1 John 3:2
i would be curious to what Divine purpose the Ev believes our life is for….why did God place us here?…does He have any aspirations for us?, His children.
subgenius,
uh, what?
are you saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit IS ONE GOD somehow accurately represents what Mormons are taught to believe, their current doctrine, or anything close? are you saying somehow that “the context” of those passages helps a person understand how three beings who are “ONE GOD” can become three gods?
No, my friend. You are either snowed or snowing. This is only demonstrating Joseph Smith’s transition from monotheism to whatever else he felt like thinking.
Deut 10:17
1 Cor 8:6
setfree
as our article of faith proclaims our belief that God has yet to reveal everything, when He does it does not render what was before contrary…but man can mistake what once was….just as men mistake what is.
so, it seems that you may be courting modalism, which is not the mormon way. Not surprising would be the assertion that JS might portray his “inspired” work in a modalistic manner, especially given the “context” ot his times.(again consider context)
Consider the orthodox trinitarian view, where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are 3 distinct ‘persons’ each equal and eternal, each God.
Wha? how is that possible you say? As a man i must comprehend all things, right?
As many have said before, One in love, in purpose, but not in Being.
3 Nephi is full of ‘clarifications’ that your references are not to be considered modalistic….as well as Matthew 3:13-17 or John 14:28 or John 15:10, etc..
bottom line, the Bible clearly teaches plural gods, yet demands worship of One God.
Sub,
God placed us here for . . . to worship God and to enjoy Him is our chief end. God’s chief end is to glorify Himself.
“mono-worship is significant, but not mono-believe”
I do not think you can separate the two (Jn 4:24). The charge that Mormons have a different God is not a parlor trick. It is a genuine belief Christians have, it is Biblical, and it is shared by some LDS leaders. “Ev’s” maintain the creator-creation distinction that has existed since the first century. Our God is of a different woop-and-wharf, a different kind, than you or me or any god. In the OT the other Gods worship El-Elyon. They may be gods but they are not like Him; He is unique.
Mere intellectual ascent is not sufficient for true worship of God but it is necessary. Without the belief that God is one, a person is not “do[ing] well”; on this one even the demons exceed Mormonism in mere theological correctness (James 2:19).
subgenius,
Why did God place us here?
For His glory (1 Corinthians 10:31; Romans 11:36) and so that we could enjoy Him forever (Psalm 73:24-26; John 17:22, 24).
Which begs the question: Which of the three LDS Gods (for this world) are Mormons required to worship?
What are we to make of those (like President Hinckley) who worshiped more than one?
gundeck,
Isn’t it surprising how, without any collusion, two Christians rather quickly answered sub’s question in almost identical words. No malice, no hedging, just a straight, Bible-based answer.
Sub,
“the Bible clearly teaches plural gods”
I understand this is your position but you have got to do more than restate it for us to buy into it. If it was so clear why do we see worshipers of El-Elyon in the first century (both B.C. and A.D.) coming to a 180 degree conclusion from the scriptures? Was that a product of the Great Apostasy too? Was Israel, and thus the church, in total apostasy by the time Christ incarnated (even before the apostles were called let alone died)?
I have never on this site denied our belief that there are in existence other Gods, but I have disagreed with being placed as polytheists as that connotes worshiping all of them as well – kind of like you don’t like being referred to as the ‘A-word’. Henotheism- or Monolatry are better.
I like this quote which explains who we worship “By definition, God (generally meaning the Father) is the one supreme and absolute Being; the ultimate source of the universe; the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 317).
Setfree,
I don’t know if you got the email I sent a few days ago. If you did then you would have the answer to your question. If you didn’t then here are a couple of the quotes I sent that does answer your question -
“There is a oneness in the Godhead as well as a distinctness of personality. This oneness is emphasized in the sayings and writings of prophets and apostles in order to guard against the erroneous idea that these three may be distinct and independent deities and rivals for our worship” (Joseph F. Smith, “Answers to Questions,” Improvement Era, Jan. 1901, 228).
“Three glorified, exalted, and perfected personages comprise the Godhead or supreme presidency of the universe. . . . They are: God the Father; God the Son; God the Holy Ghost. . . . “Though each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are ‘one God’ . . . , meaning that they are united as one in the attributes of perfection. For instance, each has the fulness of truth, knowledge, charity, power, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith. Accordingly they all think, act, speak, and are alike in all things; and yet they are three separate and distinct entities. Each occupies space and is and can be in but one place at one time, but each has power and influence that is everywhere present” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 319).
Ralph,
Was that McConkie’s opinion? I am pretty sure it is because when I see non-Mormons quoting from Mormon Doctrine we are quickly rebuffed that your dear apostle’s book is “not scripture”.
I state this for a couple reasons and not just to come off as smarmy. Mormons are far from consistent on what constitutes scripture. Second, I could pull out several contrary quotes from men who equal, or surpass, McConkie in terms of rank. God’s God surpasses Adonai in the ways that Bruce mentions.
What’s it like to worship a “monotheistic” God, while that God is worshiping another “monotheistic” God above him, and while you’re being simultaneously prayed to and worshiped by 40 billion spirit children who consider you their “monotheistic” God?
Ralph,
I apologize for not getting back to you about that yet. I am meaning to print it out, and comb through it, before i reply to it.
However, to be clear:
Christians speak of 3 beings who are one God. There is just One God. Total. That’s it. This, by the way, is also what the BIble gives (contrary to subs verses, which are easily refuted, and have been – even by me- before on this site)
The Bible says ONE GOD. PERIOD.
You have given some quotes by various people, and basically what I see you saying is that
One God Equals Three Gods.
What’s more, you’re asserting that three men can “grow up” into gods, right? So these were, at least, three distinct people. Though “God” never changes, these three distinct people “grew up” into three gods, but you can just say they are “one god” cuz they’re so similar. Except they’re not. Cuz one didn’t have a body. And one had all of us spirit kids…
Oh, yeah, and then there’s that. There’s the fact that the Bible verses that the Mormons have picked out as being specifically about Elohim are actually about Jehovah… meaning, the ones where it says that God is the father of the spirits, and the one where it says He is the Most High. These are supposed to be (according to Mormonism) about Elohim, but they are really about Jehovah.
So… my conclusion:
Nice quotes, but…. seriously, can you really unravel all this mess in your head? I certainly cannot.
Right?
So my question again to you is, does this actually make sense to you?
I feel you Aaron. I must say our current God and dad seems a bit arrogant or even conceited compared to his brother-gods. All the statements in the Bible about how he is better than his siblings and cousins probably did not go over well at the council of the gods. But then again maybe his book was a reply to his jerk of a big-brother-god who boasted about how he was better than little ol’ Yaweh.
I especially liked this part “Each occupies space and is and can be in but one place at one time, but each has power and influence that is everywhere present”
Wow. No wonder you guys think you’ll make it to heaven. Your god (which ever one he is of the three gods) can only see so much. right? and hear so much. He’s probably over in Florida right now, so whatever we are doin today will go unnoticed. let’s live it up!
jack,
Again, outstanding work here. Our poor Mormon poster is having a real problem dealing with exMormons who have an effective witness for Jesus Christ and have rejected Mormonism. I always know when we are hitting the ball solidly. Keep-up the good work. I value your knowledge and friendship.
Hay Ralph at least you’re up front about the fact that Mormonism acknowledges more than one god. That does make Mormonism polytheistic regardless of how many gods you worship. Can I give you the Orson Pratt quote again? You know the one where he says that if you worship one of the gods you worship all of them. Now regardless of whether or not BY bought that concept or not, Pratt said it and we’ve learned that Mormon leaders/prophets/GAs are right sometimes and wrong other times but they are all right some of the time, that is if you want them to be right. Right? And BTW, these are the guys that are getting all the revelations. Great bunch to follow.
David,
Sometimes it is just to easy.
subgenius,
The problem with henotheism and the Law is that Deut 32:39 (among others) precludes that as a biblical option.
Hi Ralph,
I hope your commitments at work are going well.
Ralph, that statement by Bruce McConkie( Mormon
Doctrine,p.317 ) that you cited describing ” the
God we worship…” was interesting since those
words describe Almighty God. Do you remember a
couple of months ago that you admitted to me that
one day you also hoped to become an Almighty God?
I referenced the worship given to God in
Rev.4:8;19:6 , as what will also be said about
you one day when your eternal progression to God-
hood is attained . At that time I thanked you for
being forthright about your Mormon belief.
In my opinion, this is not the gospel.Rather it
is the interpretation of the scriptures by end-
times(latter-day) prophets. LDS prophets have
said that there is safety in their counsel, and
truth in their interpretation of God’s Word.
Sincere, honest LDS need to look afresh at Jesus’ counsel at Matt.7:15,24:24,25.
Thank you Jesus.
Ralph, I will not stop praying for you.
The denial of Mormons that they are not polytheists is simply a falsehood. It is the belief in or worship of many gods.
Young taught it:
“…He [God]is a being of he same species as ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and He is heavenly. He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of being that we are. Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our Heavenly Father, or not is a considerable mystery to many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider HIM OUR GOD, OR WHETHER HIS FATHER, OR HIS GRANDFATHER, for in either case we are one species – of one family – and Jesus Christ is also of our species.” (Discourse, Feb. 8th, 1857 JD 4:215-219)
A hierarchy of gods: (Adam-god’s father):
“How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated. It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his father who placed him upon this earth as we are with our earthly parents. The father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather…” (JD 9:148)
To be ‘exalted with the Gods’ Young taught:
“Elders, never love your wives one hair’s breadth further than they adorn the Gospel, never love them so but that you can leave them at a moment’s warning without shedding a tear. Should you love a child any more than this? No. Here are Apostles and Prophets who are destined to be exalted with the Gods, to become rulers in the kingdoms of our Father, to become equal with the Father and the Son, and will you let your affections be unduly placed on anything this side that kingdom and glory? If you do, you disgrace your calling and Priesthood.” (JD 3:360)
The primary thing that I do when someone wants to know the basics of Mormonism is stick to the Mormon teaching on the plurality of gods and eternal progression. That one point about Mormonism serves to inoculate people against the sweetness and light presentation that a person would get from the Mormon missionaries. The nature of God doctrine in Mormonism is a real turn-off to the average person and that’s why Mormons don’t lead with it.
Mormons want to flatter themselves with the notion that this is a “deep” spiritual truth and only really spiritually deep people can grasp it and accept it by faith. This is the same hocus pocus Joseph Smith pulled on his followers to get them to accept plural wifery. The implication of course is that someone who doesn’t accept these super deep spiritual concepts is really not spiritually up to snuff. We get spiritual exclusivity here that is well practiced by the cults.
To repeat an earlier observation, the more repulsive and off the wall a teaching is, the more the cultist likes it and clings to it.
not to offend the democrats or anything, but i see similarities between how Mormons see their religion, and how Americans saw our current president, before he was elected. Everyone sees/saw what they want(ed) to see. The church, like the president, says a lot on every side, and by doing so, seeks to conceal the bottom line truth of all they stand for. No upfront, straight forward answers. No definites. A lot of what people want to hear, a lot spoken on both sides of many issues, to pretend agreement with your personal preferences and beliefs.
Elohim is plural. That is a fact.
All Christians believe in polytheism if they believe the Bible.
“Elohim is plural”
I was wondering when this argument was going to appear. I am surprised it took so long. In the Tenach, where Elohim is used, the pronouns and verbs are generally masculine and singular. “Elohim” is translated many different ways. It can mean gods, God, goddess, angels, mighty, or judges. Moses is even called “Elohim” at one point.
The Bible uses “Elohim” in a wide variety of ways. To use the word by itself to “prove” some kind of plurality in the Godhead (even the doctrine of the Trinity) is merely to see in the word something that someone wants to see. The word is much more generic than that.
If the Bible so clearly teaches plural gods, gods on par with Yaweh, then why did native Greek and Hebrew speakers (in the first century before and after Christ) go in the opposite direction and affirm monotheism?
Gundeck wrote
Amen. End of story.
I mean, if there were other ‘gods’ higher than the one we’ve been subjected to, then they would be able to “deliver out of” YHWH’s hand.
Some time ago, we had an exchange here when I asked a Mormon what he was going to tell his spirit children when they started to worship him as God. Was he going to “fess up” and acknowledge that there was a “god” higher than him, to whom they should have been directing their worship?
It seems our Heavenly Father is unwilling to acknowledge any “gods” before him, which makes him a liar (if the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression has any truth to it). Perhaps he’s gambling on the fact that his heavenly father won’t get to hear about it?
Did anyone see one of my points above?
Polytheism these days has the connotation of WORSHIPPING more than one God, not just believing that there is more than one God in existence. It’s similar to how you Evs don’t like to be called by the A-Mormon word because of how the meaning these days seems to be more negative in connotation. That is why we don’t like to be named polytheists. Mutual respect would then ask that you stop using polytheist as we have stopped with the ‘A-word’.
We worship only one God – Heavenly Father, and we believe that He is the ONLY SUPREME Being for this world and all the creations around it (ie this universe). There is no other God that has anything at all to do with this sphere of creation. That is how God can say in Isaiah that He knows of no other Gods, because He has no influence in their creations and they have no influence in His. I have said many times before, it’s like children – they have only one biological father, no more, regardless of how many fathers there are in the world. I know of no other fathers for my children before me, nor any after me. That does no preclude the existence of any other fathers does it?
Setfree,
When a husband and wife are termed ‘one’, is this a literal meaning? No matter how intimate they get they are still 2 people. That is how I interpret the Bible with the verses you use for the Trinity.
Ralph,
Your rationalizing is showing.Your use of
analogies to prove your doctrine of God is’nt
working. You said that there is only One God
you worship, that being Heavenly Father, but
then you go ahead and use verses from Isaiah
to show this.Yet that verse you cited is
God the Son (Jesus) speaking!
Ralph, I wish you could truely experience the
truth of worshipping Jesus, it brings His
Father glory to do so.Perhaps when you see the
truth of Jesus being more than just your spirit
brother who happened to climb the ladder up to
Godhood before you do, that you’ll fall at His
feet and worship Him for who He is, the very
omnipotent Creator that Isaiah clearly worships.
Ralph argued for Henotheism by commenting
Ralph,
Are you saying that they (the Gods) don’t even talk to each other?
The most generous interpretation I can read in your position is that you’re saying that there’s a kind of “United States of Gods” in which the various Gods operate in their respective spheres autonomously, but cooperatively. The question that immediately comes to my mind is “how do you know they cooperate?”
Perhaps they are all submitted to a common ideology, or understanding, or to a common set of principles and ordinances. The trouble with this concept is that a “God” who is submitted to ANYTHING other than Himself is not “God” at all. This is the basis of the argument that the author puts forward in Hebrews 6:13-16
So, the “God” you describe is not “God” at all. Rather, the “thing” that this “God” is submitted to is the true “God”. Why worship a “God” who is controlled by something that’s beyond his power to change?
Also you refer to Isaiah 43 and 45. The God that Isaiah refers to defiantly refuses to acknowledge the existence of any other Gods. So, it looks like Isaiah’s “God” is exaggerating his influence and/or he is declaring war on the other “Gods”. So much for the notion that these “Gods” cooperate.
If you jettison the mess that Mormonism has made of this issue, it actually becomes really very simple. There is One God. He was there before everything else. Everything else derives its being from Him. He is the One we worship. He never changes. He is not subject to anything else. He dwelt among us for a while, so that we could behold Him as He truly is (John 1:1-14)
Mike R
I really like your posts, but the formatting is difficult to read (it appears all collimated to me). Is there something you could do with your browser?
Ralph,
A polytheist need not worship other gods in order to be a polytheist. Yes, the word can or does carry the connotation of worship, but I think most here know (and you have made your voice heard) that you only worship one god.
However, I believe there is a bit of merit in using the word “polytheist” when there is not for using he Mormon “A-word”. The A-word is meant to close down discussion and is used merely as a slander. The A-word could be considered correct, or true, but if that is the case then so are the terms anti-Christian, anti-Protestant, etc. The use of the word “polytheism”, at least here, is being used in an attempt to open discussion and nail jello to wall as it were.
With that all stated, I am not so sure Mormons do worship just the Heavenly Father. At the ward level, I have seen that many Mormons do in fact worship the Son and the Holy Ghost. Even if the Mormons that are doing so are doctrinally out of line, it is still going on with great frequency. Also, as mentioned in this post, their are Mormon leaders (going all the way up to the First Presidency) that have this belief and have disseminated it.
Lastly, Mormons add themselves to the worship mix as it should be the goal of every Mormon (at last the males) to become a god and be worshiped just his Heavenly Father is worshiped.
falcon commented on the Mormon doctrine of plurality of gods
falcon,
From some of the posts here, it seems that a lot of rank-and-file Mormons are uncomfortable with the doctrine. They minimize it, or ameliorate it, mitigate it or rationalize it.
Of course, the record shows that this is a central issue in the corpus of Mormonism’s “continuing revelation”, and there can be no doubt that Joseph Smith and his close associates considered themselves to be on the highway to deity.
So, this presents a problem. Do we address the Mormonism of the rank-and-file (technically, the “Preparatory Gospel”), or do we address the Mormonism of the Mormon prophets (technically, the “Full Gospel”)?
Also, the True Believing Mormons tend to play “Hide and Seek”. When confronted with something from scripture that opposes their beliefs, they jump over to continuing revelation. However, confront them with something from the continuing revelation that opposes their beliefs, they jump back to scripture. Its like trying to nail jelly (you call it jello?) to the ceiling.
I say, keep on posting the quotes from the Mormon leadership in full, and keep reminding us that these guys thought that they were making it clear and plain.
The fact that they could not agree with each other internally, and their “restored” Gospel looks like everything other than the Gospel that was believed and taught by First Century Christians (as reliably recorded in the Word of God) might just give the rank-and-file the bellyful that they need to jettison the entire enterprise.
However, as I have commented previously, its not enough to persuade people of the falsehoods in Mormonism if they do not come to rely on the truth in Christ.
Ralph,
You don’t want to be known as a polytheist so we should stop saying Mormons are (polytheists)? It hurts your feelings or it doesn’t accurately reflect the reality of Mormonism, or what? Here’s the deal Ralph, if you acknowledge that there are many gods in the universe, you are a polytheist. The idea, of course, is that Mormons want to be known as monotheists because it’s more palatable to the people they are trying to seduce into the sect.
In the past when we have discussed this subject, I’ve suggested that Mormons find themselves an orthodox Jew and give them the Mormon men progressing to gods and there being many gods in the universe and see if they agree with you. But I guess that the Jews are all apart of that great conspiracy that served to omit Mormonism from the Scriptures and history. Mormons are living in a parallel universe. There’s no doubt about it.
In the movie “Ben Hur”, one of the Arabs says to Ben Hur, “One God I can understand, but ONE WIFE.” The Scripture and history of the Jews and Christianity is not kind to what the Mormons want to claim as truth.
Ralph,
You are so very wrong. Read what your prophets say, especially Brigham Young. He taught that Michael(Adam), Eloheam (the grandfather god), (elohim is a title and applies to all of them) and Jehovah created the world. The Eloheam character being Adam’s Father and Jehovahs grandfather. They had a council and the ‘grandfather’ god appointed Michael to go to earth, take one of his wives, partake of the gross matter of this world and become mortal and then populate the earth, giving the ’spirit children’ he already had earthly bodies.
As I already quoted, Young did not care WHO he worshipped, implying that all LDS should not because all the ‘gods’ are relatives. At the end of it all, Adam was ‘translated’ back into heaven, in time to come down and have sex with Mary, who was also one of his ‘wives’.
The prophets are vague about names, ‘Heavenly Father’ also being a generic title like elohim to the mormon prophets. They do have ‘much to do’ with more than one god, and Young said it did matter who they worshipped, they were the same species.
Mormons ARE polytheists no matter how distasteful it may be to you, they strongly believe in other gods, no matter how much it is watered down by todays ‘prophets’. I recently got a packet of materials about early mormonism, including diary’s, and tho (as I am aware) not binding on the church as a whole (a huge loophole) these things were taught and believed by a large number of LDS. Read John Nuttal’s diary for an eye opener on just WHAT was going on in your church in Brigham Young’s day.
These doctrines were classified ‘mysteries’ and though later prophets told the membership not to pursue them, Young claimed it all as ‘revelation’ and it is backed up by many many members including later prophets of the church.
As David John Buerger quoted at the end of his Adam-God paper, ‘Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored’ – Aldous Huxley
The whole structure of smith’s ‘hierarchy of gods’ is polytheism.
grindael,
You nailed it! The Mormonism of Smith and Young and all of the early Mormon leaders is something that modern day Mormons don’t want to own. That is why their were groups of Mormons who dumped the “progressive” thoughts of these guys and returned to a more traditional view of the nature of God-among other things.
I have a handy little chart here comparing the basic doctrines of the RLDS, the Temple Lot, and the Salt Lake City Mormons. The RLDS (now Community of Christ) and Temple Lot folks repudiate most of what the SLC bunch believes particularly the polytheism and the eternal progression doctrines. Smith and Young and their subsequent followers were theological train wrecks. They got so impressed with personal revelation that they couldn’t abide by what the Scriptures actually taught.
Yes, I would agree. Keep posting what these guys said. The SLC bunch don’t want to hear it. They want a different brand of Mormonism from what was taught by those whom they follow. This is what cognitive dissonance is all about. Ralph and the rest continually try to massage and mold a more acceptable version of what their leaders have actually taught.
Ralph,
A married man and woman are two persons, but only one “couple” or one “flesh” or one “married unit”.
I would never say that a married man and woman were the same person, would you?
Nor would I ever say that three gods were one GOD.
gpark
polytheism is surely applicable to Mormons, however, it is more appropriate to apply henotheism. Though henotheists are polytheists, henotheism is a more accurate and honest definition.
i would also like to take a moment and say that my above prophecy about the intensity of “semantics” here is emerging to be true.
Now on the subject at hand, there is an interesting qualifier not mentioned…what does it mean to be in the presence of God?
more specifically, one must have a convincing argument of God’s plural grammar:
Genesis 1:26
everyone must understand that early christians were primarily unaware of any plural notions, or even the trinity. The OT was left un-inspected by christians until Paul and Acts 17:11 ….then the discovery was made…..God associated with personal pronouns like “We” “Us” and “Our”.
Genesis 1:26 has far reaching impacts on the true nature of God and the Godhead.
“Us” made…”Our” image….is it the idea here that God is carrying on a conversation with himself? (why? for deception to the reader? for jokes?)
If God is absolutely singular and unique then why would He speak in plural?
it surely was not angels He was speaking to, they had no part in our creation and we are not in their image. the angels argument is hardly worth mentioning. Plus God never uses plural pronouns when talking to angels.
But we know Jesus was not an angel – Hebrews 1:5
but read John 1:2-3…the begining?
Yes, Jesus was with God in the begining, and it is not unreasonable to assume that the Holy Spirit was there to. God is not schizophrenic.
Isaiah 6:8
Enter the Godhead
Elohim is in the plural form, so why is it that in Mormonism it is the name of the Father?
Sub,
“If God is absolutely singular and unique then why would He speak in plural”
For someone who likes to talk about misnahs, this is pretty elementary. Hebrew has a “plural intensive” (sometimes referred to in reverse – intensive plural). Sometimes this is called a royal “we” or a reflexive “we”. Throughout the Bible, Elohim is rendered in many different ways. Most often the pronouns and verbs are singular and masculine. Again, this is pressing a word way too far.
The plurality of “we”, “us”, and “Elohim” allows for plurality but it in no way requires it. Again, if Jews who were fluent in Hebrew in the first century before and after the advent did not see polytheism/henotheism in the word “Elohim”, and the pronouns associated with it, then one has to wonder if the great apostasy happened before Christianity got started. Are you really telling us 1st century Jewish, Christians apostasized from polytheism to monotheism?
“Christianity, alone among the world faiths, teaches that God is triune. The doctrine of the Trinity is that God is one being who exists eternally in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity means that God is, in essence, relational.
The gospel writer John describes the Son as living from all eternity in the “bosom of the Father” (John 1:18), an ancient metaphor for love and intimacy. Later in John’s gospel, Jesus, the Son, describes the Spirit as living to “glorify” him (John 16:14). In turn, the Son glorifies the Father (17:4) and the Father, the Son (17:5). This has been going on for all eternity (17:5b)…
Each of the divine persons centers upon the others. None demands that the others revolve around him. Each voluntarily circles the other two, pouring love, delight, and adoration into them. Each person of the Trinity loves, adores, defers to, and rejoices in the others. That creates a dynamic, pulsating dance of joy and love…
The doctrine of the Trinity overloads our mental circuits. Despite its cognitive difficulty, however, this astonishing, dynamic conception of the triune God is bristling with profound, wonderful, life-shaping, world-changing implications”
attribution, Tim Keller
God has always been more than one ‘person’ (for lack of a better word), but just one God.
Angels and humans are God’s creation, thus it was not them that helped with the creation. It was the three parts of God Himself.
Simple question.
How is it that while hanging on the cross in his most hours of greatest need, Christ asked the Father “why has thou forsaken me?”
Sure seems like two distinct beings to me. The Father withdrew His Spirit or influence from Christ, leaving Him alone- meaning separate from the Father. Please explain how this is possible if they are “one” as the EVs describe.
By the way, I think this moment on the cross provides insight into the whole scenerio of Adam partaking of the fruit and why it was necessary for him to go against the Fathers counsel in doing so. It had to be his decision to enter mortality. God did not want to push Adam into this fallen world. So to make it fully Adam’s choice, he had to go against the Fathers command.
How does this relate to Christ being left completely alone on the cross? It was necessary for Christ to overcome sin and death completely on His own, independent of the Father. Just like it was necessary for Adam to choose absolutely for himself to enter mortality.
This is a pretty neat parallel in my opinion.
Anyway, how do EV explain Christ being left alone on the cross?
Man am I sorry that I came to the party so late. So much good stuff here to comment on and rebuke. Whoever it was that pointed out the discrepency LDS allow in affirming or denying non-scriptural literature and quotes only when it suits their cause hit the nail on the head. How many quotes does it take from Sharon, Grindael, etc. to prove that LDS prophets, apostles, apologists, etc. are all over the map with this subject, as well as every other subject that comes up in Mormonism. It’s like a textbook on world religions throughout history threw up and created the LDS church.
There has got to be a standard to fall back on in anything to set things in order and to define error. In law, it’s statutes and procedure, in communication it’s the rules of language and grammar, in religion, it’s the faith’s literature. The problem with Mormon literature is that there is no standard. What was true yesterday is not true today, and what is true today will not be true tomorrow. A prophet or apostle can make up his own interpretation of a scriptural passage, or just make scripture of his own out of whole cloth. The next one, or the one standing next to him, is free to give his own interpretation or creation of scripture. Q-What is the standard of truth? A-Willingness of the hearer to accept the teaching. For Christians, it is the bible alone, and we do debate less-clear areas of doctrine. But the bible clearly teaches that there is but One God. It also teaches that there are three divine persons. It also teaches that the three persons are each coequal and coeternal. Only One God-Three Distinct Persons- each God Himself. The Trinity. That’s the standard of God’s nature according to the Bible. Anything outside of that is heresy. Mormonisms’ view of God is heretical, every one of them…maybe? It depends on who you’re talking to and which day of the week it is.
Ralph, of all of the LDS that post here I find you the most endearing. You are honest about your beliefs, have been honest in the past about discrepencies in LDS teachings when shown clear evidence that the teachings were false; for example that the early church never taught the Trinitarian nature of God. As I have said several times before, and I’ll keep saying it until every member of the LDS church leaves the org. Mormons live the bulk of their lives in reality. They make sound decisions based upon reason and evidence. They exegete literature and communication every day, whether it be a newspaper article, instructions on how to change a tire, bake a cake, or obey their boss when he says, “Ralph, go get me an 8 ounce cup of coffee, no more, no less. I need two sugars and exactly one half ounce of cream. If you bring it back any different, you’re fired.” I’ll bet you’d be a measurin’ fool. If you brought it back to your boss and he said, “Ralph, I specifically told you, ‘bring me a 12 ounce cup of coffee, 4 sugars, and absolutely no cream. YOU’RE FIRED!” You would tell him that he didn’t tell you that, and you may even pull out the paper you wrote his instructions on because it was so important that you got them right, as your job depended on it.
But when it comes to your religious life you throw out the standard that you operate under every day and swallow all of the contradictions hook, line, and sinker. There is another standard that we all operate under every day and it’s known as the standard of “reasonableness”. This standard asks, “Would a reasonable person act, believe, behave etc. in the same manner as another hypothetical person would, if they were placed in the same position, given the same information, etc?” Those who believe in Mormonism fail this standard, miserably. A reasonable person wouldn’t make the mental concessions necessary to believe in the Mormon deity if faced with the overwhelming contradictory evidence under this topic alone.
(cont for Ralph) You have said that you are involved in scientific research. From some of your past posts it is obvious that you are very familiar with cellular biology. I ask you to apply that same reasoning ability that you use when you collect research data to your church. Biblical Christianity can pass those rigorous examinations. It has been attacked for thousands of years, yet it has stood without wavering on its convictions and teachings, even in the face of severe persecution. I can read works by the anti-nicean writers and my beliefs match theirs because we both have the same standard teaching. Your church has been around for less than 200 years and it has consistently wavered and changed doctrine. Just read the statements made by successive prophets and apostles of your church.
It probably won’t help, but I’m praying that it will. Here is an article by another Australian scientist, a former LDS bishop, who left the church based upon reasonable evidence. His name is Simon Southerton. Maybe you have already heard of him. http://www.exmormon.org/whylft125.htm
Olson,
There is alot to unpack here. First, I am not 100% sure that the Father did forsake the Son on the cross? Jesus is quoting the 22 Psalm. In that Psalm, God is praised because He delivered David’s forefathers when they were in trouble. So, it is possible that Jesus is expressing a theologically incorrect thought (He feels like the Father has forsaken Him, but He has not), He is expressing a theologically correct one (God has or will deliver Him), or that He expressed a correct idea that God has forsaken Him (but by extension it would seem that it also means God forsook David too).
As far as the Trinity goes it is just not an “Ev” thing. Christianity 101 starts with the nature of God. He is triune; He exists in a trinity. Christians distinguish between “Being” and “Person”. There is one Being who exists in three persons. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father (same goes for the Spirit too). Modalism is a heresy condemned long ago but still keeps showing up. The song Holy, Holy, Holy expresses this idea as close to perfect as one can get.
Honestly Jim, I appreciate your honesty. However (and this may sound like a shot but it is not), this is not some hidden, esoteric belief. You should have at least touched on this subject somewhere in one of your western civ classes. Books upon books have been written on this subject and then there is that repository of information known as the “internet”.
That “abominable” Council of Nicea dealt with this subject and the Trinitarian/Arian controversies that were around before, during, and after that council makes up much of what J. Smith was supposed to be condemning (kind of hard to condemn something you are not knowledgeable about).
So Setfree,
How then can you reconcile the Bible saying that a husband and wife are ONE FLESH (ie connotates one being) when you say that they are separate beings? Can this be what the Bible and BoM mean when it says they are one God?
Falcon,
The term polytheist does not make me go hide and cry. There are, as pointed out many times, lurkers on this site. Some of these people know nothing about the LDS church. All I am asking is a truer representation like Henotheism or Monolatrism as polytheism tends to mean that one worships all, not one.
liv4jc,
The thing with research is one has to look at both sides and then make up their mind as to which view they will support by the results of their own work. I can give you many examples of findings that are true but against current scientific dogma. My previous boss found something that totally contradicted all previous publishings. He had a difficult time trying to get it published. About 3 years after, he was proven correct and now it is common knowledge.
My current boss changes his mind about things all the time and its so frustrating (even when I have written it down) I am trying to get my own research money to do what I want.
BTW Been on holidays the past 2 weeks which is why I have been on here a bit – not doing much ‘work’, and spending as much time with the kids as possible.
Ralph,
I am going to go out on a limb and take a stab at what you wrote for setfree. Upon Eve taking here first breath she (along with every other woman at least metaphorically) was one flesh with the man because she was created from his flesh. Yet, she (women) is still a separate person and a separate being. Marriages can end through death or divorce but unity in the Godhead can never be undone.
This “one flesh” principle is one that is interesting and I believe one contrary to Mormonism. For us marriage is temporal, and for you guys families are supposed to be forever. If marriage is temporal, then clearly couples are not “one” in the same way God is “one”.
I know when faced with the question/problem of Matt 22:23-32 Mormons reply, “There will be no marriage in heaven but that does not preclude saints who were already married.” However, if this is one’s reply then the original problem of the Sadducees remains. Only if marriages are not eternal does the Sadducees’ question not present a problem.
Ralph,
Glad to hear that you’ve had a time to rest up
and be with your kids.
You recently asked the question:
” Did anyone see one of my points above?”.
Ralph, I did. Did you happen to see my reply ?
(both of them).
Martin, I have no idea what I’m doing wrong with
my browser. Sorry.
Ralph,
Google “polytheism” and see what the search brings you. It’s believing in or worshiping more than one god. You wouldn’t want the lurkers to be confused? First of all let’s just say that Mormonism is about as a confused mess as can be. Let me offer Joseph Smith’s own confusion over his “first vision”. Just track that if you want to see Smith in total free fall.
Olsen Jim
“This is a pretty neat parallel in my opinion. “
i’ll second that….and piggyback that its also a true notion.
David W
“Jesus is expressing a theologically incorrect thought (He feels like the Father has forsaken Him, but He has not..”
pure speculation. There is no evidence to support that Jesus would be unaware or confused of His Father’s presence. Forsaken is a clear term and i am sure Jesus chose His words carefully. The alignment with David is a bit off the mark.
There is one Being who exists in three persons
semantics, my prophecy is coming true! i would suggest that this statement is more accurate when worded thusly..3 persons in one…not one in three…a subtle, but oh so important, difference that is surely part of this infamous Christianity 101 class.
As for the Resurrection, i believe you may be confused that the it is an event not a ’state’. Jesus does not say that there will be no marriage in heaven, just not in the Resurrection (2 different ideas in my 101 class).
Though there is no evidence to support the idea that individuality is lost in heaven, some ’sects’ believe that, but i am not a member of one of those sects….but that is semantics…i am not denying that death takes all things of this world and ends all things that we know (like hope, love, etc..)..but it does leave hope, hope for something better. Perhaps this is why Mormons use the term “sealed” as opposed to “married” when speaking of “heaven”. In the LDS church ‘marry’ and ’seal’ are different..as different as temporal and spiritual. So you see, the Sadducees; problem is not, in fact, our problem.
Matthew 16:19 Matthew 18:18
Sub,
If I truly believed that Genesis 1:26 was the only possible mention of the concept of the Trinity in the Bible, I would sweat this more, but study of the Trinity in Scripture is something I’ve spent much time doing.
This information from desiringgod.org explains the Trinity very clearly and is consistent with my beliefs.
“The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to the Christian faith. It is crucial for properly understanding what God is like, how He relates to us, and how we should relate to Him. But it also raises many difficult questions. How can God be both one and three? If Jesus is God, why do the Gospels record instances where He prayed to God?
The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons–the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.
The Bible speaks of the Father as God (Phil. 1:2), Jesus as God (Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3-4). Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply ways of referring to three different roles that God plays? The answer must be no, because the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world (John 3:16), He cannot be the same person as the Son. Likewise, after the Son returned to the Father (John 16:10), the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world (John 14:26; Acts 2:33). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father and the Son.
In the baptism of Jesus, we see the Father speaking from heaven and the Spirit descending from heaven in the form of a dove as Jesus comes out of the water (Mark 1:10-11). In John 1:1 it is affirmed that Jesus is God and, at the same time, that He was
“with God”-thereby indicating that Jesus is a distinct Person from God the Father (cf. also 1:18). And in John 16:13-15 we see that although there is a close unity between them all, the Holy Spirit is also distinct from the Father and the Son.
The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct center of consciousness. Thus, they relate to each other personally–the Father regards Himself as “I,” while He regards the Son and Holy Spirit as “You.” Likewise the Son regards Himself as “I,” but the Father and the Holy Spirit as “You.”
Often it is objected that “If Jesus is God, then he must have prayed to himself while he was on earth.” But the answer to this objection lies in simply applying what we have already seen. While Jesus and the Father are both God, they are different Persons. Thus, Jesus prayed to God the Father without praying to Himself. In fact, it is precisely the continuing dialog between the Father and the Son (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 5:19; 11:41-42; 17:1ff) which furnishes the best evidence that they are distinct Persons with distinct centers of consciousness.
Sometimes the Personhood of the Father and Son is appreciated, but the Personhood of the Holy Spirit is neglected. But the Holy Spirit is not an it, but a He (see John 14:26; 16:7-15; Acts 8:16). The fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person, not an impersonal force (like gravity), is also shown by the fact that He speaks (Hebrews 3:7), reasons (Acts 15:28), thinks and understands (1 Corinthians 2:10-11), wills (1 Corinthians 12:11), feels (Ephesians 4:30), and gives personal fellowship (2 Corinthians 13:14). These are all qualities of personhood. In addition to these texts, the others we mentioned above make clear that the Personhood of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Personhood of the Son and the Father. They are three real persons, not three roles God plays.
Another serious error people have made is to think that the Father became the Son, who then
became the Holy Spirit. Contrary to this, the passages we have seen imply that God always was and always will be three Persons. There was never a time when one of the Persons of the Godhead did not exist. They are all eternal.
While the three members of the Trinity are distinct, this does not mean that any is inferior to the other…they are all identical in attributes. They are equal in power, love, mercy, justice, holiness, knowledge, and [so on].
The Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that…the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God…Colossians 2:9 says of Christ that “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” We should not think of God as like a “pie” cut into three pieces, each piece representing a Person. This would make each Person less than fully God and thus not God at all. Rather, “the being of each Person is equal to the whole being of God.”[1] The divine essence is not something that is divided between the three persons, but is fully in all three persons without being divided into “parts.”
There is only one God. If each Person of the Trinity is distinct and yet fully God, then should we conclude that there is more than one God? Obviously we cannot, for Scripture is clear that there is only one God: “There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:21-22; see also 44:6-8; Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 4:35; 6:4-5; 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:2; 1 Kings 8:60).
Having seen that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, that they are each fully God, and that there is nonetheless only one God, we must conclude that all three Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who exists as three distinct Persons.
If there is one passage which most clearly brings all of this together, it is Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples
subgenius wrote
Oh my gosh, subgenius, your statement is so wrong its hard to know how to put together a reasonable response.
Perhaps we could start with Jesus opening the scriptures (long before Paul) in Luke 4:16-19. Or Stephens defense the the Sanhedrin (before Paul) in Acts 7). Have you honestly failed to notice how much scripture is quoted and discussed in the NT long before Paul’s conversion?
Anyhow, if it was Paul who first “opened up” the scriptures, doesn’t this present a problem to you? I recall you accusing Paul of authoring the “Great Apostasy”, yet here you are telling us that it was Paul who suddenly discovered the plurality of Gods that Mormonism promotes. Was Paul an apostate or not? Should we rely on what he wrote, or not?
If you got your message straightened out, we’d have less trouble believing it.
I posted this before, and I’ll do so again; the very least one can say of the NT writers is that they extensively mined the OT in the preparation of their material. I believe the NT is much more than just a re-interpretation of the OT, but it is nothing less.
I acknowledge that this is my particular interest, but I so wish that Mormons, Christians and “whatevers” alike will spend more time interpreting the NT in the light of the OT. Then, I firmly believe, we would have a better understanding of how to apply it to our current circumstances.
DavidW
Are you really telling us 1st century Jewish, Christians apostasized from polytheism to monotheism?
no, what i am telling you is that the OT is consistent in its use of plural pronouns from God and that the NT is consistent in its absence of such. You may subscribe this to linguistic nuance, but the pattern is not coincidental…and “in context” with my Acts reference, its not coincidental. The inference is yours.
gpark yes, 3 distinct personages are supported by the scriptures. But your other speculation is lost. The Father presides over the Godhead. There is not an outside entity that fragments into 3 pieces (a holy quad?). You propose God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is four..but wait, you say that the Father and the Son are actually God, so no we just have God and the HS….tha is just two (the dynamic duo?). This attempt to reconcile “trinitarianism” is interesting, because the trinity is not biblical doctrine – can you provide the apostolic witness of such?
of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” First, notice that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished as distinct Persons. We baptize into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Second, notice that each Person must be deity because they are all placed on the same level. In fact, would Jesus have us baptize in the name of a mere creature? Surely not. Therefore each of the Persons into whose name we are to be baptized must be deity. Third, notice that although the three divine Persons are distinct, we are baptized into their name (singular), not names (plural). The three Persons are distinct, yet only constitute one name. This can only be if they share one essence.
What does essence mean? As I said earlier, it means the same thing as being. God’s essence is His being. To be even more precise, essence is what you are…essence can be understood as [what] you “consist of.” Of course we are speaking by analogy here, for we cannot understand this in a physical way about God. “God is spirit” (John 4:24). Further, we clearly should not think of God as “consisting of” anything other than divinity. The “substance” of God is God, not a bunch of “ingredients” that taken together yield deity.
In regards to the Trinity, we use the term “Person” differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an “independent individual” in the sense that both I & another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another…in regards to the Trinity, we can say that “Person” means a distinct subject which regards Himself as an “I” and the other two as a “You.”
” Nonetheless, these three Persons all “consist of” the same…essence.
Ya gotta love the word games on this blog. Being a native New Yorker and still here, I have to say that I’ve lived around and talked to a great smattering of people in my years. Having attended the school of common sense all my life, I wish more of it would show up here.
What is the meaning behind all the blather here? Is it wrong to call Mormons polytheists? Mormons call themselves that. They do so by their ‘modern revelation’.
We Christians claim Christ as our God. We pray to Him, worship Him, love Him, and live our lives in His Name. He is God. Believe on His Name and He will save you. That is all you need. Though men have tried to define God, they have somehow always come up short. He just IS that He IS.
True Christians claim that the only thing binding on us is Jesus and His revealed Word. Men add to his word, but that is not binding on anyone unless they let it be. The worship of Jesus and Him alone is all there is and man can never get in the way of that. God made it simple for us because He loves us. If you know Jesus, you know God. So I know the Father because I know Jesus.
What the Old Testament taught is not relevant or binding. God revealed Himself to us as Jesus and gave us our guidelines. Jesus fulfilled the law and gave us simplistic commandments: love God & your neighbor. Out of love flows all the things you need to do to be with God.
Mormons teach a ‘hierarchy’ of gods: ‘gods many & lords many.’ They can claim to worship one (or two or more, depending on who you read), and that is polytheism. Call it something else, it is your opinion. Your scriptures evolved into polytheism.
They teach it. But you Mormons have made your point: you believe in more than one god. Very good. We agree that you do. You are polytheists.
Men can poke at Christianity, but it is so beautiful because it is so diverse. One God, One Way, One Truth. Jesus. Come to Him.
I’m waiting for a Mormon to show me how that system of beliefs and practices is better than just Jesus.
I’m waiting to be shown why it is wrong to worship only Jesus. Show me why I should only pray through Him and not TO Him. His real apostles fell down and worshiped HIM. He is worthy of my prayers. He is God. I pray to GOD and He loves me and answers my prayers. He saved me. He promised me if I believe on HIS Name, I will be with HIM. I believe HIM. Show me why this is not enough.
Show me why I should believe in many gods. Show me why this is better.
Sub, in what possible manner could you ever interpret anything gpark quoted as stating that there is God, then the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that make four entities? Then your statement that only the Father and the Son are God, leaving the Holy Spirit out of the equation? The dynamic duo? Where do you get this stuff? Are you importing your personal belief that the Father presides over the Godhead? This is from Gpark’s first post on this subject, it is the same doctrine I quoted above, and any subsequent statements that you pull out from our writings have to be interpreted from within this framework:
This is from my first post:
Sub,
“pure speculation”
When did I ever state that I said that is what is going on? It is pretty clear from the context of my words that I was offering it as possible interpretation/explanation. And the alignment with David is not “off” as Jesus is quoting words that were previously found in Psalm 22.
“In the LDS church ‘marry’ and ’seal’ are different”
That is not semantics? I am willing to grant you the distinction (not that I agree with it just that your church teaches it) but the “problem” still remains.
Suppose a woman were sealed to a man and he died. Then she was sealed to another man and he died too. Suppose this repeated itself a few times. Everyone involved were devout Mormons. Whose wife would she be in the afterlife?
Even if you say that the women was unsealed then resealed to another man, then one would have to admit that she is no longer “one flesh” with the first husband. Her unity with that man either temporal, heavenly, or both has been torn asunder. This cannot happen with the Godhead and that was my point to Ralph. The “oneness” that married/sealed couples enjoy is not the same as that which the Godhead has.
And the “Sadducee problem” is/was not a problem for the Sadducees as they did not believe in any kind of resurrection/afterlife to begin with.
Sub,
“OT is consistent in its use of plural pronouns from God”
Where are you getting your information? Only in a few instances are the pronouns for God in the plural, and I believe all of those are in the creation narrative. Elohim is translated many different ways in the OT because the meaning of the word changes with context. The use of the word and its pronouns are far from “consistent”.
And that is just for the word “Elohim”. The other names for God are singular and the pronouns for them are singular as well.
Furthermore, if 1st century Jewish Christians were monotheists (and they were) then the church was “apostate” before it ever began. Do you see the problem here?
At the beginning of this post, jackg mentioned that it is difficult to “prove” anything from the scriptures with Mormons because they don’t have the same view/respect of the Bible (being authoritative) as Christians do. We see this on display here. The Mormon posters are coming out of left field with no apparent system of Biblical interpretation and really no scholarly discipline. It’s just a free-for-all of dubious off-the-wall statements. So, there’s no respect for the Bible and there’s no system of Biblical interpretation with Mormons.
This is really a “make it up as you go along” process for Mormons. They have revelation, that’s it. Then they rummage through the Bible trying to find any vague reference to support their totally unBiblical beliefs. We may as well be dealing with a cult that believes the moon is made out of green cheese!
Every few months I list some basics of Biblical interpretation that might be helpful for the lurkers who have reached the contemplative stage. I know it’s useless for the Mormon posters here because they are living somewhere near Kolob when it comes to rightly dividing the Word of God.
1. Remember that context rules.
*Each verse must be considered in the light of: the surrounding verses, the book in which it if found, and the entire Word of God. A key word: “consistent”. Is the interpretation consistent with the theme, purpose, and structure of the book in which it is found. Is it consistent with other Scripture on the same subject or is there a glaring difference. Am I considering the historic and cultural context of what is being said? NEVER TAKE A SCRIPTURE OUT OF ITS CONTEXT TO MAKE IT SAY WHAT YOU WANT IT TO SAY.
2. Always seek the “full” counsel of the Word of God. Never accept a teaching simply because someone has used one or two isolated verses to support it.
3. Don’t base your convictions on an obscure passage of Scripture.
4. Interpret Scripture literally taking into account such literary devices and styles such as: historical, prophetic, biographical, didactic, poetic, epistle, proverbial.
(source: Inductive Study Bible)
Mormons love “revelation” because it’s sounds so super sophisticated and meta spiritual. It’s an absolute road to disaster. Pick-up a copy of “Under the Banner of Heaven” and see what Mormon revelation has led to.
Sub,
If by my having an “apostolic witness” for the Trinity you mean the words of the NT apostles confirming the doctrine of the Trinity, the answer is, ‘Yes.’ Though the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible, the concept of the Triunity of God is very clearly present in the Bible.
First, that there is one God is clearly stated in the following Scriptures from the Old and New Testaments – Deut. 4:35 and 6:4; Isaiah 43:10, 45:21-22, and 46:9; Malachi 2:10; Mark 12:32; James 2:19; Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:16; Eph.4:6; and 1 Tim. 2:15.
That there are three persons called God is obvious throughout Scripture.
Please see verses in which the Father is called God, or Divine attributes are stated to apply to Him: Luke 10:21; John 4:23, 6:27, and 20:17; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:17; 2 Cor. 1:3; and Jude 1:1.
Please see verses in which Jesus is called God, or Divine attributes are stated to apply to Him: Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6; Matt. 9:4 and 28:20; John 1:1, 1:3, 5:27, 17:5, and 20:28; also Col 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:3 and 1:8; Titus 2:13; and 2 Peter 1:1.
Please see verses in which the Holy Spirit is called God, or Divine attributes are stated to apply to Him: Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; John 3:5-8; Acts 5:3-4 and 13:2-4; 1 Cor. 2:10, 6:11, and 6:19.
Please note that the attributes stated to apply to the Father also apply to the Son and to the Holy Spirit: omniscience of the Father (Isaiah 46:9-10; 1 John 3:19-20); omniscience of the Son (Matt. 9:4; John 21:17), omniscience of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10); omnipresence of the Father (Jer. 23:23-24; Amos 9:2); omnipresence of the Son (Matt. 28:20), omnipresence of the Holy Spirit (Psalm 139:7-10;).
Please note, also, that there are verses which denote the Triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Firstly, regarding Matt. 28:19, I stand by this Scripture as showing the Triunity of God, because we are baptized into the name (singular) of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost (3 persons).
See John 14:16 – *And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—
* “If the Holy Spirit were the same person as the Father, he would not need to intercede with himself.” (Ben Rast/ Contender Ministries/ 12-2004)
See, also, John 15:26 – “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.
Luke 3:21-22 – 21 When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened. 22 And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.” (Jesus is baptized and prays; the Holy Spirit descends like a dove upon Jesus, and the Father speaks from Heaven – three persons, all of whom have already been identified as God and as having the same attributes.)
Ontology is important in understanding the Trinity. Ontology is the study of “being.” As James White said, “It is vitally important that we recognize the difference between the words Being and Person….Being is what makes something what it is. Person is what makes someone who he or she is….when speaking of the Trinity, we speak of one what (the Being of God) and three whos (the three divine Persons). Most cultic rejections of the Trinity focus on blurring the distinction.” [Loving the Trinity, (Christian Research Journal, Volume 21/ Issue 4)].
So, the only logical conclusion one may reach when recognizing that there are three Persons named in the Bible Who are called God and Who have the attributes of God, and knowing also that the Bible repeatedly makes clear that there is one God, is that this one God is triune in nature.
David W
since you are familiar with Elohim then surely you know that El is the singular.
Now hopefully we don’t digress to the use of this word in 1 Sanuel 28:13. I also realize that Hebrew (and LDS) use of plurality(elohim) is different than one might expect (as a superlative)…but this may be a double-edged sword, because this “plurality” is the foundation for the trinty itself, as a defined by the trinitarian.
i am unaware of an “attested” source that has elohim appearing in the NT.
Let us let the Bible be the “source”.
So, look at
2 times the singular noun is used in OT
Genesis 33:20 and Num 23:19
The plural noun is then used about 2,500(?) times.
I think Lord is always used in plural in the OT.
Genesis 1:26 Genesis 3:22 Genesis 9:9 Genesis 11:7 Zech 12:10
all plural pronoun references from God about God.
Isaiah 6:8 actually has both singular and plural.
do we need to explore the plural verbs and adjectives also?
Elohim appears 66 times in the NT before Genesis 6:5 uses another word for God.
grindael
I’m waiting for a Mormon to show me how that system of beliefs and practices is better than just Jesus. its not better but rather the same, it simply is the way of Christ…He showed you already, through His teachings and the organization of His church, for starters.
liv4jc
look back at gpark’s posts. All of my words are from gpark.
Here he creates 4 entities
“there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons” <—-modalism dressed in Greek chiton ?
the thrust of my posts was to illustrate the irrational, unsubstantiated, and circular nature to gpark's argument about the trinity…again, a trintiy that has no basis in Biblical doctrine. Constantinople may buy it, but not me, i mean this insistence of perpetuating the compromise between Greek philosophy and the Bible is ridiculous, if not heretical.
Sub said: “…and for the record, a graven “cross” around thy neck is idolatry.”
And so are CTR RINGS that I see Mormons wearing on their fingers.
I’d also like to know why in active LDS homes why is the first picture seen hanging on the wall upon opening the door is a picture of an LDS temple, Joseph Smith or the First Presidency?
The LDS view on this vitriol of the cross is shared by their brothers and sisters in their sister non-Christian cult called the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. The JW’s hate the cross more than the Mormons. Guess what? So do the demons and those whose lives are controlled by their father – Satan (John 8:44). Demons and those being controlled by them cannot stand the sight of the cross and are repulsed in being anywhere near it. I wouldn’t want to share any commonality with that group in any area.
Idolatry is what one worships in replacing God as the center of worship. Christians don’t worship a cross. It’s the symbol of the redemptive work that Christ did on the cross to pay the sin debt that mankind could never pay. When and if Mormons realize the significance of what was done for them on the cross (other than universal atonement or LDS “general salvation”) they would probably wear a cross too. Instead, they adorn their temples with symbols that are anything Christian related. Every symbol imaginable is on LDS architecture, but not the cross. As Hank would say, “hmmm….interesting”.
More later on the main topic,
Andy
Sub,
What is your point? My point is that I would not look to the mere word “Elohim” to justify a plurality of gods. I think we agree that the word “Elohim” is used in a variety of ways, and so are the pronouns.
“because this “plurality” is the foundation for the trinty itself”
Not by this Trinitarian. It is not the foundation for the belief. While the plurality of persons is allowed for by the use of plural pronouns, I would not hang my hat on that fact. One gets the Trinity from key New Testament passages. Even if I were to point to certain texts in the OT to substantiate my beliefs I would not use (or at least start with) the plural nature of the word “Elohim”.
“Elohim appears 66 times in the NT before Genesis 6:5 uses another word for God.”
Did you mean OT there? I would ask you to clarify on your previous post. Are you really stating that singular pronouns are used for “Elohim” in only 2 or 3 places? Are we on the same page that the other names for God use masculine & singular pronouns(and verbs, adjectives, etc.)? Again, what is the point of all of this?
I have a few thoughts on this topic.
Mormons would prefer the term,” Godhead”, instead
of the term, “Trinity”. This is perhaps because
Mormons do not wantto be labeled as just another
Christian denomination. In any event,in Mormon-
ism the Godhead consists of three Gods:
” Three separate personages–Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost–comprise the Godhead. As each of these
persons is a God, it is evident, from this
standpoint alone,that a PLURALITY OF GODS exist.
To us, speaking in the proper finite sense,these
three are the only Gods we worship.”
[ Mormon Doctrine, p.576 ].
According to this Mormon Gen. Authority, Mormons
believe in and worship a plurality of Gods.
PLURALITY = many
POLY(theism) = many
I kinda feel that since Polytheism has a rather
negative conotation about it, in reguards to
the christian faith, that Mormon leaders have
deployed a substitute term for it,i.e.”plurality”.
Is’nt this merely a cosmetic difference?
Andy
Sub said: “…and for the record, a graven “cross” around thy neck is idolatry.”
And so are CTR RINGS that I see Mormons wearing on their fingers.”
glad you agree with me.
CTR Rings are definitely graven images, but not idolatry…nevertheless, the scriptures are clear about both are they not?
Your definition of idolatry seems much more definite than the Bible’s definition.
That being said, the 2nd commandment in my Bible does not have any exceptions, for Crosses or CTR rings…does yours? And actually, the elevated reverence that many give a graven cross seems to be much more emphatic than a mere child’s CTR ring….i mean, more of a transgression, if there was such a rating system.
See the cross is an idol to Jesus, who is not the Father and is not ‘the’ God, so those of us who “worship” Jesus, the Son of God, do not in fact worship God…ergo idolatry.
and, no, the trinitarian argument has yet to be cohesive or convincing.
So, if to worship God you must worship Jesus, and you must worship the Father and you must worship the HS, then my friend, you have just become a polytheist.
Every symbol imaginable is on LDS architecture”
could you provide me with a few examples?
without using Navuu or SLC temples?
even though, back in the day and returning today (ask the catholics), sybolism was an effective tool for teaching, i would be interested in all these “imaginable” symbols.
None of us “hate” the cross (you have evidence?) we just do not share your graven obsession with the cross.
Every home i have ever been to i see one of two pictures frst, foremost, and most prominent…either a family portrait or a portrait of Christ….but obviously you and i visit different people, right?
(and yes, both portraits are by definition, in violation of 2nd commandment).
Sub,
“and yes, both portraits are by definition, in violation of 2nd commandment”
Are you seriously suggesting that a family painting or photo hanging in home is a “graven image” or idol? Do you really think making any “likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth” is prohibited in this text? So anything that is made and is like something in the sky, earth, or water is sinful? Are childrens’ toys on that list? Are you a student of the late Sayyid Qutb? Please tell me you are joking.
Sub,
I think it’s time for you to drop the “cross is a graven image” tactic. We have gone down this path before and you are very aware of all the places that Mormons use masonic symbols of every imaginable type – that is why you added as a after thought (without using Nauvoo or SLC temples). I am sure Masonic imagery continues to be used on modern LDS architecture – it may not be as apparent as the early temples but it’s there (I recently saw a pentagram on a new LDS library). This has been addressed before with examples. Anyway, it’s irrelevant.
Historical Judaism and Christianity stand against a theology of multiple gods that Joseph Smith and the following Mormon “prophets” developed in the mid-1800s and after (confusing mess that it is as can be seen from the article here). The Bible does not support this theology, but as Falcon and jackg have said, Mormons have a very low view of Scripture, so low in fact that just about anything can overrule it, and does.
Here is one for you though – a Mormon artist who painted a portrait showing Jesus holding the U.S. CONSTITUTION and NOT Scripture. Many U.S. Presidents are shown standing with Jesus… What?
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353#
mobaby
i have no problem with the symbology in those 2 temples…but, the statement was made about the whole of LDS arch. and “every imaginable”….is hyperbole game now? i can play that way too….obviously.
also, the underlying theme of this thread is related to idolatry, and my position was even-handed.
you obviously didn’t read anything about the McNaughton image, and it seems like you try to make it relative to mormon doctrine. personally the statement being made is fairly straight forward…i like the politician on his cell phone. Do i need to post any images of weird art that every evangelical paints? But hey thanks for the entertainment, style over substance when in doubt, right?
David W
not to divert the topic or get all fundamental, but, please, take a moment and elaborate on what the 2nd commandment “really” means.
Actually, please share the particular insight, that yourself and many others, seem to have about when God’s commandments need a grain of salt and when they do not. The Ev often tailors the scriptures to suit the lifestyle they are “comfortable” with…this aligns with the whole “easy-believism”, right?…the slippery slope goes faster if you just lie down.
Now, don’t misunderstand me, i know i am culpable in this transgression as well as anybody…but at what point do you tell yourself, “well i don’t have to try on that one, Jesus has got my back.”
As an architect, i am reminded of Vitriviius’s 12 lanterns of architecture…a rather interesting work that we read in school. However, one aspect that has always stood out is when he speaks about the integrity of materials..that, in architecture, things should not be what they are not, elements should not be “faux”. If i see a column, it should be holding something up, if i see wood it should be real wood…etc..otherwise one just wishes it was real….same as the lesson of the 2nd commandment.
Sub,
Btw, I’m a she, not a he. I think I provided this info on my initial post in December; but, just so you have a basic idea about me. I am a 50 Mom of two who helps run the family business, cares for my adult, developmentally delayed daughter, and has a son currently attending college.
Modalism is a heresy that bears no resemblance to what I described in my former posts. The CARM website has a great basic description of modalism. (See below.)
“Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus’ ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.” – from http://www.carm.org/modalism
Modalism is dealt with in more detail (divided up into forms of, and periods of, modalism) at http://www.christiandefense.com/oneness_c.hstoy.htm
Sub,
“Actually, please share the particular insight, that yourself and many others, seem to have about when God’s commandments need a grain of salt and when they do not”
This is exactly how I fell with you and your challenge to Matthew’s use of παρθενος. Yes, I will take a minute to elaborate.
The big difference is between a “graven image” and just a plain old “image”. Some translations render the Hebrew word there as “idol”. In the Ancient Near East an image, usually an animal, was to signify the presence of a god. The god rode on or was accompanied by said animal. Even today in India, cobra’s are a sign of the presence of Shiva; Shiva is often depicted with a cobra near or on him.
This is probably what happened with the golden calf incident. It is possible that the Hebrews did not worship the calf but rather the calf signified an invisible God who stood on the calf. So yeah, God’s people are not to make idols; that is what it means.
“The Ev often tailors the scriptures to suit the lifestyle they are “comfortable” with…this aligns with the whole “easy-believism”, right?”
Tasteless cheap-shot. Spade.
So I guess toys, paintings, and CTR rings are “Haram”? And while we are at it we can cut out our eyes after seeing a racy billboard, then we can don water skis and jump a shark or two with Fonzie!
David,
I actually “got” your last sentence!
So where did Joseph Smith come up with his ideas regarding the multiplicity of gods and men progressing to gods? We know that when he started his religion he was pretty much down the line with orthodox Christian doctrine regarding the nature of God. But Joe had to have a way to cover-up his sexual proclivity which was to fulfill his lustful desires with as many women as he could convince that they and their families would get a special blessing if they would let Joe have his way with them.
So Joe goes with men becoming gods and only able to access the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom if they practiced multiple sex. Joe was able to fulfull all his lusts; become a god and do so by having sex with a lot of women. What a guy! This is of course deep; very very deep.
Now the spiritually discerning early Mormons figured it out and walked-out on Joe’s debauchery and mocking of God. So Joe pulled the wool over some people’s eyes by telling them they couldn’t trust the Bible, that Christianity was corrupted and he, yes the man with the magic rock, had all of the secret answers including Masonic rituals. A lot of deep wisdom and light in that organization.
This of course was information Joe “borrowed” from any number of sources. He was a creative guy, able to meld any number of ideas into his religion.
But in the end, he reaped what he sowed and caught a bullet while in jail.
David Whitsall,
Sub has already answered part of your question about marriage after the resurrection. I have one more comment to make – remember that the Sadducees who asked Jesus this question did not believe in a resurrection. Thus they were just heckling Him. Why ask a question about what would happen during/after the resurrection if one does not believe in a resurrection?
As far as your other question about if a woman was sealed to her husband and he dies, then she was sealed to the next, etc – This would not happen. A woman can only be sealed to one husband. If he dies, then she cannot be sealed to another. She can remarry, but the marriage would only be for this life only. She cannot have the original sealing revoked, as far as I know.
MikeR,
Yes, I saw your original responses. Your last one where you talked about the use of ‘plurality’ over ‘polytheism’ is my point.
Falcon,
Yes, agreed, polytheism can and does mean a belief in more than one god – but these days it has more the meaning of worshiping all of them – not just believing. Since we LDS worship only one – Heavenly Father – as our one and only Supreme God, it is incorrect to say or infer that we worship many. Thus ‘polytheism’ as it is used today can and is incorrect for the LDS church. See MikeR’s comment. But it is exactly like you Evs not wanting us to call you ‘a-LDS’ even though it’s actual meaning is that you are against the LDS movement, in today’s usage it usually is more negative/harsher in meaning than just against a theology. Henotheism is better in that it means the worship of only one out of a pantheon, but Monolatrism is best as it means worshipping one but not excluding the exisence of others.
And before you say anything about ‘worshipping’ Jesus – we worship Him as the Son of God and our Saviour and Redeemer. We do not worship Him as our one and only Supreme God.
Ralph,
I think all this discussion about marriages points to the fact that the “oneness” that couples enjoy is different than union of the Father to the Son. I think you answered your own question in that the religious leaders were just trying to trap Jesus. Also, I do not share your distinction between marriage and sealing but I appreciate the nice response.
Part 1
The Christians here are doing an excellent job of contending for the faith (Jude 3) on certain texts so I don’t want to detract from what they are saying and would like to fill in some middle pieces by listing some LDS references that might help to explain to us the LDS mindset on certain issues and then ask a few questions.
Brigham Young takes the witness stand and says:
“Can this people understand that Lord-that Being we call our Father, as also the GODS and all heavenly beings, lives upon the principles that pertain to eternity? It is our privilege to live as to enjoy the spirit of our religion. That is designed to restore us to the presence of the GODS. GODS EXIST, AND WE HAD BETTER STRIVE TO BE PREPARED TO BE ONE WITH THEM.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:237)
1. Who are these “Gods”?
2. Are they higher in their progression than the exalted man who became god and is the god of the Mormons on earth?
3. If “Gods exist”, then isn’t this polytheism?
4. In trying “to be one with them” do you think this is what Jesus was saying in His high priestly prayer in John 17:11, 21? (Not a chance!)
Next we have a famous LDS hymn song dedicated to Joseph Smith. The chorus to the hymn “Praise to the Man” (Joseph Smith):
“Hail to the prophet, ascended to heaven! Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vein. Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren; Death cannot conquer the hero again.”
1. What “Gods” is Joseph Smith “mingling with”?
2. How can he “mingle with gods” when he has not received his LDS resurrection and physical body and is still in spirit “paradise”?
3. Is the LDS Church naive to think that outsiders read “mingling with Gods” in that line and not think polytheism?
4. Please provide a Bible or Book of Mormon reference to support this statement that Mormons sing regularly.
5. How can Mormons go to sacrament to worship Heavenly Father and sing this about Joseph Smith and then claim monotheism?
Part 2
Next, we have this from an LDS Church Manual:
“Man has descended from God; in fact, HE IS THE SAME RACE AS THE GODS. God became God by obedience to the gospel program, which culminates in eternal marriage. If God became God by obedience to all of the gospel law with the crowning point being the celestial law of marriage, then that’s the only way I can become a god. I can be a god only if I act like God.” (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p.4-5)
1. “Same race” as what “gods”?
2. Where are these gods? The LDS holy ghost doesn’t have a physical body so he or it is out of this scenario.
3.. What race is this referring to? (Uh oh…here we go)
4. If these gods aren’t recognized or believed in, then why are they referenced repeatedly in LDS writings?
5. Again, doesn’t the LDS Church know that it’s only reasonable for those looking at this statement to think “polytheism”? This sounds very pagan or much like Hinduism.
Brigham Young has decided to speak up again on the matter. Okay, Brigham, what is on your mind?
“How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses v.7, p.333)
Well, Brigham, that was disturbing and doesn’t help your church in shaking off the charge of polytheism and blatantly pagan.
When our LDS friends say that they worship and believe in only the god who lives on/near Kolob all the while referencing other “gods” and still trying to peddle monotheism I guess they rationalize it with this statement:
“The Fulness of Truth, dwelling in an endless succession of past generations, would produce an endless succession of personal Gods, each possessing equal wisdom, power, and glory with all the rest. In worshipping any one of these Gods we worship the whole, and in worshipping the whole, we still worship but one God; for it is the same God who dwells in them all; the personages are only His different dwelling places.” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 132)
Part 3
In my discussions with Mormons, one common line that I hear from them when I ask them why they are LDS or why they joined the LDS Church later in life is that they tell me, “Andy, the Mormon Church just makes sense. It all adds up and I can understand it.”
That has always surprised me when it comes to this issue of the nature of God. The LDS Church’s advertisements on the internet all claim to be able to answer mankind’s questions. Many questions I ask they cannot answer, but I always reference these statements and ask them to explain them to me:
“Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to a stop where we cannot go further, because our limited capacity to understand” (10th President Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:47)
“We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previously heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds, and as a last resort, we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first father was begotten.” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 132)
1. Who is the first god – the First Cause?
2. What is His name?
3. Where did He come from?
4. How did He get here?
5. What is the name of His wife? How did she get here?
6. Do you understand these statements above? Do they make sense to you? Can you wrap your mind around what is said there?
7. Allow yourself to be open to the possibility that for once you can’t explain or rationalize an Almighty God/First Cause that is beyond the scope of the “cocoa pebbles” in your skull/”jellysack” that all humans have.
Very good Andy.
Our Mormon friends like Ralph want Mormonism to be something that it clearly is not. The “Ralphs” are really uncomfortable with traditional Mormonism and its clear polytheism. But being able to think Mormon, they can twist and turn and shake the information to a point where they are comfortable with it.
Joseph Smith changed his religion and its traditional monotheism because he could. Mormons are just plain foolish, grasping at straws trying to keep the whole disjointed mess together. In order to do that, it’s necessary to think in a very illogical and irrational way. It’s like trying to glue together a broken cup and having the handle on the bottom of the base and several missing pieces leaving holes and saying, “There, it’s perfect!”
To repeat, when people want to believe something and they’ve bought it emotionally, anything will work.
Sub,
I rolled over and read most of what the artist had to say. I noticed one WICKED person on there that looked like Emperor Palpatine or Darth Sidious – doesn’t Scripture indicate that evil will appear as an angel of light? The entire context of Jesus holding the constitution speaks of a idolatry of the state – Jesus is even pointing to it!! Of course Ronald Reagan is there standing with Jesus. And whats with the tree on his chest? I am a conservative politically, but this mish mash of religion and politics is just too much. Whatever you may think, Jesus does not point us to the constitution and we do not need to worship it as an idol. I find it to be a very disturbing image.
Like I said, there are numerous examples of beehives, sun faces, pentagrams, on LDS property. Personally, I think the cross is a symbol that points us towards a true worship of Christ crucified, not all these Masonic symbols. I can provide links to all manner of engraved images on LDS property, but as I said, it’s irrelevant to the topic at had.
How many TRUE gods are there? ONE – and He knows no others. That means God is not aware of the existence of any other gods. There are many gods, false gods, but God alone stands as the true God. The Mormon god in his never ending, ever growing pantheon simply does not exist – God has told us so. God has revealed Himself and Father,Son, and Holy Spirit – three persons, one God. Is it hard to comprehend? Yes, but remember we are talking about God, the Creator of all apart from whom nothing exists.
ONLY GOD:
Deut 6:4 “Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord”
1 Cor 8:4-6 “…there is none other God but one. But to us there is 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.” Notice both God the Father and Jesus are credited with being the Lord of ALL things.
1 Thess. 1:9 “serve the living and true God.”
Jer. 10:10 “But the Lord is the true God”
Here are more Scriptures that tell us the nature of the true and living God:
1 Tim. 1:17 “Now, unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the ONLY wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” Notice the Lord is the ONLY wise God – due ALL glory and honor. He does not share it with ANY other gods.
Acts 14:15 “you should turn from these vanities unto the LIVING God, which MADE heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein.” Notice God MADE heave, earth, the sea, EVERYTHING. He is the creator of ALL(not the organizer of this sector).
Malachi 3:6 “For I am the Lord, I change not, …” God is not changing or progressing and neither are new gods being formed in the pantheon. God does not change.
Exodus 3:14 “And God said unto Moses I AM THAT I AM, and he said Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM has sent me unto you.”
John 8:15 “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” Jesus claimed to be the great I AM. And make now mistake they knew He was claiming to be the Living God that’s why they took up stones to kill Him right after He said this.
From these Scriptures we can see that there is Only One God – and both the Father and the Son are God, both the Father and the Son are Creator – and at the baptism of Jesus we see all three Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – the One true God.
Jim Olsen asked:
“How is it that while hanging on the cross in his most hours of greatest need, Christ asked the Father “why has thou forsaken me?”
First, and like many aspects of the crucifixion, it was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The words of Jesus on the cross are found in Psalm 22:1. Many details listed in Psalm 22 are specific to the crucifixion. Second, the atonement of sinners to be reconciled to the Father had to be completed by a sacrifice because of what is stated in Hebrews 9:22. What is the definition of the atonement? Simply it is this: What Christ had to do to bring about the conditions necessary for mankind to have a restored relationship with the Father. This had been dissolved at the Garden of Eden.
The animal sacrifices offered in the Old Testament were not fully acceptable to Heavenly Father/Yahweh because those sacrifices were not perfect. They are lacking in many ways: Hebrews 9:12. If they would have been satisfactory to fulfill the atonement demands of the Father, then we would not have needed a Messiah to deliver us and the blood of goats would have completed the matter. If the blood of goats and sheep were satisfactory, then Christ came here for nothing and endured the crucifixion needlessly. This would have made God contradicting Himself throughout the Old Testament through repeated prophecies of the coming Messiah to die for mankind. That was the sole objective of Christ coming here: 1 Timothy 1:15.
If a perfect sacrifice wasn’t necessary to atone, then that means you or I or anybody could have gotten on the cross and died for mankind. Trust me, you wouldn’t nor would you want me to do that for you. I wouldn’t have and in my human nature I am a disgusting dirtball in the sight of the Father outside of the Advocate: Isaiah 64:6; 1 John 2:1.
Christ was the perfect sacrifice because He met Heavenly Father’s expectation of living the law perfectly. Christians have imputed perfection through Christ (Heb 10:10, 14).
It’s all about 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 especially verse 21. Background: (The Passover Lamb). At the time of the sacrifice, a hand would be laid on the unblemished sacrificial animal to symbolize a transfer of guilt (Lev. 4:4, 24, 33). Christ’s death, as the Lamb of God, was for us in the sense that it was on our behalf. Jesus was always without sin in reality and never sinned personally (Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 1:19). He was made to be sin for us because that is what was required by the Father and Jesus came here to do the Father’s will, not His. (Jesus’ agony of the impending crucifixion and wanting to avoid it – who wouldn’t, right?). Jesus was also made to be sin for us substitutionally. Jesus stood in our place and paid the sin debt in full for all eternity for those who are willing to come to Him freely and seek His forgiveness and the gift of eternal life. The whole redemptive plan is one of substitution.
Why did Jesus sense the separation of fellowship with the Father on the cross? Jesus was fully God and fully human. He had and still does have two natures and will for all eternity. The mental and emotional agony that Jesus felt in the garden of Gethsemane was a precursor to what was coming later. Jesus, the Son of Man, in His human nature felt the sin of the world being placed on Him by the Father for the atonement to be complete. Can you imagine what that felt like? I can’t. No wonder Jesus’ heart literally burst inside Him.
While being fully human and suffering a physical death it is totally understandable why Jesus would feel this separation, but in reality that is not what happened because God (the Father) was in Christ the entire time reconciling the world.
2 Cor 5:19 (KJV): To wit, that GOD WAS IN CHRIST reconciling the world unto himself”. See also Romans 5:10.
Jesus, being fully God, was then and now the same nature, substance and essence as the Father. That could never cease to happen even on the cross. More could be said but I’m out of posts.
Got one scripture reference wrong above, it is:
John 8:58 “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” Jesus claimed to be the great I AM. And make now mistake they knew He was claiming to be the Living God that’s why they took up stones to kill Him right after He said this.
Also, there are more Scriptures pointing to the Holy Spirit being God:
Matthew 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” – in the mode of baptism we see the triune nature of God spelled out.
2 Cor. 13:14 “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.” In the closing blessing of 2 Corinthians we again see the triune nature of God invoked.
John 15:26 “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me” The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and testifies of Jesus Christ.
Revelations 5:12 – 14 “Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.” We are to worship Jesus and He is worthy to receive ALL honor. How can this be if God the Father is a separate God and we are to have only one God? There is is, though in Revelations – Jesus is to be worshipped! And not just a little bit – all blessing, honor, glory and power are his for ever and ever! We are ALL to fall and worship the risen Lord!
Ralph said, “polytheism can and does mean a belief in more than one god – but these days it has more the meaning of worshiping all of them – not just believing. Since we LDS worship only one – Heavenly Father – as our one and only Supreme God, it is incorrect to say or infer that we worship many”
Ralph, to tag team with Andy, what is Heavenly Father’s name? Is it Elohim? Would it matter to you at all if I could prove to you from scripture that there is one God, who’s name is YHWH, and YHWH is the only God. And each of the three Persons of the Godhead can be called YHWH, as they are all identified as God. You have already conceded that your church was wrong when it said that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught prior to Nicea. If I can show you the truth of God’s name and nature, will you believe the ancient scriptures, that testify of themselves that they are God breathed (God being the Holy Spirit), or will you believe the teachings of men whose doctrines about the nature of God contradict each other? Which Heavenly Father do you worship, Ralph? Elohim, YHWH, or Adam?
Ralph,
I’m not sure that you understood my point about “purality” of Gods versus “polytheism”. I think for all intended purposes they are virtually the same, hence Mormons could appear to be polytheists.
As I read through the scriptures I find the prophets and apostles talking nothing like Mormon prophets and apostles do about God. In other words there is no preaching about Gods, Goddesses, God attaining His Godhood etc. Yet in Mormon sermons, cirriculum, and pronouncements these are all clearly taught.
Ralph, scripture is clear, it’s GOD, not Gods.
Christians worship one God.
You stated that you worship Jesus as the Son of God, but you worship HF as the supreme God. Yet McConkie stated you should also worship The Holy Ghost, that makes three Gods.
Everytime this topic comes up I am reminded of how your view of God is so different from how the scriptures portray Him. I think the reason that you offer Jesus a different type of “worship” than His Father is due to the fact that Jesus is only your older spirit brother who somehow attained His status as Almighty God before you will attain that same status, therefore instead of religious worship due Him you render to Him an inferior type of “worship”, perhaps merely high respect. This is not a saving worship, Ralph. Since it’s clear that in the OT believers worshipped Jehovah as the only true Almighty Supreme Creator, and since Jesus is Jehovah, it follows that the same worship is due Him. The same honor/worship that we render to the Father is due Jesus. This pleases the Father since it’s His arrangement.
Ralph, I pray that one day soon you will come to see in Jesus our unique Almighty Creator, as such He can save you to the uttermost! [Heb. 7:25]
All this crap about crosses and rings being idolatry is just that: crap. It also includes all the ‘designs’ on temples, and on Ev churches. The focus of EV worship is Jesus, who we believe to be ONE God (Monotheism), and for the Mormons it is thier ‘Father’ figure, who is ONE of MANY Gods (Polytheism). Just WHO to worship in the Mormon church is sometimes a bit unclear, and thus opens the door to the “bad” connotation of polytheism.
Does not common sense tell us that He can look into our hearts and KNOW who we worship and the focus of it? I know you are more intelligent than to use this tired argument (graven images) genius, even to make a point. Same goes for our ‘EV’ posters.
It is using the term ‘Polythism’ in derision that is in question here. In the strict sense of the word, Christians are Monotheists because of the 3-in-1 belief, and Mormons are Polytheists because of the 3-seperate-beings belief.
A lot of Mormons were happy with the revelation of Adam as ‘God’ because it brought God closer to them. The problem with it is that it was never agreed upon by all Mormons. BUT they have one of their ‘prophets’ teaching it as a FACT and another denouncing it as FALSE. You have some Mormons worshipping Christ also, (who to them is a separate God, [Hinkley]) and others who claim it is wrong to do so.
All this ‘revealtion’ about other gods takes away from Jesus/God and breeds confusion: Amasa Lyman one of the twelve under Young was ex-communicated for not believing in the divinity of Jesus.
If worshipping Jesus as GOD is wrong, why did He allow it after His resurrection?
I know again, that genius is too smart to really believe that ’slippery slope’ argument: we all know what we have to do. Worship is intensely personal, and we all have to account for what we do with our time here. It is what is ‘required’ & who has ‘authority’ that is in question.
A small addendum:
This ‘polytheism’ comes from Smith and was ‘added upon’ by Young & others. What qualifies them to teach it and why did Young go so very wrong with it? Does it not argue to the fact that simple is better?
The whole focus of early Mormonism was ‘modern revelation’ and the ‘grace’ question. Authority. Smith’s emphasis was that it is a basic principle of the ‘gospel’ to KNOW God. Don’t we KNOW HIM through the revealed Word of the Bible?
It is Smith’s penchant for ‘rationalizing’ God and saying ‘my way is the ONLY way and ALL the rest of you are wrong’ that brings on these questions.
Grindael, that migtht be true if if was not for the fact it is God’s way, Gods plan, and his privelege to Choose an appoint those who will and shall speak in his name. Evangelicals choose to accept a limited God. and the limiting is done by you and all others who choose to negleget that God is in control of all his Kingdoms here and in the enternites. Since I don’t limit God, or his word then I leave open every opportunity to recieve all light an knowlege I choose to accept and verify. James 1:5
Regareds, Richard.
Ralph and Genius, I am not one of those under the belief that familiarity breeds contempt, but rather opens bridges into the heart. I do not doubt the sincerity of your statements to the effect of One God Worship: your HF, (for you.)
What is implied in worship though? How can Smith, Young and some of the early prophets call themselves ‘gods’ to their people, this implying worship to them as well & the belief they have gone on to become gods and deserve it? How does this fit in?
The problem I have, and I think all ‘non-members’ have, is with your prophets statements. They are confusing, misleading and sometimes just plain wrong. How can you justify the line of thought, we believe A, because it is voted on, but not B, because it was not (but still claimed as truth and ‘revelation’)? Why was Young not ‘ejected’ as a prophet, since the ’spirit of the prophets are subject to the prophets?’ Because it is all about seniority and not ‘revelation’.
If you delve into the teachings of ALL your prophets (and you MUST take them ALL into account, not just the one living now – why – because of that ‘last dispensation’ thing) they are all just men trying to plot a course for their followers. Priesthood authority is only a way for them to say ‘we are right’ and YOU are wrong.
In Historical context, Smith ‘evolved’ his God doctrine, (many believe to justify polygamy) and others ‘added’ to it – to the damnation of many. The track record of Christianity as a whole could conceivably justify a ‘great apostasy’, but aren’t the confusing statements of Mormon Prophets just like what has been going on for thousands of years?
This is exactly why Smith said the restoration NEEDED to take place. Too much confusion. This is NOT Biblical. That is why the Reformation took place. Interpretation aside, Mormonism is no different in this regard than mainstream Christianity. That is why we stick to the Bible.
I don’t know why Mormons quote the Bible. They obviously want it both ways. That is, the Bible is corrupted and unreliable and then sending the missionary boys out clinging to Bibles. Talk about deception. And when they quote the Bible, how do they know the parts they are quoting aren’t the corrupted parts? No, it’s all a ruse, a perpetrated lie meant to confuse and muddy the waters.
The idea that the Jews weren’t monotheists is beyond ignorant. The Hebrews were rigorously monotheistic in the past and they continue to be so today.
“The unity of God was revealed to Israel at several different times and in various ways. The Ten Commandments, for example, begin with statement, ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me (or besides me)’ Exodus 20:2-3
The Hebrew translated here as ‘before me’ or ‘besides me’ is (al panai), which means literally ‘to my face.’ God demonstrated his unique reality by what he had done, and this was entitled to Israel’s exclusive worship, devotion, and obedience. There were no others who had so proven their claim to deity.” (Christian Theology; Erickson)
When we look at the OT we see a rejection of polytheism. In the OT the superiority of God to all those who would claim to be god, is apparent. It is clearly assumed in the OT that there is one God. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There may be idols but there are not many gods.
In the NT the apostle Paul in First Corinthians 8:4-6 writes, “We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is…but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”
There is one God. He is God alone. There are no others. Mormons reject the idea of monotheism by the acknowledgment that in their religion their is a belief that more than one god exists. There is no more serious sin.
So what did Paul mean in First Corinthians 8:4-6 when he referred to “many gods” or “many Lords”? Well that’s why having a proper understanding of Biblical interpretation is important. One of the primary principles of Biblical interpretation is “context”. Without this principle, people will be led off in all sorts of directions that are clearly in error. Paul was telling the Corinthians that they should be sensitive to the consciousness of their brothers regarding meat being offered to idols. There is a factor of reality however that despite the fact that these are idols, there does lie behind them the possibility of demonic influence (First Corinthians 10:20-21).
So these “so called gods” could have an objective reality. That Paul is not referring to additional gods in the sense that Mormons refer to them, can be seen in the terms Paul uses. The terms correspond with the words used to refer to Greek and Roman (gods) and the (lords) or deities of groups known as the mystery cults. (see, “tektonics.org)
So it can be clearly seen that taking a verse out of context and trying to establish a doctrine by it is not only dangerous but heretical and leads people, as in the case of Mormons, to reject God in favor of a view that there are many gods. Hence they have chosen a god out of all the gods to be their god and since they worship him, they aren’t polytheists.
A clear understand of and application of solid Biblical interpretation will result in Mormons rejecting Smith’s heretical and blasphemous doctrine of the nature of god and lead them to the acknowledgment and worship of God.
Mormons also need to look at the spiritual forces that guided Joseph Smith and would lead him to a rejection of god and to embrace an entity known as “an angel of light”.
Ralph,
To show how confusing all this ’sealing’ is, I will go back to Amasa Lyman, who was Joseph Smith’s special counselor, Apostle, Polygamist, & tiitular president of the Church of Zion, and a spiritualist.
Lyman: “‘Well,’ says one, ‘you do not think much of Jesus.’ Yes I do. ‘How much?’ I think he was a good man.”
Lyman acknowledged that Jesus “died for the world,” but added, “and what man that ever died for the truth that he died for, did not die for the world? … Have we found redemption through them? … We may talk of men being redeemed by the efficacy of [Christ's] blood; but the truth is that that blood had no efficacy to wash away our sins. That must depend upon our own action.”
1869. Lyman joined the “New Movement,” organized to oppose the political and economic control of Brigham Young in Utah. New Movement leaders, attracted to spiritualism, named Lyman president of their Church of Zion.
1870. Excommunicated. Caroline Lyman left Amasa & was sealed to Joseph Smith. Her youngest daughter recorded that Caroline:
“felt she must have the protection and the security of the Priesthood in her and her children’s lives.
… Evidently in her dire circumstances she felt that the Prophet was the only secure anchor to be sealed to.”
1898. Martha Lyman Roper, eldest daughter of Amasa and Caroline Lyman, had a “manifestation or dream wherein her father was calling for help. When she heard and saw him she had the impulse to run and embrace him but he warned her to beware and pointed out a great yawning chasm between them, over which she couldn’t go to him nor he to her.
He requested Martha to appeal to his son, Marion, to help him for he was the only one in a position to do so. He also told her that he was very weary and tired of his black clothes and that he did so want to be with his family, his wives and his children whom he loved and longed for.”
1908. May 7: At Caroline’s funeral, Francis M. Lyman told “President [Joseph F.] Smith of my desire to do something for father. Told him of my dreams and my Sister Martha’s, how father had appeared to us and pied his cause. How President Snow told me that there was no doubt but that he could come out all right in the end.”
A short time later Francis M. told his son Richard, “This is one of the most important and happiest days of my life. In the temple today, President Joseph F. Smith placed his hands on my head, and by proxy restored my father to all his former blessings, authority and power.”
So Lyman could reject the Church, Brigham Young as a Prophet & head another Church and then after death get special treatment & be restored to all his former blessings… So who gets his wife, Joseph, or Amasa? Does her choice still stand, or is it ‘overruled’ by the Priesthood Authority of Jos. F. Smith? If this is not confusing, I don’t know what is. (see, HotC: 3:209, 5:255, & Lyman, Albert R. Francis. Marion Lyman: Apostle. Delta, Utah: Melvin A. Lyman, 1958 & Jenson, Andrew. LDS Biographical Encyclopedia. 4 vols. Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson Historical Company, 1901-1936.)
Hank,
“Evangelicals choose to accept a limited God”
Considering how I believe in a God who spoke the universe into existence, who created even time itself, who has always been God, and is the only true God – as opposed to eliyl (http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/eliyl.html) – you have some “esplainin” to do. It is the LDS deity that must obey certain eternal principles, not mine.
Hank, do you worship a god who has/had a god?
See grindael, the Mormon prophet and priesthood have all kinds of authority and power to do all sorts of wonderful things. They can undo things in the spirit world and set things “right”. These prophet/priests have a ton of authority.
It’s such a joke. Mormons are so full of themselves that they can literally make it up as they go along and it all works. It doesn’t have to be consistent or systematic in fact that’s part of the fun of Mormonism. Progressive revelation covers it all. Once someone accepts this form of thinking they surrender any hope that they could think logically at all about their religion. Being illogical is seen as a virtue in Mormonism.
Hank and Sub,
Since Ralph has been open enough to share his
belief that one day he’ll become an Almighty
God [ Rev.4:8 ], do you also believe this for
yourselves?
HankSaint
Back to the old attack mode are we? I asked God. Who are you to tell me I did not?
“the limiting is done by YOU and all others who choose to negleget that God is in control”
Or that HE answered me? Who are you to judge people here? Who are you to make blanket statements that I believe in a limited God? What is He limited to? Nothing. Your comments are offensive, wrong and YOUR opinion.
It is only your ‘opinion’ that God works through your Church. The FACTS are the black and white statements of your leaders and what THEY DID. How they are interpreted is what the discussion is all about, not personal attacks and stating falsely what individual posters believe or don’t believe.
If you cannot respect people, as evidenced by your JUDGEMENT of Falcon about things YOU YOURSELF DID, and your JUDGEMENT of me, then don’t address me at all.
I DON’T “neglect” that GOD is in control, I question that your prophets are, and I do so by THIER writings. God does not ‘reveal’ he is Adam to one prophet, and then tells another prophet it is false. (This IS my ‘opinion’ from reading scripture & THEIR WRITINGS).
As a former Mormon who does not believe this and what your prophets taught and teach, I have a RIGHT to declare it. I do not question YOUR belief in WHAT YOU BELIEVE, only what your PROPHETS have said & why I don’t agree with it. You obviously have your own interpretation of it. It does not make YOU right. Making statements like, “I DON’T LIMIT GOD” but YOU DO is juvenile.
If you take it personally and want to attack people, then you have no place in a public discourse. We were asked to leave all that behind, & I would appreciate it if you please do so.
“limited God?”
Now I know two things for sure. Number one, the Mormon poster has no clue regarding the Christian doctrine of the nature of God. And number two, the Mormon poster cannot process information. We’ve had numerous posts, many by me, regarding the attributes of God.
Here we go again. Sit-up straight and pay attention.
1. Aseity-God is the source of His own life. (Exodus 3:14)
2. Immutability- God will never be different than He has always been. There is absolute constancy within the being of God.
3. Omnipresence-The totality of god is everywhere, and nothing is beyond the bounds of His being. (Psalm 139:7-10)
4. Omniscience-God knows everything past, present and future.
5. Omnipotence-God is all-powerful, and He possesses the ability to do anything that is consistent with His own nature.
6. Eternality-God is always with us. He is not limited by time. (Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 90:1-2)
(source: Systematic Theology, Walter Elwell, Ph.D.)
Has anyone else noticed that as usual the TBM’s here are making the Christians chase their tails defending assertions that our doctrine is aberrant, not the multiple doctrines that have been taught by their church? The TBM’s have not been able to reconcile the contradictory statements about the nature of the LDS god, nor will they. Deflect, deny, accuse.
What does the Christian do like a dog playing fetch? Chase, affirm, defend. We bring it back, the TBM throws the ball again. The TBM’s know they can keep us busy with their tactics, while never holding them accountable to explain their beliefs. How many ways can we affirm the Trinity from scripture? How many times can we show from multiple sources (as has been done at other times) that the Trinity was not an invention of Nicea by the evil Constantine? How about answering Sharon’s question guys? Answer Andy’s questions. Answer my question. We know you worship Heavenly Father, but which GA’s Heavenly Father? I have defended the doctrine of God that is arrived at based upon biblical exegesis. I’m done chasing the ball.
liv4jc,
Very good, your calling the Mormon posters on this. I remember about a year ago or so, Andy Watson put in an extraordinary amount of time hunting down some information and that’s when he (and I by extension) figured out this was a TBM game to get the Christians running down all sorts of rabbit trails.
What we get here is pretty much the equivalent of TBM drive-by shooters or bomb throwers. That’s why I’ve pretty much stopped engaging them directly and just comment on topics. That way we are helping the lurkers with information they might be seeking and ignoring the TBMs who have no intention of having an honest discussion.
Thanks for throwing the yellow flag on this.
I’m at work so I can’t do much referencing, but most of what I say is from LDS sources. If I say anything wrong, hopefully one of the other LDS on this site can pick me up about it.
We teach that Adam and Eve had the true religion/faith of God. They knew Him and His plan and what He wanted. They worshiped Him in the true way. All other religions have evolved from this truth and thus hold some elements of truth, however, not enough to allow one to return to live with Heavenly Father. Even the ‘Satanic cults’ have truth in them – ie that there is a devil, that the devil and God are enemies, etc. I can list a number of these truths that have been corrupted, but as this post is about God and the possible existence of other gods I will restrict my comment in this vein,
I have now seen quite a number of TV shows and internet sites indicating that many in history/archaeology have evidence that the early Hebrews (ie the ancestors of the Jews) were polytheists. Even the Bible states that Abraham was called out of a polytheistic background. This is before the Israelites’ residence in Egypt where they would have picked up some polytheism, and their move to the land of Israel where they were definitely polytheistic. These shows and articles all state that it was Moses (ie after Egypt) that pushed the strict monotheism.
Firstly, given this data, who is to say that the plural ‘Gods’ (Elohim) in Genesis does actually mean Gods and whoever transcribed (if it was a written record) or recorded (if it was an oral history) the Genesis account put in the singular pronouns after Moses’ era to try and gain some monotheism in the beginning of the Bible?
TBC
Continued
Next, could the ancient Hebrews (and Adam onwards) have known of or accepted the existence of other Gods, but only worshiped one as their one and only true God? But as time went on, could they have come to a point where they were worshiping more than one and not just Heavenly Father? This would be a big corruption in their faith. Then because of their stay in Egypt, God, through Moses, brought them into the correct faith again by enforcing a monotheism. As we know, the Law of Moses was a school master to bring an apostate people back to the truth. Because of the frailties of humankind, it would be easier to teach that there is only one God – the only one to worship and leave it at that, rather than teach that there are other gods in existence that have no influence on this world so we do not worship them neither do we revere them in any way – we only revere and worship the one true God.
That is one explanation/musing about all of this from historical and archaeological Biblical resources. Because as explained over and over again, the LDS worship only one God as the Supreme Being and God over this earth and all of the creations within this realm as there is no other that has any influence/power over it.
Falcon,
I have no problems with acknowledging the existence of other Gods, contrary to what you have said. I just have a problem with the word polytheism to describe my religion as these days it implies the worship of more than one god, not just the belief in more than one.
Grindael,
1870 was well after JS died. This woman may have been ‘sealed’ to him by proxy, but that was not a choice of JS was it? I have heard about many women being sealed to the prophets of old like JS and BY after their (the prophets’) deaths. But I have heard that these sealings have been annulled/removed as they were not performed in the proper order. But if her husband had been excommunicated, then the sealing between him and her would have been voided, so she would not be sealed to her first husband. The restoration of temple blessing is something I do not know much about not having been through it myself. But if Sis Lyman left and divorced her husband then my guess is that only his baptismal, priesthood and endowment blessings were restored, not his sealing to his wife. NOTE my guess, not doctrine or fact.
mobaby
when i started reading that you actually were having a serious discussion about that painting,
i decided to stop reading your posts.
gundeck
is there a difference between “beside” and “besides”?
David W
so, brass tacks….cross is idolatry.
the real essence of the 2nd commandment is in fact, about idolatry as specific to worship of God. My facetious fundamentalism aside, but the cross/crucifix is tantamout to a manifested religious devotion – “worship” of Jesus…which is not a worship of God….that is the false doctrine of trinitarianism and delusional when someone says the cross is “just a reminder”….the symbol is revered, plain and simple.
Mike R
i believe this is, as has been illustarted several time on this site, “pearls amongst swine” , but i don’t agree with the Ev usage of that convenient “out”…..not to be outdone though, i will say ‘milk before meat’.
All
16 presidents of the LDS church and the Ev will consistently hang its critical hat on 2…the 2 first ones…and 133 years later the primary controversy rests upon those 2 heads. Not that there isn’t worthy discussion there, but come on Doctrine in the LDS church is not so simply canned. The obsession with Smith and Young simply illustrate the lack of understanding of the LDS church and further perpetuate the notion that the Ev constantly finds the “easy” way out.
But the agression is there….its palatable.
You see there are those whose hearts make them grab at what they can, and when there is nothing there all they hold is a fist.
The nature of God?
Love. Slow to anger. Compassionate. Unwavering.
Those who call Him Father, but do not believe Him to be our “Parent” must feel paternity is a misnomer and are simply giving lip-service and this erodes and corrupts a true understanding of the Scriptures.
Ralph,
How do you know that “polytheism” now days denotes worship of more than one god? Hidus have lots of gods and my understanding is that they have their favorites. So if you want to have that as an opinion, fine. I have mine also.
sub,
Your last sentence there is Mormonism. That’s fine because you folks are into gods and goddesses procreating spirit children into eternity. That’s not Christianity. We don’t believe in mother and father gods giving birth to spirit children who eventually take on human bodies and if they get the works program going to satisfaction can repeat the process and become gods and goddesses.
This, along with other Mormon beliefs, isn’t in the Bible which is why Joseph Smith had to declare that the Bible was corrupt. That way he could have “revelations” which gave rise to his heretical sect. There are Mormon sects who reject all of Smith’s aberrant revelations and stick with the original restored gospel.
Anyway, as Christians we acknowledge and worship the God of the Bible, not the god that was created by a false prophet.
Nice try Ralph and Sub. I’m not chasing any more of your balls. To quote Sub, Ralph, “pure speculation.” “Could have, maybe, possibly” from secular anti-God networks like the History Channel. I’ve seen their work about Jesus during Christmas. It’s junk and speculation, just like you are throwing out. I don’t care if you think that Adam and Eve knew of many gods. Can you prove that from scipture? No. God declares that there are no other gods (Isaiah 43:10 and elsewhere in the 40’s) and that worhiping those non-existent gods is foolishness.
The Bible is emphatic. There is one God. You don’t need to believe in thousands or millions, Ralph. Even believing in two makes you a polytheist.
Answer the questions. What is God’s name? Who is He? Does God have a god?
Sub, we concentrate on the first two because they had the biggest mouths. JS was the one who called all other churches an abomination, remember. JS said that he had always taught the plurality of gods, remember? JS is the “prophet” of the restoration of the one true church, remember? Your other prophets are pikers when compared to his theological bravado. Praise the man, Sub!!
Most of the others wised up and kept their mouths closed. So you want to start charging others with palatable aggression while you play the passive aggressive card? Your unwillingness to answer the questions with anything other than vague generalities is very revealing: The nature of God: “Love. Slow to anger. Compassionate. Unwavering.” Those are descriptive attributes inherent to His nature, not who He is as pertains to this discussion. Your embarrassment about the statements and doctrines taught by JS and BY is palatable. Why not gladly affirm those doctrines? Instead you’re saying, “Come on, guys? Can you stop hammering the JS BY drum? Our other prophets have shyed away from talking about those things…look, a nice juicy apple, don’t you want to have this instead?”
Answer the questions, or I’ll assume you don’t have the answers. What is God’s name? Who is He? Does God have a god?
Ralph:
At Caroline’s funeral, Joseph F. Smith was reported to have said this:
“President Smith said during his talk that he was sure that Amasa Lyman had paid the penalty for his wrong doing & would have all his wives and children who were worthy in eternity. He also said that the celestial order of marriage, or polygamy could never have been carried out successfully had it not been for the Partridge sisters.” http://www.finarv.org/history/histcepl.htm
Caroline was the daughter of Edward Partridge, (for his importance, read your Church History). Her sealing to Smith was not frivolous. The statement above clarifies that Amasa was to get his wives back. I find it disturbing that modern day prophets are able to nullify the Judgement Day and give back blessings and grant the celestial kingdom to apostates. Amasa received special treatment for who he was and who his relatives were. All this flies in the face of statements by Spencer Kimball about living the gospel to the letter of the law, and THEN Jesus atonement takes care of you. How can all that Amasa did be retracted? Is this like the ‘special dispensations’ of the Popes? Do the prophets of the Mormon Church have the power to forgive sins or nullify a life lived in apostasy? What does that say for the rest of mankind?
This is not the only case. John D. Lee, (Brother in law of Brigham Young) a murderer, had the same thing done for him. So did John W. Taylor, apostate & (son of John Taylor, third president of the Church.) So did Bill Hickman, another murderer. (authorized by Heber J. Grant)
Does this mean we can repent in the afterlife? If you can only have wives in the Celestial Kingdom, then that means Amasa Lyman could repent in the Spirit World and be granted his wives in the Celestial Kingdom & reap all those blessings. Which sealing takes precedence? What exactly is to be believed here? Still very confusing, & I understand your being only able to guess about this.
“And before you say anything about ‘worshipping’ Jesus – we worship Him as the Son of God and our Saviour and Redeemer. We do not worship Him as our one and only Supreme God.”
Ralph, are you not STILL worshipping HIM (Jesus)? What is the difference, really? Is there some kind of worship chart that I’m not aware of? Do Mormons worship different gods on different levels? According to the dictionary, worship is:
wor⋅ship [wur-ship] noun, verb, -shiped, -ship⋅ing or (especially British) -shipped, -ship⋅ping.
–noun
1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
5. (initial capital letter) British. a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually prec. by Your, His, or Her).
I can’t wrap my mind around what you said, really. You worship Jesus as the Son of God, but not as God, but He is a God, but not THE God who is your supreme and one and only God. But you still worship Him (Jesus). So If you are worshipping TWO gods, (on whatever level you want to call worship – it is still worship is it not?) Then are you not polytheists, which is the belief in or worship of more than one god?
So let me recap: Mormons are NOT polytheists because they worship ONE of the gods as the supreme god. All other gods (JC & Holy Ghost) are worshipped on some other level, if at all.
So to take this to another level, Joseph Smith is worshipped as the Prophet of the Restoration (if your are singing Hymns to him in Church it seems like worship to me) all the statues, paintings, etc. & many who believe he is already (or soon to be) resurrected & a god at this point) cf. P.P. Pratt:
“It is well with my servants Joseph and Hyrum. My servant Joseph still holds the Keys of My Kingdom in this dispensation, and HE SHALL STAND IN DUE TIME ON THE EARTH, IN THE FLESH, AND FULFILL THAT TO WHICH HE IS APPOINTED.” (Biography, pgs. 370-371),
Vision of N.Buckley:
“During all this time, our people were laboring in the temples day and night, endowing the elders of israel with the fullness of the blessings of the holy priesthood until they got the number of fifty thousand endowed. During this time the temple in Salt Lake City had been completed, and in one of the rooms situated in one of the towers, Jesus and Joseph, with their council, were sitting.
“Then preparations were made for the fifty thousand to go down to the center stake in Zion, with JESUS and JOSEPH at their head, riding in their chariots of fire. They seemed somewhere about six to ten rods above the earth. (See D&C Sec. 103:20-21)” (Vision of Newman Buckley, Springville Utah, 1895.)
Jesus is worshipped as the Redeemer (same as Smith but a little HIGHER on the chart?), and
(HF) as the Supreme God (the HIGHEST worship?). Isn’t this still the worship of many who are revered and paid homage to? How is it NOT polytheism? Is this any different than men praying to Mary, or Saints, etc? Is that not a detraction from true worship of only ONE God?
subgenius,
In the context of this passage no there is little difference. There is but one God.
Grindael, thanks for bring up old news again.
Since I got the boot I could not respond to your false accusation that I was doing what I accused Falcon of. LOL, you surely did find my copy and post, but failed miserably in your false accusation since you did not bother to look at the post prior to mine. If you had you would have noticed I was addressing Setfree and his lack of Googling abilities to find anything on the topic we were talking about, so I went to the site a copied and pasted the information. You blundered again on finding anything I have plagarized becasue you failed to do your research fully because of your zeal to find something you can now not prove, but I can. LOL good buddy, and thanks for bring up the topic again, which only proves that Falcon is someone who copies other peaoples thoughts and ideas, Nice try, now go back and check out what I just proved and you unwittingly missed.
Richard.
genius
I do feel for you, really. But you can’t have it both ways. I have tried to tone down my aggressiveness (read my early posts to see the diff), about Smith & Young, but man – they are the gold mine of all Mormon Doctrine.
The way I perceive your take on Mormonism is as a progressive Church with fallible leaders. That is great, but it does not fit in with what your leaders teach & have taught. (Although Gordon Hinckley tried like hell to dodge historical questions & ‘forget’ the past.) I’m entirely open to any logical reasons for some of these teachings & statements. Again, as I have asked: just what is a prophet according to the prophets themselves? The answer to that is to understand the LDS Church.
Smith & Young claimed infallibility, (Young was the worst & Smith beat people up) but so did W. Woodruff, John Taylor, & Jos. F. Smith, & your leaders are still doing it by making statements like, ‘we will never lead you astray’.
I’ve quoted liberally from many of your prophets, not just the two. You see a change in the Mormon Church after the Manifesto, but a lot of damage was done by Young. But Smith & Young laid the foundation & if you can’t trust their teachings, or the lives they led, how is the rest believable?
The big question is: what is still locked up in the Church Archives? We may never know.
The whole reason for the Mormon Church is wrapped up in ‘modern revelation’. Why then, would anyone not be interested in what these prophets reveal? If there is something to blame, it is the modern age for the documentation and promulgation of what these men taught and did. I do not ever try to take the ‘easy way out’. True research is not easy.
Sub,
Too bad you didn’t read the rest of my post – that’s where I show how the truth of the Bible totally destroys the false Mormon god. God has given us many many scriptures that show He is the One True God – there are no others. However one describes the Mormon god – polytheism, monolatry, henotheism – no matter, it is a false god. I do not fear the Mormon god, because I know he does not exist. I can see why you do not want to deal with the Scripture presented – you have no answer.
Here are some more Scriptures that reveal the True and Living God:
Isaiah 42:8 “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” Here we see that God will not share His glory with another – yet we are to worship both the Father and the Son – we are to give glory to Jesus (Rev. 5:13), we see this in the Bible. Wouldn’t God be sharing His glory with another if He allowed glory given to His son. And how can there be other gods, they would share God’s glory. Furthermore, God will not share His glory with us, His creation. We will not be gods.
Isaiah 43:15 “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” No gods formed before God, no gods formed after. Well – that leaves all those seeking exaltation to godhood out of the picture. Once again, God will not share His glory with another.
Drop this cross graven image/idolatry canard and I will drop my example of actual idolatry.
Sub,
It’s unfortunate that you can’t be as open in
sharing your belief as Ralph is with his.
Using the “pearls before swine” albi does’nt
go very far when viewed in the light of 1Pt.3:15.
Your refusal to simply give an answer to a very
simple and direct question is your choice.
Ralph,
I realize that you feel you’re not a polytheist.
But when Mormon teachings throw around the word
“gods” so much ,it’s easy to see how you can be
seen as such.
I do hope one day you can come to see the full
truth concerning Christian worship.You have some
of the truth , but until you realize that the
same quality of worship that you render to HF
is to be given to Jesus also,only then will the
truth make you free”.Then you’ll know the truth
of Jn.12:26; 5:23; 14:23.
I know you to be an honest man, so I know you’ll
seek God on this matter.
Andy,
Your posts on Christ crucified for our sins are great – that is the gospel! The good news of forgiveness given through the blood of Christ. It’s a message I long to hear – it never gets old.
HankSaint
Do you REALLY want to go down this road? Try this post
“Lets take a look at the form and meaning in linguistic expression or natural expressions. The above can be looked at as being quiet normal or plausible, right? when the Nephites left Jerusalem they may have had an active speaking knowledge of Egyptian, and so far as their knowledge of Hebrew was concerned, it was that of Palestinian natives. But a thousand years later their descendants, Mormon and Moroni, can scarcely be expected to have had an active speaking knowledge of Egyptian.
So stay with me, 1000 years later Mormon and Moroni, the last to have written in the BOM, and Mormon admitted he abridged the many other plates into one book. Their knowledge of Egyptian would probably be limited to a passive reading knowledge of the same. In my opinion, within a few generations following the days of Nephi and Lehi, a knowledge of Egyptian would have been limited to comparatively few of their descendants—mainly scribes and men of good education.” (Hanksaint Sept 03, 2009).
The BOLD is Quoted from here http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=4&num=1&id=91 Word for word. No sources:
(Under the Heading: The BOM on itself)
“Another important observation: when the Nephites left Jerusalem they may have had an active speaking knowledge of Egyptian, and so far as their knowledge of Hebrew was concerned, it was that of Palestinian natives. But a thousand years later their descendants, Mormon and Moroni, can scarcely be expected to have had an active speaking knowledge of Egyptian.”
The second paragraph after the ’stay with me’ is also copied without references. (same source)
See, you were censured repeatedly for cutting & pasting from ‘apologists’, so you made it seem like this was your own statement. This is not an accusation, it is a FACT.
Can we have Sharon or Aaron weigh in on this? Just to set the record straight? Sorry to bother you, but I’m tired of the lies & personal attack
Hank has overstayed his welcome at Mormon Coffee.
Sub,
If I tried the same thing with your faith that you have with mine, the hue & cry that would ensue from you (and probably other Mormons) would be enormous. If I stated something like, “Brass tax, Mormons worship Joseph Smith,” even though you have stated your rejection to that notion (like we have with the cross), every dirty charge would be leveled against me. You would rightly state that I misrepresent your church because indeed I would have.
If you are going to be consistent, then by natural extension Jews commit idolatry with the Ten Commandments and/or the star of David, Muslims with the crescent moon, and Mormons with the angel Moroni.
The cross is not a graven image in Christianity. And I do not think you were being facetious in your last post. I think you have a warped view of Exodus 20, and scripture in general, and your last post was merely a face saving attempt to bail you out of an absurd position.
Furthermore, I think this is all an attempt at deflection and turn-about. You are a polytheist by your own admission. We all know the negative connotation (and implications) that it carries. You want to put that charge on us but it does not stick.
Previously, you stated that you have, or at least try to, answer all questions that come your way. These are more substantial than the cross canard:
Furthermore, if 1st century Jewish Christians were monotheists (and they were) then the church was “apostate” before it ever began. Do you see the problem here?
Are you really stating that singular pronouns are used for “Elohim” in only 2 or 3 places? Are we on the same page that the other names for God use masculine & singular pronouns(and verbs, adjectives, etc.)? Again, what is the point of all of this?
David,
As liv4jc has pointed out, sub is just throwing anything he can into the mix either to avoid dealing with the substance of the discussion or just to bolster his own false impressions of Christianity. It’s all about attempting to put the Christians on the defensive. It’s difficult to find a Mormon who can actually go deeper than a few mottos and slogans.
An often quoted verse here is Second Timothy 3:16 where we are told that all Scripture is “God breathed” and is useful for teaching, reproof, correcting, and training so that as Christians we are fully equipped. Joseph Smith and his inflated ego couldn’t stand the scrutiny of the Scriptures. So he declared the Bible corrupted and his modern “revelation” to be a better way to hear from God. So he could run willy nillie proclaiming anything he wanted without being questioned or held-up to the standard of God’s revealed Word.
So now Mormons have a mess on their hands regarding the proclamations and teachings of their past “prophets”. But they just play the “doesn’t count” game while continuing to insist that these prophets were hearing from God. Whether or not something “counts” depends on how totally wacky the prophets’ proclamation were. And the “that was in the past” or “a long time ago” serves as an “it’s all better now” snuggie for the Mormons to wrap themselves in to keep warm and cozy.
The Bible is very clear regarding who God is. The only way to reject it (doctrine of the nature of God) is to reject the Bible itself. Which is what Mormons do while of course at the same time claiming the Bible as one of their standard works. It all fits however into the mindset of the Mormon who can make virtually anything work to be able to conclude “therefore the church is true”.
Luke 12:56
1 Cor 2:14
David W
The jews do not “bow down” to the 10 cmds. or wear replicas around their neck…the muslim does not “bow down” to the crescent either. My point is easily displayed in the Catholic use of the cross, it is kissed, it is mounted above Bishop’s graves, it is even mimicked at the end of prayer across the chest.
You say, that it is “to remind”…am i to believe that the single most important aspect of Ev Doctrine is so easily forgotten?
The only “negative” connotation of polytheism is by your own hand. I have not denied it, but rather gone forward to clarify the position, a position supported by the scriptures. On the other hand is the implied trinitarianist…implied being the key word…you see the Ev relies on implication, innuendo, and inference to “discern” what the scriptures mean…they never rely on what the actual scripture “says”.
That is why we are constantly assaulted by references and citations from Dr. This and PhD. that – a constant stream of what “other people” “think” the scriptures mean – put the Bible in a test tube and distill out natural man doctrine to suit their purpose. Academics play a necessary role in gaining “knowledge” of the Word, but they are not the Fountainhead.
Critical of modern prophets? They serve more righteously than the grant-seeking scientist who simply pulls apart doctrine to see what makes it “tick”. Which “source” for supplemental insight do you subscribe to? All?…so many here rely on the supplement and soon forget the Primary Text!
Until the typical poster and lurker understand this simple truth, they will always be constantly hungry for that one book, that one article, that one thesis which will finally quench their thirst for elightenement….but if one looks down at their own cup they will surely see that the Bible has filled it to the rim.
1st C. jew-christians were monotheistic in “worship” (they did not worship Jesus)…but there is no evidence against henotheism.
genius
How can you say the early Christians did not worship Jesus? What about these two scriptures from the Gospels:
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted…” (Matthew 28:16,17)
It seems the apostles were worshipping Jesus the minute they saw Him …
I honestly don’t understand your post. Reading commentary is fine, but it never takes the place of the Bible. Why does it seem so hard for Mormons to believe the EV get led by the Spirit? That we believe what we do because we have read the Bible and come to that conclusion independent of scholarly opinion?
After I left the Mormons I was an atheist for 25 years until I picked up a Bible and actually read it again in humility. I understood then why the apostles were worshiping Jesus and He now is the focus of my worship. There were things that happened to me I can’t explain, and won’t relate here. But I know and believe, and my knowledge is not from a church or a man, but from God.
You may not realize that I was in the Mormon Church for a long time, read everything I could get my hands on, and went to BYU. I was an active member who served a mission. Through the study of the words of the prophets I came to the conclusion that Mormonism was not what it claimed to be. How does that make me a hypocrite?
Do you think it was an easy choice to leave it? Do you even understand the attitude I got for questioning? Why do they lock up Church History? Why do modern prophets want to gloss over what went on in the church in earlier times? How is it not relevant to today? My cup is not full, it can never be with a living God who is in my life everyday. Why do I need a living prophet to interpret what I can read for myself?
Why did the Jews keep the stone tablets in the ark in the Temple?
Hanksaint
Charming, to the last…You don’t know everything, and you don’t know me. I’m sorry you are so bitter and arrogant. I was like that once, but Jesus power can change anyone. I have a photographic memory. I told you I read all the old posts. That did take me ‘hours and hours’. I did it for knowledge and understanding. When you attacked Falcon (who I don’t always agree with – read my posts) I recalled YOUR posts, and simply leveled the playing field. I actually e-mailed Bill about you, but you know everything, don’t you?
Good Luck. Hope to see you again. Perhaps, like all of us you will try and make it a better experience.
Grindael, can you email me so I can contact you? questionlds@yahoo.com
Sub,
“The jews do not “bow down” to the 10 cmds. or wear replicas around their neck”
Actually, they have. I am sure you have heard of the two silver scrolls found near Jerusalem containing Numbers 6:24-26. Also, is there any debate that many Jews do in fact wear the Star of David around the neck?
1st century Christians did worship Jesus. Aside from the numerous passages in the Bible, there is Polycarp’s letter to the Philipians, “who shall
believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ”.
Perhaps you would argue that is not 1st century as the letter is often dated to 110 A.D. or after (even though Polycarp was born well before the 2nd). You would have to contend with Clements letter to the Corinthians (dated to either 68 A.D. or 96 A.D.), “Jesus Christ, through whom be ascribed unto him glory and greatness, strength and honour, both now and world without end.
Sub, I am asking you to be consistent. Christians have said less about, and done less with, the cross and you accuse us of idolatry. If a Christian today said these same things about another person, or of a thing like a cross, you would accuse him/her of idolatry.
Lastly, I do not need a commentary by some theologian with a PhD. to tell me you are a flaming heretic who rejects the plainest of scriptures. Notice the word “God” and not “Godhead”, and even if “Godhead” were used you would still have a problem because the denial of other godheads would be a lie.
Isaiah 43:10-13
“You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.
“I, even I, am the LORD,
And there is no savior besides Me.
“It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,And there was no strange god among you;
So you are My witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“And I am God. “Even from eternity I am He,
And there is none who can deliver out of My hand;
I act and who can reverse it?”
Sub,
Do you really believe that 1st century Jews were henotheists?
I take it you agree with me that both the noun, pronouns, and verbs for “Elohim” are not consistently plural in the OT. I also take it that you agree that if the cross is an idolatrous image then so is the angel Moroni.
Are you denying that some Mormons, even GA’s, do in fact worship of Jesus?
David W
1st C. Jews henotheists?, there is more evidence, via scriptures, cultural context, and linguistics to lead one to a conclusion of henotheism rather than wholesale monotheism.
i won’t get into social-trinitarianism with you over McConkie versus Hinckely. But since i have prophesized ’semantics’ we could dissect the word “worship”….as the Bible teaches there are many ‘faces’ to that word.
1 Chr 29:20
now apply this concept of worship to the graven cross…to the assumption of Mormon polytheism….as has been said here before…milk before meat?
I have been taught that, in a way, to worship one is to worship the other, they cannot be worshipped seperately. But this is to understand that LDS do not worship Jesus as God (as in outside of the Godhead). Jesus is ‘worshipped’ as Our Lord and Our Savior.
Now this does contrast with the Christian belief…afterall, Jesus taught us to pray to the Father exclusively, not to Himself….you decide.
John 16:23 Matthew 26:39
I realize that you need the creator to be intensely seperated from the created….but there is little to support such a position. It is quite nonsensical.
grindael
sounds like a good argument for 1st century polytheism to me. To not be able to distinguis Jesus from God is an interesting facet of you i had not realized. So, you ‘worship’ Jesus or God?….or both? (and reconcile it by saying they are one in the same?…though all evidence points the other way)
genius
Where do you get your conclusion from? I said the focus of my worship is Jesus. He IS God. Thomas: “Oh Lord, MY GOD.”
Are you saying it is WRONG to worship Him?
grindael
my conclusions come from the scriptures….
you see Thomas was embarassed and thus exclaims his belief when he realizes. In this excalamation he recognizes Jesus and the divine nature of Jesus…so, no, this verse is not sufficent evidence against the bulk of other scripture that Jesus is The God. This is more likely an affirmation that Jesus is of the Godhead.
I am not saying it is wrong to worship Him, He is central to LDS worship…but recognize that now you are a polytheist…you worship God The Father and Jesus The Lord….unfortunately The HS is left out…is it because there is no definite form? Perhaps you do not have such a disconnect for the seperation of the Creator from the Created?
Sub,
“1st C. Jews henotheists?, there is more evidence, via scriptures, cultural context, and linguistics to lead one to a conclusion of henotheism rather than wholesale monotheism.”
I am going to take that as a “yes”. It is beyond the scope of this thread but I would love to see you make a case for that. Aside from scripture, I would really like to see rabbinic and early church commentaries on scripture that speak specifically to this issue. I would think that you would need to prove that the other gods are on par with the God of the Bible. By “on par” I do not necessarily mean equal in every way but rather of the same specie, same kind, or same level. Anyone will freely admit that the Bible mentions “gods” but they are not really gods (eliyl) and that they are created by and give worship to Yaweh.
Let me get this all straight. Mormons regard Jesus to be a god; Mormons “worship” Jesus. However, Mormons do not worship Jesus as God? And this is not semantics? I do not view semantics as a bad do you?
Also, for those Mormons who do worship Jesus and have no problem with it, then there is no prob. But for those that don’t, like yourself, I see a problem. All the ways that Jesus is referenced, prayed to/about, sung to, etc. at the ward level would indeed be idolatry . . . at least according to you who views the photo in my house w/ my wife and myself as being a “graven image”. Jesus is then most definitely a graven image to most Mormons if you are going to be consistent.
I would also put this in contrast to Polycarp and Clement whom I mentioned who did in fact view Jesus as “God.” (as well as the disciples in Matt 28). Again, beyond the scope of the thread but there is ample textual and archeological evidence that very early Christians regarded Jesus as “theos”.
“I realize that you need the creator to be intensely seperated from the created….but there is little to support such a position. It is quite nonsensical.”
If by “intensely separated” you mean not creation himself then the answer would be “yes”. If by “little” you mean the Bible and over 2000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition (in the way of commentaries, hymns, lectionaries, and religious teaching) then yeah there is only a “little”.
I hope you can be consistent and call over 3 billion Christians, Jews, Muslims, and general theists “nonsensical”. If you throw me under the materialist bus, just know I am under there with the likes or Augustine, Aquinas, Bacon, etc.
HankSaint
I’m truly happy for you. Now, with statements like this:
I see the complete and total fabrication like those of yourself
Don’t think the frienship thing will be happening any time soon. As to fabrication, shall we ask for arbitration? I’m willing to go with whatever decision Bill makes.
But perhaps, if you were to learn some tact, and how to tell the truth, you may be worth exploring as a friend.
genius
So you can read the mind of Thomas? Let me be specific. Jesus IS GOD. ONE GOD. I am not a polytheist by any stretch of the imagination.
My point was coming to know Jesus IS GOD.
HankSaint
Sorry you feel that way, but like I said before, you don’t know me or where I’ve been or what I know. As for twisting, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it and hey, I even understand it.
Like I said to genius:
I’ve learned a lot from some mormon posters here, the most from genius. I don’t agree with him a lot, but he makes me think and and keeps me on my toes. He may not be aware of how many times I have to go look up what he casually refers to in his posts. I’m disappointed sometimes that we are on different sides – but it doesn’t take away from how we can learn and be better for having put ourselves out here.
I’ll leave you with that, and the hope that someday, someway, all will be understood and sorted out when we finally meet the King, our Lord and Saviour. Hope to see you there.
AndyWatson,
With all due respect, EVs here always accuse LDS posters of reading things into Bible verses, but come on- are you not doing that very thing in a big way in interpreting Christ’s very clear words while on the cross:
“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.” Mark 15:34
Jesus asked a very clear question.
Your interpretation causes a person to wonder if the Bible is even understandable. Does it mean what it says?
Jesus felt that “His God” had forsaken Him. How is that possible if He was the very person He was praying to? It is not.
You are using circular logic in a big way when you say “while being fully human and suffering a physical death it is totally understandable why Jesus would feel this separation, but in reality that is not what happened because God (the Father) was in Christ the entire time reconciling the world.”
Olson Jim said: Your interpretation causes a person to wonder if the Bible is even understandable. Does it mean what it says?
The crucifixion account is present in all four gospels, not only in the synoptics. What is evident from all four gospel accounts is that each contains elements made to show a fulfillment of Psalm 22. Verses 7 and 8, “All those who see Me ridicule Me; They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, “He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him; Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!” This is fulfilled in Matthew 27:39-44, Mark 15:29-30, and Luke 23:35-37. Also present is the dividing of the garments and the great thirst. John 19:28 actually says, “After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” clearly a fulfillment of Psalm 22:15. Psalm 22:1 says, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” This is fulfilled and recorded in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. These words were spoken by Jesus to make those listening remember Psalm 22 and realize that what was happening all around them was a fulfillment of that Psalm. What is also recorded is that Jesus spoke again. All four gospels say this. Matthew and Mark just say that Jesus cried out with a loud voice and gave up His spirit (Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37). Luke and Matthew do not record the fulfillment of Psalm 22:1, but they do record two other things Jesus said before He died. Luke 23:46 says, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” From that verse it sure doesn’t sound like Jesus believed the Father had abandoned Him, in fact it shows that He was still in communion with the Father, as He always was, and always will be. Luke 23:46 is a quotation from Psalm 31:5. John 19:30 does not record Jesus’ statement about abandonment, but it makes sure to note that just before He gave up His spirit he cried, “It is finished.” Yes, Lord, it is finished, and that is the hope Christians have: Christ’s finished work.
Just gotta share this, and this seems like a good place.
Psalm 33:12 (among many other Bible verses) does a terrific job at clearing up the matter.
It says “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance.”
and the words for God and LORD, originally? Elohim and Jehovah.
Let’s see that again then.
“Blessed is the nation whose Elohim is Jehovah”
yuppers… guys… just one God. Jehovah.