God the Father – Elohim (Part One)

In the Mormon religion, “Elohim” is the name of the god who is the father of our spirits. More commonly referred to as “Heavenly Father,” Elohim is also the LDS “Most High God.”

The scripture passages specifically about “Elohim” can be quickly found in the LDS Topical Guide under the heading “God the Father – Elohim.” Please take a moment to open the link, and look at the verses. Notice that the first three (four) scriptures on the list are from the Old Testament. (Is it just me, or do you also find it odd that there are only four?)

Let’s take a look at the LDS Topical Guide selections for “God the Father – Elohim:”

Selection 1: “Blessed be Abram of the most high God, Gen. 14:19.” This passage is clearly about “Elohim” because it is about the “most high God.” But just to be sure, let’s involve at least a little more context:

Genesis 14:18-22 “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth…”

When we consider the passage context, we find that the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, is “the LORD.” In the KJV, the all-caps word “LORD” shows up many times. But who is the LORD? Good question. Let’s hold off on the answer for a moment longer, while we look at two more selections.

Selections 2 and 3: “God of the spirits of all flesh, Num. 16:22 (Num. 27:16).” These verses are about “Elohim” because they refer to the god of our spirits. Let’s again consider more context:

Numbers 16:20-23 “And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment. And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation? And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying…”

And Numbers 27:16: “Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation…”

So, the God of the spirits of all flesh is also “the LORD.” Let’s figure out who the LORD is then.

Of the 7,970 times the all-caps word “LORD” occurs in the entire KJV Bible, 6510 times it has been translated from the Hebrew word יְהֹוָה. This Hebrew word can be transliterated “YHWH” and is thought to be pronounced “Yahweh.” It is the very same Hebrew word from which we get the name with which many of us are already familiar: Jehovah.

But who is Jehovah, in Mormonism? Let’s go back to the Topical Guide. Click on this link and scroll down a bit, to see that in Mormonism, there are two “God the Father”s: Elohim and Jehovah. Notice that one of the subheadings of “God the Father – Jehovah” is “Jesus Christ–Jehovah.” Do Mormons believe that Jehovah is Jesus? I was taught such as an LDS member.

So, we have read three of the four passages in the Old Testament, designated by the LDS leadership as representative verses of their god “Elohim,” who is Jesus’ supposed spiritual and earthly father, known to us as Heavenly Father. We’ve found that they are, in actuality, about Jehovah, whom Mormons believe is Jesus himself.

Let’s figure this out, shall we? We’ll look at the issue from a different angle on Monday 🙂

About setfree

God trusting, Bible believing, Jesus lover.
This entry was posted in God the Father and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to God the Father – Elohim (Part One)

  1. Verne Brown says:

    Jehovah and Elohim issue is one that cannot be defended by mormons, as this selection shows. I believe that even Joseph Smith got it "wrong" in light of modern mormonism by teaching that heavenly father was Jehovah!

  2. f_melo says:

    I don´t think there´s much i could add to the article, it exposed the issue quite well. For me it is undeniable proof that the Mormon hierarchy never had a clue what they were talking about when it comes to who God is, His nature, etc. For someone who supposedly saw God the Father and Jesus, and had so much coaching from resurrected beings such as Nephi and even Paul, Joseph Smith didn´t seem to be able to clearly define the relation between the two in the Old Testament and in comparison with the New.

    I remember being taught that God the Father was only the Architect of The Plan, and he gave Jesus the responsibility to carry it out. That´s why Brigham Young would refer to God as the Great Architect of the Universe, which is another concept "borrowed" from Masonry, and it is important to remember that an architect doesn´t create anything, he only organizes what´s already there.

    This subject also reminds of the mystical explanation of the Father-Son relationship that is found in Mosiah 15:1-5:

    "And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people."

  3. Sarah says:

    My brain hurts.

    Why can't we just call God God and Jesus Christ Christ, the LORD God incarnate?

    Why does this have to be so difficult?

  4. clyde says:

    I believe that what also confuses the point you may be trying to make is that a long time ago there were the J, E and P documents that scholars believe existed. I believe that these documents were all combined into one document-the first five books of the Bible.
    F melo,
    I remember abc. the architect God the father, the builder God the son, and the communicator God the holy spirit. I remember just to keep them straight. I also remember pre-existence-I sometimes think we might have helped build the universe- that is my own wild theory.

  5. setfreebyjc says:

    Clyde, are you also a Freemason by any chance?

    Please explain what you understand about the J, E, and P documents, and how that issue changes the point I'm making. Are you trying to say that originally, the verses in question were about a real god named "Elohim" who is the actual "Most High God" and "father of our spirits" and that later someone texts somehow, and that's how these passages came to have "LORD" in them? Is that what you are saying?

  6. wyomingwilly says:

    Set free, do you think that perhaps the reason theres such congestion within the Mormon doctrine
    of God that it's because once Mormon prophets decided that the One true God was'nt really all that
    unique they then had to separate Elohim from Jehovah, making one older and bigger than the other
    which would then fit their new view of God etc ?


  7. falcon says:

    I think latter tonight when I get a few minutes, I'm going to make-up my own religion. I think I'm at least as clever as Joseph Smith but I don't think I could match his ego. I keep saying that Mormonism looks like a bad night at karaoke. None of these Mormon prophets can "sing", but they certainly are entertaining in a goof ball sort of way. They remind me of the American Idol try outs with the people who really think they have talent but everyone is laughing at them. Now and then a guy like the fella from last season singing "Pants On the Ground" will get the crowd to respond. Same with the Mormon prophets. It's short lived and a joke of course.

  8. clyde says:

    there were three documents known as the J or Jehovah documents, E or El,eloh, or elohim documents and Priest or priestly documents. Each document was a version of the pentateuch-first five books of the bible. From my reading of history they were all combined into one document -the first five books of the bible. In combining these they used each term-elohim and jehovah-interchangably and also together. I believe that is how LORD got into those passages.

  9. setfreebyjc says:

    ww, I hadn't ever thought of it that way, but maybe you're right. I get the feeling, looking at the order of events in Joseph's career, that he just really got excited about the idea that "elohim" was a plural word, when he started to study Hebrew. That led him to invent the Book of Abraham (which as you know contradicts his previous work "retranslating" Genesis – the Book of Moses). I suspect that he felt that it – separating the Son and the Father into two separate gods – did away with the mystery of the Trinity, and therefore made him some sort of religious genius, whom people who were bothered by the Trinity woud follow. His renewed version of the First Vision helped secure his new idea, to those who would follow – but of course the whole idea of multiple gods deeply offended some of his congregation, and they "apostatized."

  10. falcon says:

    I'm glad that these articles have been running in this direction lately. The nature of God is the bottom line issue when it comes to Mormonism. Mormons need to quit trying to fit a square peg in a round hole when it comes to trying to find some sort of Biblical support for their aberrant and heretical point of view regarding this topic. In fact, if they wouldn't claim to be the restoration of original Christianity, I'd probably say, "OK it's weird but it's their thing." The fact that they want to make the claim they do, puts the whole thing in a completely different light.
    Mormonism is based on a feeling, period. It's not based on any type of Scriptural evidence. Even the fantasy tome BoM doesn't agree with Mormonism. Fueled by desire and a deceitful spirit, Mormonism is a pathway to spiritual darkness.

  11. Sarah says:

    Something I find the most interesting about the entire Mormon religion is the strange double-sided logic (or lack thereof) of it all.

    What I mean is, logic would dictate that the Book of Mormon is a completely false and fictional account. The events in the BoM never happened. How do we know this? Historical and archaeological evidence and fact. Yet a Mormon will tell you that it's their faith that accounts for the book being true.

    On the other hand, we have doctrine like God-was-once-a-man and we-must-do-all-sorts-of-work and Jesus-is-our-elder-brother that, from a logical standpoint, make sense. I mean, if you need an explanation for God and Christ and salvation and such, it's "logical" to say that God must have been a sinning man who worked hard to become a god and now we get to do the same. It's placing man's construct and understanding of life and the universe on God.

    However, whereas the belief in the BoM is based on faith, the strange non-Biblical doctrines of the nature of God are based on man's reason. In fact, it should be the complete opposite.

    God as an all-powerful, omniscient, unchanging God who sacrificed Himself in human form so that we all who believe are saved and can spend eternity with Him takes an awesome amount of faith. Our faith, then, is added to by the historicity and factual accounts in the Bible. God's word is true and good and He knows we need a little bit of fact to cement our faith (after all, Jesus says blessed are you who believes without seeing, in the understanding that some people need something tangible), which is why it's fact and true and right that the Bible can be proved true.

    The Mormons have it backwards and wrong. They're trying to make sense of an unchanging, perfect God while holding too close to a fantastical, made-up story and a lot of doctrine that does nothing to advance a loving God.

  12. Mormons did not always teach that Jesus was Jehovah. Smith believed in modalism up until about 1836, when he took Hebrew and learned that elohim can be translated as 'gods'. Jehovah was always taught to be the Father in Mormon theology until the end of the 19th Century. Take this from the Times & Seasons, published in 1841:

    "We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father." – Times and Seasons, 3:578 (15 November 1841).

  13. For those who don't know what Clyde is here espousing:

    This set of assumptions has gone by a number of names including the documentary theory and the Graf-Wellhausen theory. According to this view, the letter "J" stands for the Yahwist ("J" from the German Jahweh) narrative, coming from the period of the early Jewish monarchy, about 950 B.C. "E" stands for the Elohist narrative from the region of the Northern Kingdom dating from about 750 B.C. "D" is best represented by the book of Deuteronomy and is said to have originated in the Southern Kingdom about 650 B.C. or later. And finally, "P" is the priestly document that comes from the period after the fall of Israel in 587 B.C. According to the theory, the Pentateuch reached its current form around the time of Ezra or about 400 B.C.

    Why is the issue of Mosaic authority an important one? Those who accept the documentary or Graf-Wellhausen theory argue that the content of these books should be seen as a mixture of credible historical events and religious poetry sparked by man's religious imagination. For example, regarding Moses and God on Mount Sinai, one author of an Old Testament survey writes that, "It would be foolish, for instance, to rationalize the burning bush, as though this vision were something that could have been seen with the objective eye of a camera."Holders of this view reject the notion of supernatural revelation and regard much of the Pentateuch as folklore and Hebrew storytelling.

    Much of what Wellhausen postulated has been refuted as illogical. This happened when R. N. Whybray in 1987 restated almost identical arguments with far greater consequences. By that time three separate models for the composition of the Pentateuch had been proposed: the documentary (the Torah as a compilation of originally separate but complete books), the supplementary (a single original book, supplemented with later additions/deletions), and the fragmentary (many fragmentary works and editions). Whybray pointed out that of the three possible models the documentary was the most difficult to demonstrate, for while the supplemental and fragmentary models propose relatively simple, logical processes and can account for the unevenness of the final text, the process envisaged by the DH is both complex and extremely specific in its assumptions about ancient Israel and the development of its religion. Whybray went on to assert that these assumptions were illogical and contradictory, and did not offer real explanatory power: why, for example, should the authors of the separate sources avoid duplication, while the final redactor accepted it? "Thus the hypothesis can only be maintained on the assumption that, while consistency was the hallmark of the various [source] documents, inconsistency was the hallmark of the redactors!" (the above is compiled from web-sources)

    Be that as it may, this kind of thinking is called 'poisoning the well'. Such theories also come into play with the council of the gods and other concepts (including the Hebrew deity itself!) that many scholars say were absorbed into the Hebrew Religion from the Caananites. There are massive problems in using the Ugaritic Texts (as most who try to postulate these theories do), and at BEST, it is ALL CONJECTURE, with not one shred of any evidence to back it up. Many, some even here at MC – have tried to sound as if this is all accepted fact, but it is not. Unlike the Mormons ever changing god, or gods (after 1836) there is NO ONE today, who can prove that Jehovah was a conflated god, that these instances of his name inserted by these mythical 'redactors' or that these theories and speculations tying the Hebrew Religion to the Caananites, the Books of Moses to someone else, are something more than they are, theories and speculations.

  14. clyde,

    You're referring to the JEDP hypothesis first put forward by Julius Wellhausen in his "Prolegomena to the History of Israel" in 1883, and now known as the documentary hypothesis. Basically, it says that the "Books of Moses" (the Pentateuch) was not written as a single block of text (and probably not by Moses), but rather it's a conglomeration of disparate texts that have been redacted (edited) into one.

    Wellhausen proposed that there were four authors, who could be identified by respective traits – E for the habitual use of the word "Elohim", J for "Jehovah" (more strictly, YHWH), D for "Deuteronomical" and P for "Priestly". Modern versions of the documentary hypothesis don't recognize such well-defined distinctions.

    In my opinion, the basic idea of the documentary hypothesis has some merit. There's nothing in the Pentateuch itself that compels us to believe that Moses wrote it; the idea that he did arises from the traditions surrounding the scriptures. Also, there are a fair number of anachronisms; for example, we're told that Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldeans" in Genesis 11:28, 11:31 and 15:7, yet the Chaldeans did not arrive in Ur until about 1,000 BC, which is maybe 900 years after Abraham (depending on your chronology of the Patriarchs). In the light of this, it seems reasonable to me that the writer/redactor qualified his description of Ur after the Chaldeans had got there.

    Incidentally, that doesn't "disprove" Abraham, or the Biblical stories; it simply provides an indication of when these stories were written in the form that we have them in today.

    How should we react to this?

    I think it's wrong for any movement that claims to get it's authority from the Bible to ignore what the Bible actually says in favor of it's own extra-Biblical traditions. In other words, denial is not an option. What is written, is written and we're not going to change it, even if we don't like it.

    The issue of the inspiration of scripture (i.e. "We believe the Bible to be the word of God…") requires serious consideration. There are some (for example, Joseph Smith in his early years) who cannot reconcile the inspiration of scripture with the suggestion that it got redacted (edited and drawn together). So, they search for a "correct translation" and attempt to pick holes in the scriptures as we have them today because they might be "incorrectly" translated. They also look for a "mechanical" method for the transmission of the thoughts from the mind of God onto a piece of paper (such as Joseph's rock in a hat). Unfortunately, this approach is grossly ill-informed, and it fails to come to terms with what the scriptures are. It also fails, utterly, to comprehend the sequence of events in the history of the writing of the Bible.

    In my opinion, we need to view the history of the writing of the Bible in its own historical context. For example, much of the Old Testament was written in the lead-up and fall-out of the Babylonian exile around 587BC. However, one thing that seems to be habitually overlooked by the skeptics, is that the OT scriptures probably took on their present form no later than about the 3rd Century BC, and possibly earlier in the return from exile.

    In other words, the OT texts were well established, known and recognized at the dawn of the Christian Era. This is important because the monotheism of Christian theology is supported on this scriptural foundation, as is clear from the abundant references to the OT in the NT. At the time of Jesus and His followers, and for several (maybe many) centuries previously, the scriptures were understood to teach that there is One God.

    What the documentary skeptics consistently fail to acknowledge is that it cuts both ways. If you allow for scripture to be redacted, then it has to be redacted for a reason. That reason, IMO, becomes clear when you consider the Bible's insistence that there is One God, not several who are distinguished by the monikers "Elohim" or "YHWH" or something else. This is incredibly important in the context that the loyalty of the People of God ultimately rests on this One God and King, and that's a theme that runs through the whole compilation.

    That's not to say that the nature of God is fully comprehensible (you commented earlier about the relationship between the Father and Son in John 20:17, and I'd like to return to that later). However, one thing that screams out from the scriptures is this; whatever else you may call "god", there is only One who is God.

    I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God

    Isaiah 45:5

  15. clyde says:

    The further into past we look the darker and dimmer the truth gets. I read an article about the Chaldeans in readers' digest. There was a dig somewhere in syria that I believe found evidence that Chaldeans were there same time as Abraham.

  16. wyomingwilly says:


    Mormon leaders have made the claim that Jesus Himself is directing them, allowing them to be guides
    for the Mormon people to know about Him. Concerning the identity of Jehovah, Jesus shocked the
    Jewish religious leaders in His claim to be the God that revealed Himself to Moses and other prophets
    in centuries past — Jn.8:52-58. Mormon prophets , especislly Brigham Young ) claimed to reveal this
    same Jehovah. He and other Mormon leaders used O.T. verses such as Ex 3:14 ( Isa.55:11; Ex.31:18;
    Ps.34:15 and others ) to teach that Heavenly Father was Jehovah , an exalted man. Subsequent
    Mormon leaders figured out that the Bible was more accurate than Brigham Young, despite the fact of
    the Mormon belief in trusting their living prophet over dead prophets. But What troubles many
    LDS was that B.Y. claimed that it was his duty to advance correct doctrine and protect the Church from
    doctrinal error. Recent church curriculum has even stated that prophet Young was faithful in his duty !
    Claiming to accurately relay spiritual truth from God is a serious matter. Failing to do so removes any
    authoritive standing a man might claim. This relegates Mormon prophets in line with those described
    in Jer.23:21, 2 Pt 2:1. It is well to note that a false prophet can live a moral lifestyle , so don't be fooled .

  17. falcon says:

    Mormons are stuck with trying to find any fragment of support for their aberrant and heretical views. When all else fails the personal testimony is pulled out and slapped dramatically on the table like some sort of game winning trump card. Mormon scholarship reminds me of a quarterback lofting a fifty yard pass into the end zone with time running out in the hopes that perhaps someone will catch it.
    The Church Fathers would get frustrated with the heretics they faced because of the way (the heretics) would misuse and abuse the Scriptures. So they would appeal to "tradition" as a means of supporting the orthodox view of Scripture and doctrine. There is no tradition for Mormonism any where in the Christian Church. What we have in Mormonism is an emotional attachment to an idea.
    I admire the time and effort you put into crafting your posts. It has to be done. Unfortunately for the Mormon at the pre-contemplative stage of spiritual development, your fine work will be seen only as the evidence of men. Couldn't you just shut your eyes, imagine something to support your findings and call it a vision? I think the Mormons might be impressed by that.

  18. setfreebyjc says:

    I always appreciate your contributions, Martin. Look forward to them, in fact.
    But… I cannot agree with your third paragraph above. There ARE scriptural reasons to believe that Moses wrote the books, and reason for some of what your are calling anachronisms in my opinion.

    Please see this link: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/moses.html

    as well as the other two I posted above, for a list of scriptures that indicate that Moses is the writer, etc

  19. setfreebyjc says:

    Thanks Falcon. It is so discouraging to see, yet again, how something like this is handled. It seems as though the meat of the matter, the biggest focus of the post, has been lost down a rabbit trail – one of those many rabbit trails that the LDS like to run down to avoid the main point and inevitable conclusion of the post.

    TBM's step over the pile of garbage at their door, but will chase a flea to the middle of the sea. ;-/

    Instead of considering that there are only verses about Heavenly Father for some reason, instead of seeing the subtle lies that the church pulls on them by only quoting partial verses, when exposed to the rest of the context they say "well, someone somewhere thousands of years ago was against Mormons…"

    Argh, it's so sad. Especially the long-timers, who have watched the evidence continually come at them, and have sidestepped it one issue at a time, but never stop to think "What does all this evidence mean, taken cumulatively?"


  20. setfree says:

    You’re still basing your beliefs on wisps and hints of ideas, Clyde.

    Doesn’t it suggest something to you that archeology IS digging up Abraham and Chaldeans? Like maybe… the Bible is worth considering on it’s own merits, instead of through the lenses and purposes of 19th century “prophets” and people who are trying to prove that there is no supernatural (the J,E,P,D group)?

  21. wyomingwilly says:

    JEHOVAH, [ cont. ] a recap: 1. Jesus, in Jn.8 claimed that He was the God who revealed Himself
    in Exodus 3 , Jehovah, I AM etc.
    2. Mormon leaders claim to be the spiritual authorities in the One true Church, they are directed by Jesus
    Himself. These men reveal His mind and will on important spiritual matters to the people.
    3. With the promise to advance correct doctrine, Mormon leaders ( Brigham Young etc ) , taught that the
    Jehovah described in Ex. 3 ( and elsewhere) was actually an exalted man, a God that prophet Young
    called heavenly Father.
    4. The Mormon people accepted this teaching as truth because their leaders convinced them that the "living"
    prophet can take precedent over the Bible .
    5. Later on, Mormon leaders again stressed their view that all LDS trust the living prophet, and therefore
    dumped prophet Young's teaching on this issue in favor of what amounts to the current view ( so far).
    All this activity was supposedly directed by Jesus
    6. Sadly, many LDS seem to feel that since they live the moral standard established by God , that they
    somehow won't be held accountable for not respecting God's standard concerning false prophets,
    which is to dismiss them as authorities over them. Failure to do this brings God's displeasure.
    LDS, there is a better way. Heb.1:1-2 ; 7:25

  22. wyomingwilly says:

    clyde, I'm glad to see that you read Reader"s Digest . I read American Cowboy Magazine , Western
    Horseman, and USA Today. So what about Jehovah ? What about prophets today who claim to
    represent Him ?


  23. f_melo says:

    Agreed! Great observation. Setfree, could you repost that link, i´m not getting anywhere by clicking it.

    Jesus must be the ultimate authority in those matters, and Jesus never questioned Moses´ "authorship" of the law, he never referred to Jonas´story as fiction, etc. That settles it for me.

  24. f_melo says:

    "Holders of this view reject the notion of supernatural revelation and regard much of the Pentateuch as folklore and Hebrew storytelling.

    I´ve said this not long ago, but it amazes me how people who profess to believe in Jesus, God born in human flesh, raised people from the dead and performed other amazing and unique miracles, and then was crucified and raised supernaturally on the third day, have a problem in accepting other supernatural events in the Old Testament which are in general much less absurd than Jesus´ story…

    If you accept Jesus as God you shouldn´t have a problem in accepting the Bible for what it is, if you have a problem you do have some serious issues you have to deal with, just like doubting Thomas had.

  25. f_melo says:

    Don´t forget also the hard time they had trying to decide if God the Father had a body or was a personage of spirit, as we see int the Lectures of Faith… that´s how reliable they are…

  26. I think that Smith just never understood God. I think that Sidney Rigdon had a very big impact on Smith in the beginning, which of course can not be proved… but the Book of Mormon itself and of course the Lectures on Faith show that impact. Smith though, always went his own way, and to break away from all these men who had such influence in his early Church, he invented his Priesthood Authority, and placed himself at the center of it, in direct contradiction to some of his earlier 'revelations' – that he would 'have no other gift' – that made such an impact on those like Martin Harris and Cowdery who believed in the earlier incarnations of the Mormon God, but who could not follow Smith's illogic with his many gods teachings (in direct contradiction to the Bible) and polygamy – teachings created – in my opinion – to justify his appetite for women. The holdover from the Book of Mormon days – that the Father was Jehovah – and the modalistic twist that these teachings produced were worked out of Mormonism, (they claim by 'revelation') or that Smith's teachings on God 'were not complete' (Fielding Smith) – but all that makes no sense if Smith really did see two personages in his claimed 1820 vision. That another prophet could come along – Young – and then twist the above into Adam-god, should give all Mormons great pause – for it really shows what Mormonism is – a progressive system based not on direct revelation, but on the comprehension of men – who by their own thoughts invented it as they went along.

  27. Setfree, that link does not work…

  28. Clyde how do you reconcile the fact that Smith taught that the Holy Spirit was only the mind of God in 1835?

  29. setfreebyjc says:

    Sorry, I tried to fix that link but it never did go through. Here is really is, lol

  30. setfreebyjc says:

    Is there any Mormon reading who cares? I should have remembered to link to this post: http://blog.mrm.org/?s=brainwashing

    See, the church has a nasty habit of taking excerpts, miniscule pieces of verses, and combining them in such a way that it looks as though the Bible is supporting their doctrine. But that's the deal. It only looks like that. The pieces of verses are taken from verses that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and they are only put together to lie to the Mormon population.

    We saw it in Geneology and Temple Work. Pieces of verses grabbed out of their context and put together to support the idea that people need to go to the temples to get a new name and take covenants and so forth. THIS IS WHAT THE CHURCH DOES. Once you realize that they have lied to you, perhaps you care to apply that understanding to the current topic. Are the verses REALLY about a god named Elohim? Or were the partial verses pulled out of context to try to support a Mormon belief?

  31. clyde says:

    He was learning more about God as He went along.

  32. wyomingwilly says:

    Setfreebyjc, I think you've done an excellent job in trying to reason with those who are somehow
    convinced that they are worshiping the right God . If they could just step back a step from listening
    to their leaders and immerse themselves in what the Bible says about our Creator they would see
    how far removed from God's Word many of them have drifted as a result from following their prophet/


  33. f_melo says:

    "See, the church has a nasty habit of taking excerpts, miniscule pieces of verses, and combining them in such a way that it looks as though the Bible is supporting their doctrine."

    This is a video that also talks about that, it briefly exposes FEMA´s strategy of using pastors as pacifiers in preparation for martial law:

    That´s exactly what the Mormon Church does and setfree is absolutely correct to expose that for what it is, priestcraft!

  34. wyomingwilly says:

    Reliable Guides ?

    The Mormon church claims to be the one true church of Jesus Christ today.All other churches are false.
    A major indicator that all other Churches are false is there is much division on important issues among
    them, thus people are confused. Mormon leaders claim to have the answer to this problem. Concerning
    all others who claim to be christian : "…they have not understood the scriptures and being without revelation and the priesthood of God, they have had to depend on their own interpretation of the scriptures for their guidance."
    {Apostle LeGrand Richards}.
    Mormonism claims to have better guides, " You can always trust then living prophets . The teachings reflect the will of the Lord….Your greatest safety lies in strictly following the Word of the Lord given through his prophets, particularly the current President of the Church, The Lord warns that those who ignore the words of the livjng prophets will fall …." {True to the faith pg. 130}. end of part 1

  35. wyomingwilly says:

    part 2
    The guides of Mormonism : " The Lord has given some marvelous guarantees without any disclaimers. And this is one of them: He will chose the prophet and he will never let that man lead us astray. Imagine for a moment the impact of that promise. There is at lease one place we can turn for pure unpolluted guidance." [1998 Gen. Conf.] Just one example of how reliable the guidance of Mormon leaders has been is with the subject of which god in Mormonism is Jehovah, which god is Elohim, and even which god is Adam. Even Mormon scholar Boyd Kirkland has admitted " Not surprisingly, some confusion arose among Mormons who had trouble reconciling their reading of the scriptures with Smith's and Young's later doctrinal innovations."
    (end of part 2)

  36. wyomingwilly says:

    part 3 .

    There is more than enough evidence that Mormon prophets and apostles are not God's hand picked
    guides that they claim to be. What's really disturbing with all this confusion on the vital issue of which
    god is which in Mormon teaching, is that the same mind-set among LDS of yesterday which caused
    them to be confused and misled, also exists it seems in today's Mormons. The mind-set that believes
    if you don't want to offend God and jeopardize your relationship with Him in Eternity, then do not
    refuse to submit to the prophet. Sadly, this trap has been very successful. LDS should not miss out
    on God's best for them by harboring false prophets in their lives. There is a better way. Heb.7:25

  37. clyde says:

    My source of information is from the Book Jews, God and History By Max I Dimont. I think it is a very good book dealing with the bible as history. If you get the book be careful and remember it also deals with other histories that parallel biblical stories. Johnny stephenson and martin have presented a good understanding of the hypothesis I presented. At times it seems that bloggers at mormon coffee do not realize that some subjects have also puzzled christian scholar. Since the LDS church uses the king james version the question of Who is talking sometimes arises. The idea can be confusing if Jehovah is talking to Abraham telling him to sacrifice his son and then telling that He will send His Son as a sacrifice to all mankind. If Jehovah is Jesus why is he telling the story.

  38. WW,

    How, in heaven's name, do you get from Exodus 3:14 to "god is an exalted man"?

    It's a non-sequitur in the extreme.

    I guess the only way to try to make sense of it is to not try to make sense of it.

  39. setfree and others,

    I accept that the alleged "anachronisms" could be resolved, and I remain circumspect about my understanding of ancient history. There is much speculation and conjecture relating to the origins of OT scripture and ancient middle eastern history that is presented as incontrovertible fact, as Johnny rightly points out.

    Two thoughts;

    1 Much of the Ev apologetic rightly aims at getting Mormons to engage the evidence, particularly with respect to the known history of Joseph Smith and the LDS movement. I am concerned that we should hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect of those on the other side of the table. In other words, we should engage the evidence, and not dismiss it merely because it does not fit into our preferred scheme. If the evidence proves that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, then so be it. However, it ought to be a conclusion we come to, not the place where we start from.

    2 Much of the Mormon apologetic wrongly resorts to the documentary hypothesis (or it's variants) to prove that Mormonism is true. IMO, it's an "own goal" of epic proportions – "death by friendly fire", or however you want to put it. Joseph Smith insisted that there could and should be a "correct translation" of scripture (else why 8AoF and the JS "Inspired" Version?). If he was right, then we've got to ask which "scriptures" he would correctly translate, since these very "scriptures" were undergoing change and evolution right up to the point in which they took their present form (according to the hypothesis). In their present form, the texts are pugnaciously monotheistic, which presents a very real problem to someone who wants to read BoA-style Mormonism into them. So, Joseph Smith's whole concept of a "correct translation" is fundamentally flawed, unless, as I see the argument extend to its logical extreme, Jesus and the Authors of the NT were the original, cardinal apostates.

  40. wyomingwilly says:

    Martin, you ask a good question. This is why we labor here, trying to point the LDS people to a
    more reliable guide in scriptural truth than their prophets. Mormons are taught that the place
    they can turn to , "…for pure unpolluted guidance ." is their prophet. Considering that the above
    guidance on interpreting who the god was in Ex.3:14, I think you'll agree that the Mormon people
    need a more reliable guide and a different prophet ! Jn.16:13 ; Heb.1:1-2 , 7:25


  41. f_melo says:

    Martin, i find it interesting for you to call out our "hypocrisy" here over "much speculation and conjecture relating to the origins of OT scripture and ancient middle eastern history that is presented as incontrovertible fact". I think if you want to do that you should do it in the face of real, solid issues. Setfree even posted links to articles that provide evidence to the contrary, yet you ignored it and thought it was fair to actually make this sort of comment. As if that hypothesis is so compelling… please… maybe i´ll write a hypothesis about why the paper of a Bible´s cover is different from the paper from the text inside in such a way that it indicates that the Bible is not telling the truth – that´s how compelling the documentary hypothesis is.

    "I am concerned that we should hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect of those on the other side of the table."

    Right, because you can compare Joseph Smith´s credibility with that of Jesus Christ. So, if you want to prove Joseph wrong you might as well prove Jesus is wrong, but not the other way around though. Those two belong in different dimensions when it comes to evidences, Christianity can´t be compared to Mormonism in any way, other than it happened among human beings.

    Now, let´s read some of what Jesus has to say about the Old Testament, keeping in mind that by His time He had the "written and edited by many authors" version of it.

    Mark 10:2-3 "And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?"

    He didn´t say "what did the many writers command you", and even if it was the case that Moses wasn´t the author and the Old Testament was just a collection of combined books, Jesus as God Himself who gave those commandments in the first place should have known that and corrected it. Yet you don´t see that. Jesus read Isaiah not taking notice of the supposed multiple authorships of it. The Apostles used much of the Septuagint and they never made difference of it. Are you willing to call them and Jesus ignorants of the truth?

    So, i´ll maintain what i said above – Jesus considered the Old Testament as authentic, real history and its authors as the original authors that wrote down His words given them from Heaven, among the records that surround the context in which those words were give.

  42. f_melo says:

    "In other words, we should engage the evidence, and not dismiss it merely because it does not fit into our preferred scheme."

    My preferred scheme is that Jesus is God and His word is Truth. Should i make room for speculations that go contrary to that?

  43. Jean says:

    I discovered something similar with Melchizedek Priesthood. It is only mentioned twice in the OT and once in the NT.
    •Genesis 14:18
    And Melchizedek KING of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
    (This does not say he held the Melchizedek Priesthood does it? It said he was a priest of the most high and his name seems to be Melchizedek)
    •Psalms 110:4
    The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou (Jesus?) art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

    Only two references to ‘Melchisedec’ in OT. One in New Testament. NONE in the B of M – all others are from AFTER Joseph Smith organized his church.

    Aaronic priesthood is not mentioned at all. Aaron had a priesthood; he was called a high priest but no mention about Melchizedek.
    •It was after God told Moses to construct a tabernacle that God told Moses to make Aaron a High Priest still within the order of the Levitical Priesthood available before Aaron was made High Priest

    •The priests with Moses at Mt. Sinai could only have had the Levitical Priesthood as no other priesthood was in existence at that time. If there was, why was it not mentioned until the New Testament with only one mention.

    Priests are mentioned in the Old Testament 682 times. We find priests with Moses before Aaron was called to be high priest to officiate with the ark of the Covenant and the temple when it was built.

    •No Aaronic Priesthood is mentioned in the OT, NT or BofM; it all starts with Joseph Smith and Oliver with no dates to substantiate it. AND no history whatsoever of John the Baptist even having any priesthood – instead he was called as a forerunner to one who was to come after him whose shoes…

    Just because John's father had the high priesthood to do the yearly temple thing doesn't mean that John did and the Bible does not state that he did, so how did he have the authority to give it to anyone?

    • Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

    The only NT mention of Melchisedek. Read it carefully and then read the whole chapter. It is so obvious that it is saying that only Christ held the Priesthood or needed to or even could. This priesthood could have no end and because Christ supposedly rose from the dead, he COULD have the M priesthood because it would live with him.

    When you drop all the teachings that you have ever received and begin to read it like a non-Mormon it all looks so different. That whole books becoming one in thy hand issue is what puts the spin on things. Most young people who go to church from infancy through to their deaths, just believe what they are told and only see things through that lens.
    I can see clearly now the fog is gone.

  44. Martin said

    "I am concerned that we should hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect of those on the other side of the table."

    Please don't go their, You don't do that and you know it, You purposely refused to post information I gave to you, therefore you made me look like I could not answer questions, That makes you deceitful by your actions.

    F_melo said

    Jesus read Isaiah not taking notice of the supposed multiple authorship's of it.

    If by this you are referring to the so called Duel or two Isaiahs Then I'm letting you know this is wrong, Their is only one Isaiah and Jesus referred to the one Isaiah as the same author in both sections that people assume is two Isaiahs.

    37] But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
    38] That the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
    39] Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again,
    40] He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
    41] These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

    In this passage we first encounter a quote, in verse 38, familiar to many of you, that begins the famous chapter of Isaiah 53. This would be in the section attributed to the "Second Isaiah."

    In verse 40 we have a quote from Isaiah Chapter 6 (v. 10), as verse 41 also highlights what occurs when Isaiah beholds the throne of God. This is, of course, in the first section of Isaiah.

    Oh, how I am grateful for verse 39! Notice that John tells us that "that Isaiah said again" when he links the two passages and, thus, the two sections and attributes them both to "that" (same) Isaiah!

    If you take John seriously, and recognize the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then you need not doubt the authorship of Isaiah – both "sections."

  45. f_melo says:

    "At times it seems that bloggers at mormon coffee do not realize that some subjects have also puzzled christian scholar

    Sorry, Clyde but that´s a straw-man. I don´t simply dismiss those things out of ignorance, i just refuse to give them more importance than what they deserve, and i don´t take speculation as my authority when it comes to believing in what Jesus and the Bible say.

  46. f_melo says:

    Great comment, Jean! You make great points!

    The whole priesthood scheme is just a means of control. The "Aaronic Priesthood", which you correctly referred to as the Levitical Priesthood was fulfilled in Christ. It´s strange that Joseph Smith resurrected this priesthood and called it a power while it was never a power, but an office. Another strange thing Mormons have to account for is from whom did John the Baptist get that priesthood that grants "authority" to baptize when you take into consideration that Moses never ever associated it with anything of the sort. Joseph Smith even mocked that priesthood by making it a "preparatory" priesthood and gave it to kids, and determined that it gave them the duties of keeping the chapel clean, to collect tithing, perform the "ordinance" of the Sacrament(yeah, right),etc. Wow, that´s a brand new priesthood nobody ever heard of before, God sure kept many of His ideas for the "restoration".

  47. setfreebyJC says:

    "When you drop all the teachings that you have ever received and begin to read it like a non-Mormon it all looks so different"
    Amen, Sister!

    I remember the day that I realized "hood!" Priest"hood" is like father"hood" or mother"hood." Hood is simply the suffix that points us to the duties, the look, the reality… of holding a particular office. Like fatherhood and motherhood are words that describe having to get out of bed in the middle of the night to tend to a sick child, having to set aside selfish priorities to take care of the needs of a family, and so forth… Priesthood is a word that describes having to live like and carry out the responsibilites of a priest.

    Priestcraft is the word the Mormons should be using. Witchcraft has the same connotation. It is trying to usurp God's power and circumvent His will to gain control that we should not have. Scary business, and not at all what the Levites nor Jesus were doing.

  48. setfreebyJC says:


    The Bible, overall, gives us three facts.
    One: There is only ONE GOD.
    Two, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
    Three: the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, and the Son is not the Spirit.

    So you have three persons, but only ONE GOD. To communicate an understanding of this 3-part Biblical truth, people began using the word "Trinity."

    All of the best analogies in the world cannot bring God down to our level, but perhaps some can help our little minds. Like the H2O analogy: Water is H20, Ice is H20, and Steam is H2O. All are H2O, but all are distinct as well.

    Joseph Smith tried to reconcile the problem of God. But in dividing the Father and the Son into separate gods, he did not adhere to Bible rule number one: There is only one God.

    I hope that helps. I can suggest a lot of good reading on the subject if you are interested.

  49. setfreebyJC says:

    Did you read the links I provided, and find that they argued in such a way that they were merely trying to defend a decision that they wanted?

Leave a Reply