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.


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.


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).


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).


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.


About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Nature of God and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

147 Responses to Mormon Theism

  1. falcon says:

    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, “
    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”.

  2. grindael says:


    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.”

  3. grindael says:

    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.)

  4. 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 ( – 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?

  5. falcon says:

    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.

  6. Mike R says:

    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

  7. grindael says:


    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.

  8. falcon says:

    “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.)

  9. liv4jc says:

    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.

  10. falcon says:

    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.

  11. Ralph says:

    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?


  12. Ralph says:


    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.

  13. Ralph says:


    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.


    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.

  14. subgenius says:

    when i started reading that you actually were having a serious discussion about that painting,
    i decided to stop reading your posts.

    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’.

    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.

  15. falcon says:

    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.

    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.

  16. liv4jc says:

    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?

  17. liv4jc says:

    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?

  18. grindael says:


    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.”

    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.

  19. grindael says:

    “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.
    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?

  20. grindael says:

    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?

  21. gundeck says:


    In the context of this passage no there is little difference. There is but one God.

  22. HankSaint says:

    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. 🙂


  23. grindael says:


    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.

  24. mobaby says:


    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.

  25. Mike R says:


    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.


    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.

  26. mobaby says:


    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.

  27. grindael says:


    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 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

  28. Bill McKeever says:

    Hank has overstayed his welcome at Mormon Coffee.

  29. 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?

  30. falcon says:

    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”.

  31. subgenius says:

    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.

  32. grindael says:


    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?

  33. grindael says:


    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.

  34. liv4jc says:

    Grindael, can you email me so I can contact you? [email protected]

  35. 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?”

  36. 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?

  37. subgenius says:

    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.

    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)

  38. grindael says:


    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?

  39. subgenius says:

    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?

  40. 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”.

  41. “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.

  42. grindael says:


    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.

  43. grindael says:


    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.

  44. grindael says:


    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.

  45. Olsen Jim says:


    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.”

  46. liv4jc says:

    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.

  47. setfree says:

    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.

Leave a Reply