On June 16, 1844—just 11 days before his death—Joseph preached just east of the Nauvoo temple in a grove probably very near (or even the same place as?) where he gave his sermon at King Follett’s funeral. Many people think of the King Follett Discourse as Joseph Smith’s last great sermon, and indeed, some have even mistaken it as his very last sermon. But it certainly was not his last.
I’d encourage everyone to become familiar with Joseph Smith’s sermon on the Godhead and the plurality of gods as printed in History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 473-479. Ask yourself: What would Joseph Smith have said on Larry King?
“If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.” (>>)
Joseph went on to write:
“I want to stick to my text, to show that when men open their lips against these truths they do not injure me, but injure themselves. To the law and to the testimony, for these principles are poured out all over the scriptures. When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.”
Discussion Questions
- Joseph Smith the Bible is “full” of the doctrine the Father having a Father. What Biblical support is there for this doctrine, if any? What does the Bible say that would preclude this from even being a possibility?
- What would Joseph Smith say on Larry King in contrast to Gordon B. Hinckley?
- Do you think Joseph Smith thought he was merely speculating?
- Why do you think the notion of the Father having a Father is so offensive to Christians? Most importantly, do you think it is offensive to God himself?
I guess in some ways it comes down to is the LDS church and Joseph Smith correct, or is the Bible and God Correct?
We just read what JS said, now lets look at what God said, Isa 43:10 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.
Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.
Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].
It’s really sad, But I just have been going back and forth with Mike over this. Either their is Millions of gods or their is only one. But yet the LDS insist I and the Scriptures are wrong. This teaching by JS is simply another Gospel and falls under Gal 1:8-9. My second favorite verse in the Bible. Rick b
Well Joseph Smith certainly had a different view than the established Church. There is no mistaken that! So the question is, of course, did God reveal this to him or was he just free lancing it? Is this what the apostles believed and taught? Can someone put their trust in this god (as described above) and be saved? If it doesn’t matter, then no harm no foul. But if ones view of the Father and all that flows from this belief does effect our salvation, then it’s important to get it right.
Falcon said But if ones view of the Father and all that flows from this belief does effect our salvation, then it’s important to get it right.
Our view really does matter, The Bible is so full of examples you would have to be blind or simply ignore all of it.
Gods put His Word Above His name, and we know how serious He is about taking His name in vain. Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy loving kindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Then again their is Gal 1:8-9, the Mention of False Teachers, prophets, wolves in Sheeps clothing, we were warned about all of this for a reason.
then read of the Book of Job for the full story, but then focus on the last Chapter 42, God was very upset with the bogus council and way Job’s friends misunderstood scripture. God was not pleased with them at all.
Read Romans or Peter or Jude or the Bible for that matter. These people did not mince words or beat around the bush when they speak on false teachers or the eternal DOOM and Blackness that awaits these false teachers.
Sadly though, now adays, people are afraid to tell it like it is for fear of hurting another feelings, I simply do not see that with Jesus or the Apostles. The fact hell is forever should over ride your fear or speaking the truth and taking a solid stance. Rick b
This “Whenever did… anything spring into existence without a progenitor?” idea is part of Plato’s (remember, Plato was Greek, lived before Jesus Christ, and undoubtedly never met a Jew or any variety of monotheist in his life) logical proof of the existence of a Creator. An “unmoved mover”, translated poorly from his Greek. Essentially he said that you can’t go backwards forever, tracing effects and causes ad infinitum, because if you can, an infinity would have to have been crossed to get where we are now. Plato believed it was not possible to cross an infinity, and I am inclined to agree with him.
By the way… Plato’s “unmoved mover” did not “spring into existence” on its own. He has always been and will always be(Exodus 3:14).
“Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.”
Well… someone is full of it, but it sure isn’t the Bible, haha. What blasphemy! It’s amazing that he was so far gone he actually claimed that the Bible taught that. It’s even more astounding that he is revered as a prophet of God by so many people.
-glenn
this reminds me of the way some of the Catholics get their beliefs. My grandmother (Catholic) said that the nuns taught her in school that Mary didn’t have any labor pains when she gave birth to Jesus.
When asked how the nuns knew this, the reply was “it’s a nice thing to believe”.
yeah. okay. Now if only the nun had explained to her students that she was actually a prophet, and that God was revealing this new revelation through her.
My mind is still spinning from all of this, but I’m addicted and can’t stop reading. 🙂
I think the religion that has evolved from Joseph Smith is one for this age–believe what you want to and, whenever challenged at any point, just change your point of view. For this reason, I don’t know how any mormon could feel assurance in their beliefs–they don’t know what their church teaches (not even their Prophet claims to know if they teach “as God is, man will be…”), so what do they have to hold onto or pass on to their progeny except “feelings” and “burnings”. you could prove just about anything by taking small half-sentences from the Bible out of context–and this they do readily.
I’m a Mormon. I’ve always liked Joseph Smith. And I have indeed read this kind of stuff from him.
I like it. I have no problem with it. I also am open to the possibility that he was wrong. But I’m open to him being right too. Personally, I like the theology expounded by Joseph far better than that expounded by traditional Christianity. I find his boldness and audacity downright inspiring.
And I do consider Joseph to be a bona fide prophet.
I’m a big fan of the King Follet Discourse and related sermons. Warts and all.
And Brian, we’ve already addressed those verses you cited. They don’t prove anything. They speak just as easily to a localized mandate of worship, as they do to a cosmically universal one.
“Before me no god was formed [over this specific world or this specific dominion that I, among potentially billions of other gods, uniquely control along with two other gods], nor shall there be any after me [see previous divine annotation].” – God (Specifically, Jesus who is pretending to be the Father via divine investiture as he demands direct prayer and worship that only the Father should be given), Isaiah 43:10
It all makes sense now… 🙂
Perfect sense. 😉
I am so glad to see this issue brought up. For me, this is the #1 problem I have with LDS doctrine. I don’t know if Mormons are fully able to grasp how offensive this is to the average Christian. This is blasphemy of the highest form. The idea that God was not always eternally God is completely contrary to the Bible. And then when you add in the LDS teaching that God was once a man and that humans ourselves can eventually become gods…wow. Although Pres. Hinckley does prevaricate on this last point when it comes up. In spite of the fact that it was taught by Pres. Lorenzo Snow (he of “as man is, God once was, as God is, man may become” fame), Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith himself.
Others in this thread have been citing a few of the numerous Biblical examples illustrating God’s eternal and eternal soveriegnty. I want to talk about two verses that Mormons cite in support of the “there are other gods and we can become gods too” teaching. They often point to Psalm 82:6-7–“I said, you are ‘gods’; you are all sons of the Most High. But you will die like mere men; you wil fall like every other ruler”. The first part of Psalm 82:6 also reappears in John 10:34 where Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. According to my study Bible, the writer of Psalm 82 was speaking a word of judbment specifically to national leaders–the kings, judges and other authority figures in Isreal. In ancient cultures, such a leader was often referred to as a “god” or “son of god” because of his power and position. This was also done in nearby ancient Egypt. The psalmist points out that those these powerful men live like earhly “gods”, they will one day die like everyone else.
If anything, John 10 shows that the “gods” spoken of in Psalm 82 are lesser than Yahweh/Jesus. Jesus has all the more right to be called the “son of God” if wicked sinners can be called “gods.” That’s why he uses the “how much more” kind of argument in the context.
The Pharisees in John 10 are hardly candidates for true godhood, either by Biblical or Mormon standards, and indeed, whatever legitimate position one takes on Psalm 82:6 (i.e. evil human judges or divine [using the word ‘divine’ loosely compared to its normal meaning] council of subordinate, ontologically lesser beings under the supreme Yahweh), the term was never meant to refer to beings who are of the very same nature as Yahweh (co-eternal, potentially possessing equal maximum power and knowledge, etc).
There are so many things about Yahweh, the one true God, that will never be true of the “gods.”
Megan,
I am not sure how this doctrinal difference can be more offensive than calling Mormon’s non-Christian. I have been scolded on this site for taking any offense at all (even when offense was meant)- I submit that it is your choice to be offended.
On the topic of whether or not we will become gods? Well, it’s not important to have that belief in order to be a temple attending Mormon- so really, it’s irrelevant. No one is required to believe this, whether it is true or not. If anything, I find this teaching to be interesting- and look forward to further clarification when my simple mind is able to grapple at its’ possibilities- right now, all I need is a testimony of the restored gospel.
Your references that you give are an example of different interpretations…I think our differences really come down to our own personal understanding of scripture. I believe I have much to learn- and I submit to you, Megan, and others on this site, that before you come to ANY conclusions based on the mysteries of God and what He has in store for us, that you pause and ask yourself if you are capable of even having an opinion on the matter. God can’t reveal ALL of His mysteries in the bible because we wouldn’t get it (line upon line, precept upon precept)l–but He has revealed all that is necessary for us to be with Him again, and that is all that should matter.
Megan, Aaron and RickB,
Have you gone and read the link that Mike posted on the “Men on a mission” page which goes to the Mike (a different Mike) Heiser page? This Mike is an Evangelical Christian, but he is also a Bible Scholar. He believes and shows that the Early Hebrews (ie Old Testament times) were Polytheistic (possibly better to say Hethonistic), and discusses the scriptures that you have mentioned here (Isaiah and Psalms). The Isaiah 43:10 scripture, according to Mike Heiser and other non-LDS Biblical scholars, should read exactly as you have sarcastically written it Aaron. Mike Heiser does say that he does not believe in the LDS ideology about us being able to become gods or that Heavenly Father had a father, etc. So if you haven’t read the link or researched more into the polytheism of the ancient Hebrews and Old Testament, you are doing just what you accuse the LDS of – not researching into the historicity of the church and Book of Mormon to gain a ‘better’ picture of it. It does not bother me if you ultimately disagree with him, but at least you can then say that you have read it and disagree, rather than dismiss the work of a scholar outright without reading them or seeing if there is any truth behind them.
If you have read them I’d like to know your ideas about it. To put it another way, if you have read it and you disagree with it and still wish to believe the way you do, then you can see and understand why we LDS also wish to believe what we do AFTER reading what is on your sites and the discussions we have with you.
I are here because I am doing research, including what is said against the LDS church. Although I disagree with many things on the MRM site, I have also learned many things about the LDS church I didn’t know before, but its still not enough to shake my convictions.
Amanda, it’s not enough to say that not all Mormons have to believe it. That’s kind of a silly route to go, given that one can remain a Mormon in good standing and yet reject a lot of traditional Mormon teachings.
The issue is truth and beauty over who God really is and the horrific sinfulness and moral repulsiveness of heresy that belittles the one and true living God over all worlds.
It’s a lot like the sinlessness of Christ. As a Mormon I would assume that you believe Christ has never sinned. If you were interacting with a religion that said, “well, not everyone in our church is required to believe Christ was a sinner; some in fact are open to believing he never did sin”, would that be enough? Neither is it enough for Mormons to do anything less than unequivocally denounce—indeed, spit out like poison—the notion that God was ever not fully God or that God the Father even possibly once sinned.
In Mormonism, you can admit you believe God the Father was once a sinner and be in good standing.
In Christianity, the only Christians that truly exist are those that believe that God never even possibly once sinned. If a member of my church quietly admitted to my pastor that he believed God possibly was once a sinner in a past mortal experience, he would no longer be a member. If you are open to that kind of thing, you are closer to Satan than you are to God. That’s scary.
Ralph,
Got to love those faith-promoting rumors.
I read Heiser’s paper associated with the ETS presentation when it was first available and today I find that Mormons widely misrepresent it as affirming a place for the Mormon kind of polytheism or “cosmic henotheism” in the Old Testament. The evangelical author allows for no such thing. I wish people would read it more closely.
The terms “gods” and “henotheism” and “polytheism” spoken of by such evangelical scholars must be understood in context. Indeed, the issue largely involves the notion that such terms as “elohim” anciently have a much looser meaning than traditionally thought, even encompassing demons. Heiser affirms the supremacy of Yahweh over all other existent beings (indeed, over all other “elohims”) and ascribes to Yahweh a unique ontological status granted to no other being. This notion, one absolutely antithetical to Mormonism, seems to have gone unnoticed.
This is false. This is the kind of obvious thing that indicates to me you haven’t read Michael Heiser’s paper!
Friend, give the entirety of it a read.
Take care,
Aaron
Mike, there are two issues here.
1. Whether Mike Heiser affirms aspects of Mormon “cosmic henotheism” that some think he affirms.
Having read the entirety of Heiser’s paper, it is clear that he affirms fundamentally unique things about Yahweh that Mormonism doesn’t. Given this, Mormons should stop spreading inaccurate “faith-promoting rumors” about Heiser’s paper.
2. Whether Heiser is right to ascribe unique ontological attributes to Yahweh that Mormonism doesn’t.
First thing’s first. The Bible does speak of God’s nature and being. If you disagree with that, then I’m not sure you’re at a point where we can have constructive conversation.
Regarding the “son” language. Jesus called the Pharisees sons of the devil in John 8. Romans 8 calls Christians who are no longer under condemnation (justified) and led by the Spirit sons of adoption. Jesus said in Matthew 5, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” He also said in John 12:36, “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” He called James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James “sons of Thunder” in Mark 3:17. Obviously the term can be refer to likeness yet not necessarily refer to fundamental ontological being. You have to read the terms in context, observing how they are used. This goes for the Old and New Testament. You’re not going to find compelling support from Heiser (or the Old Testament) for the Mormon idea that Yahweh needed a wife to procreate an elohim or “god”. That sounds more like a Canaanite idea. But heck, Mormons seem like a lot like, as Russell Moore put it, an “Americanized version of a Canaanite fertility cult.” (>>)
The Old Testament speaks of a God who created absolutely everything outsid of himself. He alone stretched out the heavens. Heiser is, contrary to faith-promoting rumor, not affirming the Mormon idea that there are other worlds or divine councils over which Yahweh is not ultimately supreme and ontologically distinct. The Israelites surely sinfully dabbled in the polytheism of surrounding cultures, but the Bible never promotes the kind of cosmic henotheism or polytheism that Mormonism does. Yahweh always has been and always will be ultimately supreme over all worlds, councils, “gods”, etc. It is Satanic to promote the notion that this might not be the case.
PS: Isn’t a little bit unsettling that part of the basis of Heiser’s paper goes against the artificial Elohim/Jehovah naming conventions officially adopted in 1916, largely constructed to combat the vestiges of Brigham’s annoying Adam-God teaching? Don’t worry, it’s not as though it was entitled, “The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve“. It certainly didn’t have that kind of authoritativeness.
Aaron,
I did not say that it affirms our beliefs about God and becoming gods, in fact I mentioned that Mike Heiser disagrees with the LDS perspective on this. I only read 2 things of his works, one about the divine council on the webpage (Chapter 3 all 12 pages) and the other on the LDS apologetics website. All I said about his work is that he teaches that the early Hebrews were polytheistic, or more properly hethonistic (sorry about the spelling mistake earlier but it was better than writing hedonistic). He (as in Mike Heiser) still says that in the beginning were 2 uncreated beings as the Trinity suggests – Elohim (the Father) and Yaweh (the Son/Jesus) who then created the universe. Accordingly, this is the single most powerful God. The others are refered to as Sons of God and gods in their own right. So this is definately a polytheistic religion. An interesting point Mark Heiser makes in the part I read is that Satan is also included in at least one of the councils listed alongside (but he is not sure if Satan is included as one of) the Sons of God.
So as I stated in my previous post – if you still wish to believe that the whole Bible is only monotheistic despite many Biblical scholars saying the opposite, that’s fine. This is how we LDS can still believe what we do despite what is written on your sites when you attack our history and beliefs.
I get quite exasperated and find myself turning away from the computer and thinking “these people are lost, what’s the point of this conversation.” How could people degrade God in this way. It’s really quite frightening to me. I know when the Bible says to “fear God” it’s talking about revering God and not explicitly “to be afraid of Him”. However I do fear for people that would show this type of disrespect for God and then justify it.
Do you mean “henotheistic”? Confession: I’m at the unfair advantage here that I can go back as a moderator and correct all my spelling mistakes, which I always seem to miss. 🙂
Show me some quotes. I’d rather you not pull a Blake Ostler on us ;-). I could be wrong, but so far it sounds like you’re reading Mormonism into Heiser’s work.
What I think you’re missing is that the very terms “polytheistic” and “gods” are given a meaning in Heiser’s discussions not commonly understood, so throwing the terms around doesn’t help the cause of understanding what Heiser writes. You’re making the matter worse by then speaking of the Christian notion of the term “monotheism” (an ultimately supreme uniquely eternal God) as though it doesn’t square with Heiser’s work.
You are either backtracking or didn’t communicate very well. Remember that you said,
“Exactly”? So Heiser is saying that God is among billions of other Gods who have divine control over their own created galactic dominions? Given that my sarcasm was directed at Mormonism, that is precisely the kind of thing I was thinking of. Do you understand yet how Heiser’s position wouldn’t allow for this?
Grace and peace in him who justifies the ungodly by faith (Romans 4:4-8),
Aaron
My spelling isn’t too good either Aaron, I generally rely on the spell check which there is none on this site. Also to answer your questions I will need to go over the 2000 limit, sorry there.
The next paragraph is a quote from Mike Heiser’s work which says that there were 2 uncreated beings in the beginning along with the link to the quote if you wish to verify it. When I said “as the Trinity suggests” I was trying to say that it is not talking about 2 distinct personages as we LDS believe, but as I am not very good at explanations I guess I botched it – I am not trying to read Mormonism into his work at this point.
“To this point we’ve learned that even before the very beginning of creation God was not alone. There was a second, uncreated person with him, who shared his own essence and was an independent, but not autonomous, being. As Christians we are familiar with this second person by such terms as “the Son,” and we believe that this second “deity person” became incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth.”
http://thedivinecouncil.com/Introduction to the Divine Council MTIT.pdf
As for the “back-tracking” I didn’t explain myself well. From what I understood (and I might be incorrect with my understanding) of what I read from Mike Heiser’s work, the verse should read that God is the Supreme Being for this world and all creation, the only one to worship, but it does not exclude other gods being in existence. So not ‘exactly’ as you wrote it. (BTW, when you use sarcasm like that are you joking? The reason I ask is that here in Australia we us sarcasm and irony as jokes and normal behaviour, but from what I have noticed, Americans usually use it to insult or degrade, only sometimes in jest.) I have read a lot of stuff the last couple of days, being a researcher, as well as catching up on this conversation, plus I am at work while writing, so I have mixed a few things up. I have gone through all this again, and I concede that Mike Heiser did not write any thing about Isaiah 43:10, I must have mixed it up with someone else’s that I have read, but Mike Heiser does say (again direct quote with link) –
Lastly, there is a logic problem. If one goes back and reads the denial statements in Deutero-Isaiah, it is not difficult to discern upon what basis the denial language occurs. Is the language concerned with making the point that Yahweh is the only god who exists or something else? In Isaiah 43:10–12 Yahweh claims to be unique in his preexistence, in his ability to save, and in his national deliverance. In Isaiah 44:6–8 the focus is on certain attributes of Yahweh. In the texts from Isaiah 45, there are very obvious comparisons between Yahweh’s deeds, justice, salvation, and deliverance of his children and the impotence of the other gods. All these passages are transparently concerned with comparing Yahweh to other gods—not comparing Yahweh to beings that do not exist. That would be empty praise indeed.
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=643
Thus indicating, to me, that these ‘other gods’ are real beings but not The God.
Ralph,
Sarcasm has a lot of varied use. I was intentionally criticizing the common Mormon interpolation into Isaiah 43:10.
Thanks for the link to the PDF. So far it just sounds like Heiser is affirming something consistent with the Trinity in his own language (which is albeit non-traditional Trinitarian language).
Yes, but one has to be careful here, as “gods” to Heiser (as I understand him) are always subordinate and inferior under Yahweh and created by Yahweh—not co-eternal with him or potentially over or alongside him in a cosmic henotheistic scheme as Mormonism would have it. In the end the only real friendly thing to Mormonism seems to be Heiser’s semantics, not his actual Old Testament worldview.
Thanks. No worries.
I don’t think it is as one-sided as you make it out to be. In Isaiah there are simply no other elohims/gods fully like Yahweh that exist, so it’s hard not to end the day thinking that God is not only supreme over all “gods” that do exist, but also that he alone exists fully as God. The two concepts go hand in hand. Even the comparisons over other existent “gods” would speak of the non-existence of any “gods” fully like Him.
The temptation as I see it for some would be to read the divine council idea as an over-controlling hermeneutic into all the denial statements, but there’s more to the whole of it than that. In Isaiah Yahweh mocks mad-made material idols that obviously don’t exist as real “gods” at all (cf. Is 44:9-17; indeed, they are only gods in the imagination of the idolaters). Is God’s boasting over such idols “empty praise”? On a plain reading statements like these seem more absolute than mere comparisons with existent gods:
While I agree that Isaiah 43:10 speaks of God’s unique pre-existence (something foreign to Mormonism), this is only half the passage:
Yahweh is unique in his existence altogether.
Heiser is certainly saying that other “gods” really do exist in the Old Testament worldview, and in this sense he affirms a kind of “polytheism”, but Mormons don’t really have anything to run with here over and against historic Christianity because Heiser is nonetheless affirming that all these “gods” are subordinate and inferior to the one and true God of gods, the supreme Yahweh who alone creates and stretches out the heavens and uniquely, eternally pre-exists. It’s beyond me that anyone would see this as support for the traditional Mormon worldview. Apple and oranges.
Take care!
Aaron
Falcon wrote:
“I get quite exasperated and find myself turning away from the computer and thinking “these people are lost, what’s the point of this conversation.” How could people degrade God in this way. It’s really quite frightening to me.”
I’m starting to think our differences boil down to this sentiment Falcon expressed.
It’s become increasingly clear to me that the Bible simply is not clear cut on this issue. To make the Bible say what the evangelicals say it says, you have to imply a lot of things and read certain scriptures in a certain special way. Sure, you have to do the same thing to make it square with the Mormon view. But that just shows to me that the Bible is ambiguous on the ultimate nature of God. The only thing it is clear on is that God is to be worshiped – utterly and completely by us.
End of story.
I think Falcon may have expressed what the only real issue between us is:
“Eeew gross! How could you believe something so… weird… so foreign to what I was raised on?”
A lot of you guys are simply recoiling at the unfamiliar. But that says nothing about what the truth of the universe is. It merely reveals your own ingrained prejudices. If you can’t imagine a God who was once like us and yet is now our ultimate object of worship, you simply aren’t trying hard enough.
The revulsion comment was very telling indeed. My experience is that we typically make up our minds based on emotional responses, and then seek for logical and external evidence to reinforce the decisions we have already made.
You guys grew up thinking about God a certain way. Now you are grasping at Biblical proof texts to support your foregone conclusions. Just because you’ve lived in one corner of the kitchen for your entire lives doesn’t mean there’s only one way to look at the stove.
Huh?
Aaron,
This quote you gave from my answer, is not my words – “All these passages are transparently concerned with comparing Yahweh to other gods—not comparing Yahweh to beings that do not exist.” is directly from Mike Heiser’s work. I said in the post that it was a quote with the verifying link. So it’s Mike Heiser’s view, not mine.
As for your sarcasm, I really thought it was a joke and I did enjoy it. Also I really loved the comment about being at the pagent with your steel sword and chariot. But if you want to see the type of humour I mean, you will have to go to British comedy shows because the Australian shows mainly try and cater for the Americans.
But like I said earlier, I enjoy the MRM site and have learned much, so thanks for the fun.
What amazes me is that there doesn’t seem to be a hard line “you must believe this” in the mormon church. LDS seem willing to give up any or all tenents of their “beliefs” (if such a word can be used in the wishy-washy religion of JS) in order to avoid a discrepancy.
Also, as to Mormons being considered non-Christians by the main-stream churches–unlike LDS, there are certain hard lines we are not willing to compromise. Either Jesus was THE Son of God as He declared (and as testified to by the apostles and the N.T. authors) or He was a madman and a liar and, i propose, Satan himself to make such a declaration. And to be so, He must have been without sin and totally truthful, or we have no hope of redemption and salavation.
J.S. on the other hand (as a “prophet”) declares himself not only equal to but better than Jesus. His followers (LDS) declare salvation is obtainable by their very efforts (Paul disputed this absolutely in Romans); not only that, but they have the audacity to propose that, as sinful creations, they will become gods themselves.
I propose that LDS is closer to Roman mythology than Christianity – peopling the heavens with fallable, various gods, none of whom have the ability to save man from his sins.
As a Christian, i believe i am the creation, not the Creator; as LDS (assuming this is not another “I don’t know that we believe that” issue), it is declared that humans were god-like and are merely god-pupae, waiting for our sleeping godliness to awaken.
With this discussion,I’m having (re)confirmed the notion of spiritual warfare as outlined by Paul in his letter to the Ephesians. I ask, “Who would be served by the view of God as proposed by Joseph Smith?” Since we started this discussion I feel like I have to strap on my spiritual armor whenever I come out here, especially the shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit. As for this notion that we Christians get repulsed by JS’s notion of God because we’re unfamilar with it, I would say that there are a lot of things in the spirit world of the enemy that I have no intention to get myself comfortable with.
If you don’t want to use New Testament scriptures to illuminate or reinforce Old Testament ones, fine. Then why is it that Jews would reject the polytheism view out of hand? Since the Old Testament scriptures are the only ones the Jews accept, then are they wrong on the reading of their own scriptures? no rabbi or Talmud expert I’ve ever heard of would support the Mormons’ twisted views.
And i’m with Falcon, this gets incredibly tiring. Right now I’m dealing with a Mormon, a Unitarian Universalist, and a couple of atheists. In studying these things I’ve read about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christian Scientists, and at this point I’m overwhelmed with the propensity of man to want his own destruction.
I’m amazed at the tenacity and patience of the people here, who keep blogging on these things and don’t just throw up their hands and walk away. Isn’t it tempting to just leave people in their own messes after a while? (I’m sure they think the same thing of us LOL)
Ralph,
Thanks for appreciating the humor 🙂
And thanks for the clarification and sorry for the misreading. It’s OK, too, because I’m not married to Heiser’s work. With the reasons I already gave I disagree that Yahweh is merely comparing himself to gods that exist, especially given a context like Isaiah 44:9-17 where Yahweh mocks the fake man-made idols:
These gods don’t really exist. Given this, it would seem that 44:6,8 can’t merely be chalked up to comparisons with existing gods.
And I would repeat that contrasting yourself to someone else who does exist and boasting over your uniquely divine attributes that others (both those that are real and those that are fashioned by men) don’t possess in principle is a declaration that none other exists fully like Yahweh. It’s hard to escape that when you declare that besides you there is no god, and no god has been formed before or after you. I think Heiser has taken his historical forte and overly pressed it into a hermeneutic, but I think he would at least agree with the ultimate uniqueness of Yahweh.
Mike,
If you think the Old Testament doesn’t speak of God’s being because it doesn’t use Greek philosophical distinctions then I think you are being myopic.
When “elohim” refers to the demons in Deuteronomy 32 (>>), are you calling the demons “properly termed gods”? I’m still looking for that passage in the Old Testament that says, “As demons are God once was, as God is demons may be.” Maybe those nasty scribes took it out?
I’m going to forcibly reign back in the conversation to the post’s original topic. Joseph Smith said,
Since “the Bible is full of it”, would anyone like to demonstrate from the Bible that the Father has a Father?
Lillym and Aaron, you’re forgetting that the LDS have not taken a position that their religion is contained in totality within the pages of the Bible. You have.
It is not for us to prove that everything we assert is Biblically founded. We needn’t prove that Isaiah supports an LDS view, just that it does not directly and explicitly contradict it. Prooftexting is really your domain, not ours. You guys are the ones hanging your entire theological hat on a single collection of inspired, yet human-written texts. When it comes to the Bible, you are the ones who need “prove” your position, not the Mormons. We need only support our position.
“Since we started this discussion I feel like I have to strap on my spiritual armor whenever I come out here, especially the shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit.”
Falcon, I actually sympathize. I spent over two weeks on Touchstone Magazine’s Mere Comments blog defending my religion as the only Mormon present against a group of traditional Christians, a great many of whom were much smarter than me. The experience was emotionally and spiritually exhausting. Likewise, it takes a certain amount of steeling myself to come here as well. Dialogue is rough. If you feel your spiritual life is suffering from it, perhaps it’s not for you. You might be better served spiritually going elsewhere.
I mean that sincerely, I’ve occasionally wondered if my own spiritual life is up to these kind of forums. My father would probably consider what I’m doing a waste of time and spiritually dangerous.
He might be right you know.
Seth,
If the Bible is fully inspired by God, then that it was also written by humans doesn’t make it any less inspired. That it is inspired means that it is God-breathed and binding. So if God in the Bible says, “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me” (Isaiah 43:10), we ought to believe it lest we spurn the very word of God. It isn’t simply that the Bible doesn’t contain Mormon doctrine, it’s that what it does contain destroys traditional Mormon doctrine into smithereens.
It was Joseph Smith who said the Bible was “full” of the teaching that God the Father has a Father. Was he wrong? If he was right, you should be able to demonstrate the teaching from the Bible.
Mike,
If you think that demons being called “gods” in a passage challenges inerrancy, that’s pretty sad. You’re missing the point here about the varied usage of the term “elohim”/”gods”. It doesn’t always mean what Mormons want it to mean, and Deuteronomy 32 is a good example of that. It seems you would rather be right and have the Bible wrong than be yourself wrong and the Bible right (all things considered, including literary devices).
That the demons can be called “gods” in the Old Testament doesn’t even conceivably mean that these gods have the very same nature as Yahweh. Any “gods” you can dish out—including demons—Yahweh created. They are inferior in being and nature to the “God of gods”, the “Most High”, the “King of kings.”
And no, this isn’t the place for an endless discussion on the “compositional history of Deuteronomy”, and no, I don’t buy the liberal views of the JEPD theory, etc. Take it elsewhere. If you keep trying to hijack threads I’m going to delete your comments.
Again, it was Joseph Smith who said the Bible was “full” of the teaching that the Father has a Father. Isn’t this kind of like saying the U.S. Constitution is “full” of pink unicorns?
Seth R. said, “Just because you’ve lived in one corner of the kitchen for your entire lives doesn’t mean there’s only one way to look at the stove.”
Seth R., I don’t understand your point when you say that our ingrained interpretations get in the way of understanding the Bible. If that’s the case, does that mean that your own ingrained LDS interpretations get in the way of you understanding the Bible? One side has to be right. You’re using a post-modern argument that sounds an awful lot like “truth is relative to the individual”. Truth is truth.
I don’t understand all the backpedalling and obfuscations that LDS make over the eternal nature of God. Could the verses not be more clear? The reason this issue is so important is because the doctrine of the Godhead is absolutely fundamental to the faith. If we can’t correctly view the nature of God, what on earth do we have? God is the beginning and end of all things. If I don’t have the correct view of God, I don’t have anything. And no, of course I can’t completely understand the infinite mysteries of God with my finite mind. But I can certainly believe the numerous point-blank abolutist statements about the nature of God found in the Bible!
Mike, I didn’t ask if Smith had to be inerrant, I asked if he was wrong on this issue. Was he? Is the Bible “full” of the teaching of God the Father having a Father? Is this too painful a question to answer? Although Mormons say Joseph Smith doesn’t have to be inerrant or infallible, they sure make it a rare occasion to admit specific instances where he was wrong. It ends up functioning as though Smith was infallible, and it ends up looking like a cultish allegiance to a leader who can do no wrong, or a leader whose wrongs should not be readily, explicitly admitted.
Praise to the (son of) man,
Aaron
When I said that “if I don’t have the correct view of God I don’t have anything”, I was not saying that Gods’ nature was dependent on my views. I just meant that my salvation would be seriously compromised.
Amanda, after posting the statement that the LDS view of God is offensive to Christians, I regretted it. I doesn’t matter what offends us. I should have said that the LDS view is offensive to God. It is much more offensive to diminish our view of God’s power than it is for Christians to think Mormons are non-Christian, and vice versa. Why? Because we’re just people, we’re not the God of the universe!
I guess I don’t understand what you’re getting at when you question the audacity of people to form opinions of a mysterious God after reading the Bible. Does not the LDS church have very specific opinions, views, even doctrines on the nature of God? And yet these doctrines have been formed after reading the Bible (as well as your other scriptures), correct? So I don’t understand your point.
Okay, hope this wasn’t too harsh. I’m really glad you’re on here, Amanda! I look forward to “talking” with you more.
Seth R. says: “Lillym and Aaron, you’re forgetting that the LDS have not taken a position that their religion is contained in totality within the pages of the Bible. You have. It is not for us to prove that everything we assert is Biblically founded.”
This opens you up to the charge that you, or your leaders, are making stuff up.
When you’re at someone else’s house and they ask you to take off your shoes at the door, it’s expected that you do.
Mike’s comments were deleted and he is no longer welcome here. It has become evident he is not willing to get back on topic. He has repeatedly attempted to hijack threads and avoids answering questions directly related to the topic of the post. Sorry Mike, but that kind of thing is more suited for elsewhere.
Actully, taking only the OT, God’s abhorrance of any belief in “gods” or that man might be a god is throughout–take only the 10 commandments. No other gods before Him; sin of idol worship (and anything that is worshiped in the place of God is an idol, be it a golden calf, our appetites, materialism, human knowledge, or our ego).
Deut. 6: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. There is no wiggleroom here if you believe the Bible to be the word of the Lord. (If you do not, it’s like believing that Jesus was a good teacher–your perogative, but don’t go labeling yourself a “Christian”).
God is one and not many; He is creator and we are the creation. We will not BE God; a pot cannot be a potter. He is the Father.
Just because JS could not put his mind around the concept of the essence of the Creator of the Universe and all that is (and none of us can or ever will be, to JS’s defense), does not mean that the Lord can be compacted to fit into human explanation.
I feel for LDS because their beliefs seem to me to be without any firm foundations. The ramant disparities in the BOM, Pearl of Great Price, and other discourses by their various prophets change as the social wind changes. Not that many “new age” Christians or “cafeteria” Christians don’t fall by the wayside as well. But to be a Christian, there must be that uncompromising foundation-Belief in Jesus as THE Son of God; belief in our sinfulness and inability to save ourselves; belief in His death on the cross and resurrection as the only way to salvation.
I wonder what Heavenly Father was like as a child when he dwelt on an earth much like ours..
What kind of sports did he enjoy? Was he always a seemingly good person, or did he get into any drugs/alcohol issues in highschool? Just something amusing to think about I guess. I wonder what his wife’s name is.
after reading a lot of the articles on mrm, I’m getting this picture that most “lay” mormons don’t have any idea about all of these inconsistencies. I mean, just the varying accounts from JS himself, about how he came by his revelation and the events surrounding it (!) The craziness just in that topic alone should be enough to cast serious doubt – and yet, it appears that most Mormons are not even aware of all this?
And back to the topic at hand: How can God allow men to write His words incorrectly? How can that possibly be? If we believe that God inspired the scriptures (which Mormons appear to agree), then why would he allow the entire thing to be written incorrectly and even quoted by Jesus, as if it were authoritative?
If Jesus respected the scriptures as God’s word, and WE all agree that it was “inspired” by God, than how could it possibly need a little 19th century “editorial review” from JS?
I obviously still have a lot to learn from this site. 🙂
“If we can’t correctly view the nature of God, what on earth do we have?”
Megan, that is a profoundly sad statement. Are you seriously saying that if you don’t know the metaphysical details of where God came from, you have nothing?
True religion is found in the Sermon on the Mount. Who God’s father was, and related issues, have little or nothing to do with that.
Aaron,
If you are going to allow people to come on here and prooftext with Biblical verses, it simply seems fair that you allow the meaning of those verses to be challenged and debated.
Otherwise, this whole thing risks becoming essentially an evangelical groupthink exercise. Mike seemed to be doing rather well I thought. Are you saying he got deleted simply because he was bringing up “liberal” theories of Biblical composition that happen to support parts of Mormonism’s stance on the Bible – the text of which was directly in contention here?
That seems rather convenient to me…
“How can God allow men to write His words incorrectly?”
Probably for the same reason he allows people to pillage rape and murder.
He is not willing to compromise the free agency of His children. They must be allowed to conduct themselves of their own free will.
But then why did He say in 2Timothy
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness…”
How can it be used for correction, teaching, reproof, or training in righteousness, if it’s been screwed up by the writers?
By logic it MUST be the accurate word of God.
LAW,
you said,
“The ram(p)ant disparities in the BOM, Pearl of Great Price, and other discourses by their various prophets change as the social wind changes.”
If we were only setting out to please and change our points of view to coincide with the world, why are we to this day as controversial as ever BECAUSE of our beliefs. If what you said is true, why won’t we meet the demands of mainstream Christianity in order to be a member of their club? Well, the Lord is the one in charge of this ship, so try asking Him why He doesn’t sell out.
Aaron,
You are the one alleging that this doctrine is important or even fundamental– it is not. So don’t base your logical reasoning on a false notion. My comment was to state that none of us have perfect knowledge of God–and the ONLY answers that we need are given to us through the restored gospel.
This discussion is a great example of “going beyond the mark”. You make many errors in analyzing our most basic beliefs, and posing problems where none exist. There is NOTHING in the restored gospel that supports the notion that God is a sinner, or that Jesus Christ sinned–and if anyone believes that, they have a lot to learn- but NO ONE is born with all knowledge.
As to kicking someone out of your church if they have more to learn about God, all of us in comparison with God’s almighty power and omniscience–make these differences irrelevant. you would have to claim authority to kick people out of Christs’ church–and of course you cannot claim authority to do such a thing–and also claim that there is no authority on the earth to act in Gods name. Evangelicalism paints itself into a corner with their rejection of authority on earth. They cannot claim to have any authority on scriptural interpretation OR the state of ANY soul after they die both of which have major implications in terms of their claiming any absolutes or give any sure opinions on the subject of this post (to say the least).
Seth said
“How can God allow men to write His words incorrectly?”
Probably for the same reason he allows people to pillage rape and murder.
He is not willing to compromise the free agency of His children. They must be allowed to conduct themselves of their own free will.
Seth did you ever read Psalms 138:2? If so do you believe it? If so then I really find it hard to believe God would allow his word to be corrputed.
Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Seth said Who God’s father was, and related issues, have little or nothing to do with that.
Not True Seth, not true. If this is false, then we have a different Gospel and it also means God lied. We go back yet again to the Verses where God said, I know of no other god and none were before me. If their are no other gods and none were before Him, but yet His father is a god, and his father is a god, going back and back, Etc, then either God lied or really is clueless.
Plus Since JS stated this stuff is FOUND IN THE BIBLE, And if it really is not, then JS either Lied or does not know the Bible, either way how can you trust him if he does not know the Bible.
Some LDS have said in a round about way, if us as Christians do not know the Bible then how can we be trusted to speak the truth of Gods word.
So if we must know it, or you cannot trust us, how can you trust your Prophet if he is doing the same thing you accuse us of? Rick b
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness…”
lillym,
Note that the scripture says “inspired.” That’s not the same as saying that God wrote it personally himself, or that the word is inerrant. Inspired is actually very often accompanied by words like interpretation.
There are no easy outs here. You must study the word, test it in your life, and pray about it extensively for a confirmation of whether it is true or not, and how you are meant to apply it in your own life situation. There is no easy checklist. You’ve got to do the legwork.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater though. Just because God hasn’t personally spelled-out everything in the Bible for you personally doesn’t mean you should esteem the Word any less. We’ve got to move beyond unhealthy all-or-nothing thinking here.
So the Seth, you deny Psalm 138:2 Then? At least that is how I read what you just said to lillym.
On Topic, JS said God had a father, and this implys God’s father is a god, the JS said I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much;
Well if this is true and JS really wants to believe all God has said, and LDS believe the D and C is the word of God, I would ask then what about this verse?
D and C 121
32 According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest.
This verse CLEARLY SAYS, God is God over ALL gods, even BEFORE THIS WORLD. How can God be God over his father? and his father’s father? This makes no sense. Any one care to explain? Rick b
First off Rick, I’ll tell you plainly that I don’t know for sure. Neither can anyone know for sure until all things have been revealed to us by God Himself. So any answer here is going to be my own opinion and cannot be construed as authoritative.
My opinion is that all those who achieve godhood participate in a universal oneness of purpose, majesty, and unity.
So assuming that God has a father, there is no need for God to rule over His own father, nor for His father to rule over Him. The question of conflict or contradicting each other never arises. The Mormon idea of Zion is the “pure in heart” where all are of one mind and one purpose. This is the same idea that Christ was getting at when he petitioned the Father on behalf of his disciples “that they may be one, even as you and I are one.”
There simply is no potential for one god overruling another. All are participating in the same unity of purpose. If it were not so, God could not be God. Being a god means you act a certain way. Contradicting others who participate in the same divine plan is not in the cards.
Your question reminds me of the question Jesus’ disciples posited to him of which of them should be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Christ pretty-much dismissed such concerns and silly and then, profoundly, presented them with a little child. He then declared that he who would be greatest in the kingdom of heaven must become as a little child – submissive, meek, and willing to submit to all the Father requires of him.
God’s power is not that of extortion and duress. When we become one with Him, neither will our power be of that nature. Conflict is not a possibility.
We can debate all day about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet, and we will NEVER resolve it through logic or finger-pointing.
Follow the admonition given in James- pray for yourself–and many of you claim to have genuinely taken this seriously- and the answer is no, Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet. Well, I am 100% at peace with that because all will meet the intended consequences of any decision they make with regards to their faith.
Anyway, I do find it interesting that none seem to quote the BoM on this site in any context–since Joseph Smiths’ validity as a prophet hinges on the content/message found in the BoM- maybe we should start there and see if we find it remotely offensive or contradictory in content, or in any other way. But I believe that will never happen, because the message cannot be refuted, without refuting the truth. It will hurt the cause of this website more than help it. Please prove me wrong, I’d love to see it.