Three Little Words

For several hours each night before the Mormon Miracle Pageant in Manti, Utah, Mormon Tabernacle Choir music is broadcast over loudspeakers. One might hear popular Mormon songs like Come, Come Ye Saints (a pioneer song) or Praise to the Man (a tribute to Joseph Smith), among many others. These songs are expected. But one might be surprised, as I was, to hear the familiar strains of the beloved Christian hymn, Holy, Holy, Holy. I say surprised because Holy, Holy, Holy is a Trinitarian hymn; Mormonism denies the Trinity.

Published in 1826, Anglican Vicar Reginald Heber wrote Holy, Holy, Holy to be sung at his church during the observance of Trinity Sunday. Trinity Sunday, celebrated in Western liturgical churches, celebrates the central Christian doctrine of, as Mr. Heber wrote, “God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity.”

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir does not sing Mr. Heber’s words. The Choir performs its own interpretation which, of course, leaves out reference to the Trinity. Instead of singing the song as written, that is,

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee:
Holy, holy, holy! merciful and mighty!
God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity. (verse 1)

The Mormon interpretation is this:

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee;
Holy, holy, holy! merciful and mighty!
God in His glory, blessed Deity! (verse 1)

This alteration is employed both times in the song where Mr. Heber wrote, “God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity.” I give the Mormon Tabernacle Choir credit for refraining from singing something the LDS Church says is “not true” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “The One True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent,” Ensign, November 2007, 40). But this Mormon interpretation of the song, while only changing three little words, effectively eliminates the very heart of the hymn Reginald Heber penned.

“Wait a minute,” some may say. “’God in His glory, blessed Deity!’ That’s a true statement, right? Mormons and Christians agree (on the surface) that God in His glory is the blessed Deity. So what’s wrong with swapping out the text about the Trinity for text about Deity? No big deal, right?”


Reginald Heber wrote this song to praise the one true God – his God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit; three eternally existing coequal and coeternal Persons within the one Being that is God. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir removed that Being, that one true God about whom and for whom the song was written, and substituted a different god in His place. In His rightful place. Taking praises that belong to God alone and singing them to another.

This, to me, is an illustration of the bigger picture of what Mormonism has done with the Bible and Christian doctrine. Mormons often say Mormonism is “so close” to evangelical Christianity. They think that the “few” and “little” differences Mormonism has with Christianity are mostly insignificant. But in reality, the Mormon interpretation of doctrines long-held and espoused by Christians, just like the three little words changed in Holy, Holy, Holy, effectively eliminates the very heart of the Christian Gospel.

  • Is God One, a Trinity in His nature, or three Gods unified in Their purpose?
  • Is Christ the Creator of all things in heaven and on earth or the older brother and non-creator of the spirit beings in heaven and on earth?
  • Is salvation a gift from God given to sinners according to His great mercy or is it an achievement of those who prove themselves worthy?

Three little words, three little changes (among many others that could be discussed). But a different God, a different Christ, and a different doctrine of salvation equal a distorted and different Gospel.

And this is a very big deal indeed (Galatians 1:6-9).

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 Christianity, Gospel, Nature of God and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Three Little Words

  1. setfree says:


    The most believable kind of lie is the one which comes “so close” to the truth, because the lie part is hidden in the truth part. Satan is the inventor of this kind of lie. (John 8:44-5)

    And Satan is the inventor of the Mormon church. All these nice people (Mormons) who would cringe at outright evil (i.e. a little red man with horns and pitchfork) but who believe that they are following God and Jesus, though they have been taught to embrace a non-biblical God and Jesus.

    How could God let millions of people believe that they are following Him, while they are NOT? That used to bother me. But, the true God calls His followers to Him, whether or not they first believe in a false god and Christ, or no god and no Christ. He is able, HE IS ABLE!

    “It is impossible but that offences will come,” Jesus said to His disciples, “but woe [unto him], through whom they come!” (Luke 17:1)

    It is impossible that churches like the LDS church would not arise, proclaiming a false Jesus. That does not excuse them, and “woe” to people like Joseph Smith! But Jesus is more powerful, and can and will save the LDS if they will repent and believe in (THE REAL) Him.

  2. Kate says:

    The thing that really bothers me about this is how the LDS can take something that is so meaningful to someone else and change it to suit themselves. Why not just make up their own hymn? Why butcher a Christian hymn that obviously meant so much to the man who wrote it? What if this would have been the other way around? What if a Mormon wrote this hymn and a Christian changed the last line to say “God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity”? Would there be a lawsuit? There would definately be outrage!
    But then again, this is nothing new. This is basically what Mormonism has done to the whole of Christianity from it’s beginning.

  3. Mike R says:

    Set Free, when you were a Mormon you had the feeling that you were following God.
    This is understandable, yet in reality Mormons are constantly counseled to ” follow
    the prophet ” and since it is claimed that this prophet is ” our source of pure doctrine”,
    then it would be easy to simply trust him . Scary . May the Mormon people come to
    see the value of placing their trust in The True and Living God who made available
    His Word and His Spirit as our guide to know who He is. Thank God for helping you
    to see the truth . May the Mormon people be as blessed soon.



  4. Rick B says:

    Kate, your spot on about how if this was a mormon song and was changed by chrisatians their would be outrage.

    I have said to mormons many times, If I put on an elder badge, said I am from the church of latter day saints, but gave my believe instead of their, they said I could not do that and they were not happy I even thought of doing that. This shows what you said is true.

    Whats even sadder is, they not only remove a few words from a song, but they change entire meanings of what we believe, and build entire doctrines around a single verse in the Bible.

    Examples, The Bible says, I knew you before you were even formed, now take that one verse, and we have the story of the veil of forgetfullness, and people sitting on the side lines watching the great battle, and these sideliners getting cursed with black skin.

    Thats a big story invented from one verse. Then Baptism for the dead, thats another one, I mean give me a break.

  5. CD-Host says:

    The thing that really bothers me about this is how the LDS can take something that is so meaningful to someone else and change it to suit themselves. Why not just make up their own hymn? Why butcher a Christian hymn that obviously meant so much to the man who wrote it? What if this would have been the other way around?

    Yeah what if it were the other way around. What if Christians took a bunch of Jewish poems, like in Psalms that were meaningful to them, and then totally changed their context and had them point to another conception of the deity and then used them in their worship. And even worse what if they said they were the real Jews, Romans 11:17-21 while doing that.

    Yep, I just don’t understand where the Mormons would get an idea that that sort of hymn stealing was acceptable from.

  6. Rick B says:

    Let me say this again.
    How can we trust anything you say CD? You said your a moral person, Yet you attack God, attack His word, Accuse Christians of all sorts of things. You said you were leaving, yet you have not, It seems we cannot take you at your word so why should we trust you know what your talking about.

    Also If you dont believe God exists yet you have just anger towards God and His people we cannot trust you. Plus as it has been said to you over and over, this blog is not atheiets and what Christians belive, it is what Mormons belive and dont believe, and talking about their teachings. Their are Blogs that you can talk about believers all you want, so why not leave as you said you would.

  7. CD-Host, if you were a Christian theist, you would believe Paul’s writings instead of denigrating them.

    Ironically, Romans 11 is about how God has not forgotten ethnic Israelites. In the context of Romans 9-11, he argues that some Gentiles are grafted into a true Israel, and that not all ethnic Israelites are of the true Israel. Yet in chapter 11 he argues that ethnic Israel still has a future. God will someday make them jealous of the Gentile Christians, and that jealousy will somehow play a part in their mass conversion to Jesus. Romans 11 preserves, not collapses, God’s promises to ethnic Israel. They still have a privileged future. All of God’s promises are “yes” in Christ Jesus.

    Mormons, on the other hand, takes “Holy, Holy, Holy”, and sing it of a god they believe was once perhaps a sinner.

  8. Kate says:

    I know you believe that you have Mormonism all figured out. I think you should commit to going to a Mormon church for a year, every Sunday, and by all means, tell them what you are finding out about Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Teach them all that you have learned (so far). Ask them questions about Mormon doctrine. Enlighten them as you are enlightening us. Please do this and then come back and report how it went. I’m being serious. If you want to know all about Mormonism and how Mormons live and believe, take my challenge. You’ll either be converted, or they will throw you out on your behind. I personally think they’ll throw you out, but at least you will see that it’s not the way you are perceiving it to be. Mormonism isn’t exactly what you think. Most Mormons don’t know or believe what you are posting. Please go fill them in!

  9. Rick B says:

    I agree with what you said CD should do. But I would bet money He will not do that. It is easy to sit at a computer, hide behind a moniker and attack what people believe. It is different when you go to their church and do that.

    I understand most people if not more than most would never give out their full real names and things for fear of being hurt. But me, I am more than happy to give out my full name, phone number if needed home address etc. I dont fear no man, and I want to share the gospel. So That is why I give out my challange for LDS to come to my house and talk, or atheists if they want. I have even gone as I said to LDS churchs to speak to them. But I am betting as I said, what you sugest, CD would never do. I believe he knows as you said, they would toss him out on his butt.

  10. falcon says:

    God is holy. He’s always been holy. Holiness is the essence of who God is.
    The god that Mormons sing about was, as Aaron pointed out, a sinner. Mormons must consider that the being they call “god” was once a reprobate sinner. Not only that, so were his god, and his god and his god into infinity. According to Mormons, there are perhaps millions if not billions of gods all of whom were degenerate, loathsome, corrupt sinners.
    What kind of sins did these Mormon gods commit? Did these gods lie, steal, cheat, get drunk, murder, rape and embezzle?
    The lie of Mormonism is that reprobate sinners can through concerted effort, purify themselves. What rubbish!
    As men and women we are sinners that are separated from God. It’s only through God’s mercy, benevolence and love that we are declared holy and therefore can enter His presence. The cross of Christ made it possible for us, through faith, to be set straight.
    Mormons don’t know the God who is revealed in the Bible. Their pagan religion has an idol for a god that’s not much different from the Baals and the golden calfs and the images of the sun, moon, trees and various birds, rocks waterfalls or totems that pagans have bowed down to. In fact Joseph Smith included a facsimile of his god in the BoA and it turns out that the image is that of an Egyptian fertility god exposing himself. This is holy?

  11. Jared says:

    I’ve gotta say this topic isn’t as interesting as Pomeroy Tucker’s book about Joseph Smith.

    This post shows us that the LDS change traditional Christian hymns to suit their own doctrine. I suppose it could be viewed as a twist in Twistianity, but except for stalwarts who already distrust the LDS Church, this is a non-issue to most Christians.

    They changed the words in a song? Ok, but it’s not nearly as potentially damning as Joseph Smith pretending to have plates, having his ruse uncovered and then finding it chronicled by a contemporary.

    More people should be aware/concerned with Pomeroy’s book.

  12. Mike R says:

    Two thoughts: Mormon leaders once used the term ” Trinity” in reference to
    their three main Gods. Their personal revelation /conviction confirmed it
    as proper. Perhaps they still do sometimes, but why then change the song”s
    wording ?
    2. Since the Mormon temple is said to be a holy place, and since the Mormon choir
    sings Holy, Holy, Holy, why don’t they just insert the names of the three creation
    gods mentioned in part of the temple rituals as instructed by prophet Brigham Young:
    Elohim , Jehovah, and Michael.


  13. CD-Host says:

    Aaron —

    I’m not sure I was denigrating Paul at all. I was using him in an analogy…
    Mormon use of Christian materials is like Christian use of Jewish materials. Paul being an example of that. As far as your interpretation of Romans 11, agree completely, I don’t disagree in the slightest that is what Paul is saying. In fact that was my point.

    In “unfulfilled” Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism which came out of Pharisaic, what people today and then called Judaism, membership in Israel is tribal / national by birth and circumcision. Gentiles by definition can’t be grafted in they can convert. Paul went much further with Ben Noach (Gen 9:1-17, Acts 15:24-29) theology then any major Jewish thinker ever had. So on this issue, can you clarify where you think we are disagreeing, I’m not exactly sure where you see the disagreement.

    In terms of God never sinned, and I think you know this better than I, but in my read where we are disagreeing comes down to relative time. In our sphere, in our past; God is perfect. In Heavenly Grandfather’s sphere, which includes Heavenly Father’s view to his past, he is imperfect. Time is a property of matter, even in our universe in completely non supernatural ways different observers will disagree (correctly) about the order of events. Throw in the possibilities for what spirit really is, and I don’t see a contradiction. That’s what makes eternal progression possible. Heavenly father is a perfect God for men but not a perfect God for God’s. Heavenly grandfather is a perfect God for Gods. Heavenly great grandfather is a perfect God for Gods of Gods…

    I think that interpretation is faithful to both Brigham Young’s eternal progression and Orson Pratt’s view of perfection.

  14. setfree says:

    Mike R… good point

  15. 4fivesolas says:

    CD does have a point. If Mormons are not what they claim, a restoration of true Christianity – and historical Christianity is actually true – then taking this song and changing it’s meaning is a perversion. If Mormonism is true, then perhaps they can just view this as redeeming music from fallen Christians. In any case, it’s apparent that Mormons and Christians are not the same thing, even when looking at worship music – it has been be changed to fit Mormonism. I believe the Holy Trinity is absolutely central to a proper understanding of who God is. Mormons don’t believe that – therefore the change. This is another example of how vast and wide the divide between Mormons and Christians.
    Now as for the Christian use of the Psalms – I hope no Christian finds it necessary to rewrite Psalms! Once again if some Jewish people are correct, then the Christian usage of the Psalms may seem inappropriate to these Jewish individuals. However, if Jesus is the final sacrifice for our sins, the fulfillment of the system God set up for atonement, where God gave Himself for us – then the Christian use of Psalms would not only be okay, it would be essential.
    The problem with CD is he does not believe in religious truth. There is no truth in religion, so it’s all a relative game for him. CD feels harmed somehow by Christians, and he sees Christians as “enemies” of Mormons, therefore Mormons are his friends and he will sort of defend them and anyone else who differs from Christians. Problem is, I don’t see Mormons as my enemy – I see them as people in need of God’s grace, like me.

  16. Rick B says:

    4/5 said

    CD feels harmed somehow by Christians, and he sees Christians as “enemies” of Mormons, therefore Mormons are his friends and he will sort of defend them and anyone else who differs from Christians

    The problem is, Mormons claim they are christains, so if your right and CD feels harmed or wronged by christians then he should be doing to them as he does to us also. He cannot attack christians because he feels wrongedor harmed by them, but then defend Mormons when they claim to be christians. Also Falcon has said this before and so have I. we also agree with you 4/5, we dont see Mormons as the enemy, we want them to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

    It’s just we wont sit here and hold hands with them and call them brother and sisters in Christ since they have and teach a false gosple and are not our brothers or sisters, and the Bible tells us not to call them brothers or sisters.

  17. Mike R says:

    The Mormon Church has claimed that it is the true Church of Jesus Christ because,
    ” One of the great signs of the true Church is the correct doctrine …..of the Godhead….”
    [ Apostle Mark.E. Petersen] . This is the term Mormons today seem to prefer rather than
    “Trinity”. Some questions : If the song Holy,Holy,Holy , written in 1826 , refers to
    three divine Persons in the Trinity [ Godhead], and this hymn would have been available
    in the Churches that young Joseph Smith attended , then why in 1835 did he teach as
    church doctrine that there were TWO persons in the Godhead , the Father and the Son ,
    only to turn around and teach years later that there are actually THREE Persons in the
    Godhead? Perhaps at next conference it will be revealed by Mormon leaders as pure
    doctrine[ ” The Living Prophet: Our source of Pure Doctrine” Ensign Nov.1998 ] that
    another divine Person will be added to the Trinity/Godhead , taking it from consisting of
    2 then 3 to 4 Persons. The newest addition could be Heavenly Mother since currently
    the Mormon Trinity consists of Her husband, Her oldest Son , and His brother. This
    spiritual guidance would certainly give Her the respect and place She deserves as the
    Goddess above. If this happens then the following promise will undoubtedly accompany
    it : ” These Apostles and Prophets, the revelators of God, were to act as a protection for
    the people against false prophets and teachings…If you want to know what the word of
    God is, go to the Council of the Twelve or the First Presidency…they will keep you on the
    right track.” [ church manual]

  18. Mike R says:

    When I see the how the Mormon people have been the victims of broken trust , [ the
    prophet will never teach false doctrine , Gospel Principles 1979 ] , it breaks my heart.
    I have Mormons on my dad’s side of the family, and I nothing but respect for them.
    They’re good honest people, as are 95% of the Mormons I’ve met. But when I see
    what their leaders have given them as spiritual food , as spiritual guidance in
    several key areas ( who God is etc ) , it brings to life the teaching of Matt.7:15.
    I learned long ago that a false prophet is’nt necessarily an immoral or conniving
    individual . They have deep convictions that they feel come from God and simply
    want to teach others. In order to accomplish this some authority is stressed, they’re
    God’s “mouthpiece” , His ” channel of communication ” to the people etc. Together
    with living a moral lifestyle they can become successful at gathering followers. I feel
    the Mormon people see in their leaders men that are moral , well dressed, polite men
    so they could not possibly be “false” prophets. But by teaching inaccurately on God
    or how we can receive eternal life with God, these men violate God’s will. God cannot
    reward followers of false prophets [ Matt 15:14; Isa .9:16 ] . All of us are accountable
    to God if we follow and submit to the authority of false prophets/apostles. Since it is
    claimed in print that Mormon leaders interpret the mind and will of God for LDS on
    important issues relating to eternal life, then all LDS need to do as the Bereans in
    Acts 17 did to Paul . God has left us with a roadmap to truth about Him. Please read it.

  19. Kate says:

    It wouldn’t be just 4 in the Godhead if Heavenly Mother were added. How many no one knows, but Heber C. Kimball had this to say:

    “Supposing that I have a wife or a dozen of them, and she should say, “You cannot be exalted without me,” and suppose they all should say so, what of that? … Suppose that I lose the whole of them before I go into the spirit world, but that I have been a good, faithful man … do you think I will be destitute there. No, the Lord says there are more there than there are here … there are millions of them, … we will go to brother Joseph and say, “Here we are brother Joseph; we are here ourselves are we not, with none of the property we possessed in our probationary state, not even the rings on our fingers?” He will say to us, “Come along, my boys, we will give you a good suit of clothes. Where are your wives?” “They are back yonder; they would not follow us.” “Never mind,” says Joseph, “Here are thousands, have all you want” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 209).

    The complete lack of respect for women here is appalling! It would seem that an exalted man/god can “have all he wants.” With this lack of respect for women, I don’t see Mormonism allowing a woman into the Godhead anytime soon. In Mormonism, women are only good for one thing it would seem. To help a man populate his planet for eternity, or world if you prefer. Planet/world, they are the same thing. Christians didn’t make all that up just because they use the word planet. (That last comment was actually for CD)

  20. CD-Host says:

    Kate —

    Not believing in the historicity of the book of Mormon, violates the requirement for “a testimony of the Book of Mormon”. They wouldn’t let me join quite rightfully, I don’t meet their creedal requirements.

    Sola —

    I’m glad you understand the analogy. Thank you. Now given you you don’t believe you are motivated by hatred in correcting Mormons on their poor arguments; why would you conclude I’m motivated by hatred in correcting Evangelicals on their poor arguments?


    Mike R –
    refers to three divine Persons in the Trinity [ Godhead]

    First off the term actually means two totally different things in Protestantism. Godhede (not a typo, middle English spelling) is not coming from “head /top/lead” but rather substance and 21st century English doesn’t have that ending anymore, and arguably hasn’t for about 700 years. The KJV was questionable when they translated that way, but they were staying consistent with Tyndale who was staying with Wycliff who frankly didn’t make the best choice for the Latin divinitas; but his was not an unreasonable choice at the time. Acts 17:29, Rom 1:20, Col 2:9 no longer use Godhead (see 3 links to ESV). The ESV translators were absolutely correct in dropping the term and breaking tradition. I’m a little at a loss why most of the “I only believe in the words of the bible not the words of men” Protestants use this term. In the sense of Godhede, Mormons assert that God is like man in substance.

    In the sense I think you are using it, you are actually denying what you meant to say. Godhead and trinity are not interchangeable. The unity in Mormonism is “they are united as one in the attributes of perfection” there simply is no reason other perfect beings could not be part of that unity.

  21. Mike R says:

    Kate, that was interesting. The Mormon people have been short-changed on
    family values in the area of their relationship with their Mother Goddess. They
    are taught to honor their earthly father and mother by giving telling them thanks
    etc., for their presence in their lives . But when sharing this same family value with
    their Heavenly Mother is considered then LDS are counseled by their leadership
    to refrain from communicating [prayer] with Her . Considering what Mormon
    leaders have given as spiritual counsel in the past , it could happen that the Godhead
    will be added to . ” Therefore, we must put forth our faith in those whom the Lord hath
    called, if we want to have a standing before the Lord, and none of us desire if we have the
    proper spirit, to be cut off from among the people. But this punishment will befall those
    who do not prove faithful and will not pay that heed or give that attention to the counsel
    of those who are called and appointed and inspired of the Lord to teach and direct us in
    all things. ” [ Conf. report Oct.1912 Elder Joseph F. Smith jr. ]

    You’re right about “planets” , and I see your heart ache for Mormon women. God bless
    you Kate. [ my wife and I are praying for your family ]

  22. CD-Host wrote,

    “Mormon use of Christian materials is like Christian use of Jewish materials.”

    I’d like to see you defend this with the JST of Romans 4:5.

    “In terms of God never sinned, and I think you know this better than I, but in my read where we are disagreeing comes down to relative time. In our sphere, in our past; God is perfect. In Heavenly Grandfather’s sphere, which includes Heavenly Father’s view to his past, he is imperfect.”

    I believe God has been sinless from all eternity, not just “some” eternity. Brigham’s idea of spheres of perfection ends up relativing things that were meant to be understood as absolute. It turns the Most High God into a merely more high god.

    I haven’t followed you very closely, but I think this comment of yours reveals that you are in some significant sense a Mormon. Do you belong to the mainstream LDS Church?

    Take care,


  23. Kate says:

    I don’t know if this is true or not, but I had a Mormon apologist tell me that the LDS church is not a creedal church. You may want to check that out. You are right though, if you don’t confirm that you have a testimony of the BoM, you can’t get baptized.

    Thanks! I do feel for the women in Mormonism. They are told by leaders that polygamy is an abomination to God and yet it is practiced in the temples every day. Mormon doctrine is clear that it will be practiced in eternity. I’ve heard LDS women say that if they die, it’s OK for their husbands to be sealed to another woman, just make sure she is someone they can live with for eternity. So, the message here is that while we are alive, polygamy is an abomination, but after we die it is essential for Salvation. I can’t even begin to wrap my head around this. I remember the 2nd councilor in the bishopric talking to me about getting myself and my husband to the temple, I told him I would never be able to go because I don’t believe in polygamy either in this life or the next. He said I didn’t have to. I’m not sure what he meant. Mormon doctrine is clear on this.

  24. Like Mike, I think most Mormons are very nice, moral people. And because they don’t see anyone drinking Kool-Aid (at least not literally) or the prophet telling them to kill their neighbor, their prophets must be true. The sad part, as it’s been said here, is that many of the fundamental doctrines (Adam-God, polygamy in eternity, JS’s changing theory on who the Godhead actually consists of, etc) aren’t really being talked about to the members anymore. Quotes from the current prophets are very watered down, feel-good statements compared to the Church’s founding prophets. Example: “Keep trying. Be believing. Be happy. Don’t get discouraged. Things will work out” (G.B. Hinckley). When members are being fed happy little “prophecies” like that, it’s no wonder they think Christians are a bunch of mean crazies making stuff up about their religion.

    As for the song… this is a very good glimpse at what Mormonism is doing as a whole right now. An investigator of their religion hears this song, it sounds familiar (like one he/she heard as a kid at grandma’s church), so they must be just a different mainstream denomination. Most people, unless they’re familiar with hymns like that, wouldn’t even notice that little tricky change. And that’s how the whole system works now. All that hard work JS and BY did to separate themselves from mainstream Christianity (the “whore of Babylon”) is now being overrided by current prophets trying to modernize the religion and make it more appealing to outsiders.
    What baffles me is that TBMs are quick to belittle and judge mainstream Christianity, yet now they’re borrowing songs from us? Sure, it’s annoying, but more than that, it’s confusing.

  25. Mike R says:

    CH , I think you’re always trying to get so deep in your replies here that you fail
    to see what the point is that’s being made many times. Which brings up the fact
    that you agreed that the Mormon people and us here had a common ground in
    respect to belief in God and the Bible , and even though significant differences
    exist on these , it is a place to start dialogue . Then you attacked that fact in
    reference to me . You tried to work an angle on this. As an Atheist why do you bother
    what we and Mormons share ? I think the answer has slowly leeked out from your
    many comments, and that is you have a disdain for who you call ” protestants” . I suspect
    it all stems from your past. I mentioned before that I felt for your disillusionment but
    for you to not give up on God. You are well read and delight in throwing out reams of
    information on how defective the Bible is and of you personal caricature of who you
    call ” protestants ” , you want interaction , but who has time to chase down all the rabbit
    trails you create ? There are ministries that can comment on our anti-religion position.
    Please seek them out. Now as far as the Trinity/ Godhead comments I made. You must
    know I am speaking to Mormons. They really don’t like the term “Trinity” , preferring
    instead , ” Godhead”. I grouped them for a reason. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine,p809
    said, ” TRINITY, see Godhead ” . Most Mormons I think could understand my point in
    emphasizing the number of Divine persons therein . Your reply was beside the point.

  26. CD-Host says:

    Mike R —

    Which brings up the fact that you agreed that the Mormon people and us here had a common ground in respect to belief in God and the Bible , and even though significant differences
    exist on these , it is a place to start dialogue

    Actually no I didn’t. My reply to you got mangled. Half got censored / lost in the moderation queue and I put it in the wrong thread. But no. I replied with several long quotes from Mormon prophets and current doctrine that you two disagree strongly with regard to your belief in the bible. I don’t think either one of you has that much respect for the bible. Conservatives tend to pay it lip service, but shy away from going to deep.

    Mormons sometimes go very very deep. But tend to ignore major themes and context. Which to continue my analogy is not too different from how the Evangelical Christianity treats the Old Testament so it is be expected.

    As for God…. yes. I’m listening to a podcast now with a group of a 1/2 dozen Mormons who are celebrating their differences regarding God, notions like:
    (*) agency vs. election
    (*) eternal progression vs. salvation
    (*) spiritual of all matter vs. a strict view of the divine

    and they celebrate those distinctions. Its nice to hear Mormons taking pride in their distinctions, and not weaselly language about being almost like evangelicals.

    As for trinity, its not that they don’t like the term they categorically reject the doctrine as false. McConkie’s article on GodHead is excellent and rejects every single statement in the Athanasian Creed. He’s not saying they are synonyms he is indicating where a Mormon reading can find a response to the doctrine of the trinity in his book.

  27. CD-Host says:

    Aaron —

    “Mormon use of Christian materials is like Christian use of Jewish materials.”
    I’d like to see you defend this with the JST of Romans 4:5.

    First off, let me grant that JS injects “not” right into Rom 4:5 intending to reverse the meaning and in a way that makes no sense in context. And let me give you an example of the same thing on a verse you are I’m sure familiar with Isaiah 7:14.

    (For lurkers: read 2Kings 16 so you have the context, now read all of Isaiah 7.) King Ahaz of Judea is freaking out that he is going to get attacked by a Syrian, Israeli alliance. God wants to prove to him that he is going to be fine, but Ahaz would rather bribe the king of Assyria into helping him. So God sends Isaiah who essentially tells him that within 15 years Syria and Israel will be over, so this is a short term problem and he should put his faith in God not Assyria. The way he does this is quite dramatic, he points to a young woman in Ahaz court (likely a daughter of Ahaz) and tells him she is going to get pregnant and give birth to a child. Before that child turns 13 Syria and Israel will be gone. That’s a pretty strong promise, nothing puny about it at all. Nothing about Jesus at all either and nothing about a virgin in there. In the Greek OT it is more ambiguous, but in the Hebrew it is unambiguous.

    I’d say that’s a pretty equivalent case. And you are an ESVer so one that your particular subgroup is a big advocate of.

  28. CD-Host says:

    I believe God has been sinless from all eternity, not just “some” eternity. Brigham’s idea of spheres of perfection ends up relativing things that were meant to be understood as absolute.It turns the Most High God into a merely more high god.

    Hmm, try this on. I think an honest read of John or Hebrews has the Logos being used in the sense of Hellenistic Judaism, as a bridge between the imperfection of matter and the absolute perfection of God. That the high God, the Theos is impersonal. Very much like the Islamic view of God , to Islam God is completely unknowable only his will can be known.

    When I watch your videos you seem to have a such a very high conception of God. Your comment about angels who exist simply to glorify God, on that webcast (or TV show?) expressing disgust at the Mormon idea to me you sounded Islamic disgusted by the very idea the personal aspect of the father.. And I think your view of God is more consistent with the Logos as an intermediary than classical trinitarianism. Of course Mormon theology is much more consistent with the intermediary view.

    Mormons I think would caution you that on many areas where the ancient Gnostics disagreed with the Catholics the theology you are choosing is much more in keeping with the Gnostics than the Catholics. You can read about 1/2 of Phillip Lee’s book on this online (link). I think in Mormon theology the God who is remote, depersonal, disinterested in your worship, perfect beyond imagination, holy and righteous beyond description exists; Heavenly Grandfather. In Mormonism that God is not conflicted by being identified as Jesus’ abba; the God of Israel, a tribal deity. That God exists but is unwilling to be in relationship with you.

  29. Rick B says:

    Like I said before in another post, I feel that since CD call’s his blog, “Church Discipline” I suspect he faced some and as a result is angry towards those who handed it out and Christians in general. But He does not understand that it is not all Christians that handed him some discipline, and if he was in the wrong, then he needs to be a man except responsibility, and if they accused him unjustly then he needed to do as the Scriptures teach and forgive them that wronged him. Yet He would rather be mad at God and try and derail the faith of believers and therefore bring serve judgment upon himself at a latter time.

  30. setfree says:

    Ok, I’m way off topic here, but if any of you have heard of K-Love radio stations, or Compassion International… well, they’ve teamed up on a project to get clean drinking water for families in Rwanda (who, you know, have to walk a mile or so to a river to get dirty water to drink, every day, and end up with diseases from it). Anyhow, $55 provides a filter system for one family FOR LIFE.

    Here’s the website:

    I did it. Maybe someone here will be glad for the info too.

  31. Ralph says:


    Let’s look at the Trinitarian Christian side of things. It took almost 400 years for them to sort out their doctrine of the Trinity. For the first few hundred years there were a number of different ideologies around running from a Trinity similar (but still different) to what is defined today, to modalistic view to the Arian view as well as others. All of the different groups called the others heretics; even some of the so called church fathers left the ‘Trinitarian’ groups for some of the other heretical groups (eg Tertullian).

    The first council of Nicaea was early 300s and described more a binitary God between The Father and The Son, as its main purpose was just that – to define their relationship. However it just ends with ‘We believe in the Holy Spirit’ and does not say anything about its relationship with The Father or The Son rather leaves it as separate. It wasn’t until almost 50 years later Athanasius wrote his creed which brings the Trinity fully together.

    So what is wrong with JS learning about how Heavenly Father, Jesus and The Holy Ghost are related over a small period of time when your own creeds took a few centuries? It’s a period of learning and coming from a background with different teachings.

    Yes I know Falcon, we have been through the EVOLUTION of the Trinity doctrine before, but even you admit that there were other teachings of God in the Christian community before Nicaea and that it was that council that decided the finalised doctrine of the Trinity, even though it was more a binitary at that point in time.

  32. Mike R says:

    Ralph, the emphasis was not on Joseph Smith’s ” learning about how the H.F.
    Jesus and the Holy Ghost are related over a small period of time….” You can’t
    compare how early Christians sought to understand the new revelation of Jesus
    being Divine and how that would fit with the truth of one God. The scenario I was
    emphasizing was the fact that we have a recent prophet claiming that God had
    revealed a new truth to him concerning the NUMBER OF divine Persons in the
    Godhead. Since the position of those ” abominable ” churches around him concerning
    this point was dead wrong, this prophet, alone God’s mouthpiece, relayed the
    truth from God that there were only two Divine Persons in the Godhead, and he
    taught that truth as being the doctrinal position of his new church, the only true
    church on the earth. All he had to do was accept the position of those Christian
    churches around him ( who were no doubt singing the hymn Sharon referenced
    above), but supposedly God had told him this was false. Later , without admitting
    he was in error on this point, he changed the doctrinal position of his new church
    to agree with those in ” apostasy ” around him. Ralph, my point is that sincere
    LDS should not put their confidence in their leaders exclusive authoritative claims
    to reveal God’s truth on some important issues, since these modern day prophets
    could at any time declare God’s truth to now be that an additional Divine
    Person is a part of the Mormon Godhead– Heavenly Mother, for example.
    There’s only one reliable prophet the Mormon people should follow— Jesus .

  33. 4fivesolas says:

    CD – Your comments on Church discipline etc. give me the idea that you feel wronged by Christians. I don’t think you hate Christians, I just think you despise Christian theology. And Mormons using the higher critics and some of the same source material that atheists use, gives you an affinity to them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
    Your arguments also assume no truth – you find Mormonism fascinating – except for their own truth claims, such as a belief that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical account. So you can’t get too close, because you can plainly see that the BOM is false.
    However, your assumptions not withstanding, Christianity is true – Mormons are perverting this hymn, and it is completely appropriate for Christians to sing Psalms.

  34. Mike R says:

    CD, This is getting old so one more time . I stated that I felt that most Mormons
    would use the word, “Godhead” and some might use the word, ” Trinity” to describe
    their three Gods, hence I used both of these words. Most Mormons, as well as Church
    publications use ” Godhead” now. You said that Mormons don’t really dislike using
    the word “Trinity”, I disagree. What Sharon referenced above is one example. Perhaps
    we were talking past each other on this , my aim was to Mormons . What I want to say
    next is important, I’m still shaking my head at what you said. You bolded out what I said
    concerning my initial comment to you which was that on this blog we here hope to start
    a meaningful dialogue with Mormons because we have in common a belief in the Bible
    Incredibly you then responded by saying that you cited several statements by Mormon
    leaders where it proved there was a strong disagreement between us about the Bible.
    Did’nt I just say that ? Then on top of that you actually accused us of not having
    much respect for the Bible . And this coming from an Atheist ! The Mormon Church’s
    official position on the Bible is to call it “God’s Word” , so do we, that is enough for us
    to START a dialogue . I first thought that maybe you said that on purpose just to get
    someone agitated so the conversation would keep going , I’ve met people like that. I
    don’t know your motive, what I do know though is that from now on I can’t take your
    arguments as seriously as you would desire. Take care.

  35. CD-Host,

    I recommend Jim Hamilton’s typological treatment of Isaiah 7:14 here. I have a hard time believing that is equivalent to the JST of Romans 4:5, which actually reverses the meaning to the exact opposite intention. Smith destroys the original meaning of 4:5, not expands it. One cannot reasonably explain the JST of Romans 4:5 in terms of dual-fulfillment or typology.

    If by “imperfection of matter” you mean limitation, I agree that Jesus is an incarnational bridge between the Creator and creation. But if you mean the gnostic idea of the inherent evil nature of matter, then I disagree. The New Testament (including the Gospel of John) nuances itself to avoid this idea.

    I disagree that God the Father is depicted as impersonal in the Gospel of John. It is the Father himself who, out of personal love, sends his Son. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) Jesus prays in John 12:28, “Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” It is the Father who personally gives people to the Son, and who sends the Bread of Life in John 6. The Father is intimately involved in sanctifying people whom Jesus prays for, in working miracles through the Son, and in working alongside the Son. But if by “impersonal” you mean the crass Mormon idea that, for the Father himself to be personal, he has to be a visible, physical, exalted human, then I agree, the Gospel of John repeatedly makes it that no one has seen the Father but the Son (1:18; 6:46). Jesus is the Word-become-flesh. He is the “fleshed out” representation of the Father. True Christians don’t need a 1838-like First Vision account of seeing the Father alongside the Son. We see the Father through the Son. (John 14:9)

    As for the idea of angels that are created for the express purpose of glorying God, well, that is not just restricted to some angels. While some angels are created for the purpose of never-ceasing “Holy, holy, holy” repetitive worship (Revelation 4:8), all creatures are created ultimately to worship and glorify God. “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31) That is what we were made for. “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:36) “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37) This is our highest commandment and purpose.

    The “remote, depersonal, disinterested” caricature you give of the Protestant God sounds little like my God and much more like the “eternal law” which governs the genealogy of the gods in Mormonism. Mormonism is the inadvertant worship of impersonal eternal principles instead of the worship of an ultimate personal being. That you describe the God of Israel as a “tribal deity” shows that, despite your learning, you haven’t understood one of the key claims of the Old Testament. The God of Israel isn’t an earthly tribal deity nor a cosmic tribal deity. He is the God of Gods, the Most High, the one who pre-exists all others, the God of earth and heaven.

    It seems you feel like this whole religious enterprise is an intellectual game. If so, I think you should be ashamed of yourself. God is too great for you to treat these forums like playgrounds. God is too eternally holy for you to shrug at the idea of the Father having been a sinner. God is too high for you to glibly speak of a Heavenly Grandfather. This isn’t a game.

    Take care,


  36. CD-Host says:

    Mike —

    You are using the word “Godhead wrong”. Your definition of what it means and how the KJV uses it incorrect. Its tiring for you because you are talking out your ____. As I explained the word, is a middle english translation for divinitas, substance ( οὐσία) of God, from the creeds. There could be 137 gods or 19 gods and that has nothing to do with a disagreement about Godhead. Your first use of the term, “then why in 1835 did he teach as church doctrine that there were TWO persons in the Godhead” is literally like saying, “then why in 1835 did he teach as
    church doctrine that there were TWO persons in the water“. Water is a substance. The sentence makes sense only by accident.

    Then on top of that you actually accused us of not having much respect for the Bible . And this coming from an Atheist

    You got that right. I think I have a lot more respect for the bible than you’ve shown. I don’t confuse my opinion with the bible, nor think of them as interchangeable. If the tables were turned, and I’ve made mistakes like you have above so this isn’t just theory, I’d be checking the Latin and Wycliff, and I’d be thanking the other person who pointed it out. That’s the difference between respecting the bible and paying it lip service.

    Your last line to Ralph, “There’s only one reliable prophet the Mormon people should follow— Jesus” I’ll let him speak for himself but is frankly offensive. Ralph’s church is called, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” who do you think they follow Mark the Mailman? He’s telling you to learn about the evolution of the trinity, and for good reason.

  37. CD-Host says:

    I recommend Jim Hamilton’s typological treatment of Isaiah 7:14 here.

    That doesn’t address the argument. The issue is not why Matthew, is using virgin he’s just quoting the LXX. The issue is why the ESV, which claims to be quoting the Hebrew, uses virgin is Isaiah itself. And typological fulfillment BTW is the primary argument the the necessity of priesthood, that the Judaic priesthood is a type for the Catholic one. More importantly for you, its the key argument for the Marion dogmas. Do you really want to go down that road as a justification for altering biblical translation? Yes I think it is a fair analogy.

    JS was Arminian and didn’t like what Romans says. You all have a doctrine of biblical continuity and hence a sensus plenior of Old Testament prophecy, and (I’m assuming a bit here so correct me if I’m wrong) a doctrine of formal translation as part of the move away from ABS translation (GNB, CEV) and in particular the pronoun issue in the NRSV and TNIV.

    As for the God issue you are arguing by assertion and ad-homonym. My point stands. The Trinitarian God is in eternal hypostatic union with a human being. Its hard to imagine something more degrading to God than that. Even when I was a Christian I found that doctrine, incredibly offensive.

    As for God of Israel, examples of usage:
    El the god of Israel Gen 33:20
    Elah Yisrael, Ezra 5:1
    Elah Yerushelem (God of Jerusalem) Ezra 7:19

    I ain’t the one that put the tribal identification in there. I don’t disagree with your concerns in identifying the king of the cosmos that way. That’s why I like the hierarchy it resolves the conflicting images. I agree with you on the logos, but remember the Son is of one substance with the father.

  38. CD-Host says:

    4/5 —

    Your comments on Church discipline etc. give me the idea that you feel wronged by Christians.

    As far as I remember I haven’t made any comments on church discipline here. Rick’s developed a theory that I’m suffering anger over an excommunication. I was lied to, but not in any specific or personal way. I don’t have a horror story.

    I don’t think you hate Christians, I just think you despise Christian theology.

    By Christian here, I’m assuming you mean Evangelical non-baptist Protestant. And that’s much too strong. I think there are very serious flaws in it. There are strengths too. I may whine about your level of bible twisting, but I don’t have the random interpretations of say right wing Catholics. Its been centuries since you all have engaged in forced conversions. And even to go back were we started, church discipline in Protestantism (and remember I hear a lot of the bad stuff about Protestant church discipline) is far less structurally abusive or practically unfair than in Mormonism.

    And Mormons using the higher critics and some of the same source material that atheists use, gives you an affinity to them.

    It certainly started that way.

    Your arguments also assume no truth – you find Mormonism fascinating – except for their own truth claims

    One of my mentors GRS Mead used to say his aim was to, “rescue the Bible from the hands of an ignorant obscurantism that had degraded it to the level of a literary fetish”. The Iliad is a great poem with many eternal truths, despite my not believing in Athena and Poseidon. That doesn’t make the Iliad “false”. And what’s wonderful about the Iliad is now that no one believes in Poseidon, everyone can enjoy Homer, and enjoy him in the same way.

  39. Mike R says:

    you said, ” you are using the word ‘godhead ‘ wrong . Your definition of what it means
    and how the KJV uses it incorrect” . MY definition ? I don’t use the word neither do
    I use the KJV, unless I am talking to LDS since they have accepted that version/word.
    Your beef is with the Mormon leadership. They have said that are three Divine Persons in
    the Godhead, they once taught there were two. Those Mormons who still choose to use
    “trinity” say the same thing in relation to the number of Persons( Gods). That was the
    whole point. You may it something else. Despite your rant , I respect the Bible, the
    Mormon Church respects the Bible, you do not , unless you’re conceding there’s a God.
    You carefully side-stepped where I pointed out your attempt to deny that we and the
    Mormon people share a common place to start a dialogue– the Bible. You tried to sell
    a different take on that fact. Lastly, you an Atheist find it offensive that I would share
    with a Mormon my concern for them to follow the only truely reliable prophet, Jesus ?
    I stand by my statement . It has a relationship to Rom.10:1-2 . What is really offensive
    though is your statement, ” It’s tiring for you because you are talking out your —— .”
    Since you portray yourself as highly skilled in manuscript/ Biblical texts , perhaps you
    might translate that for all of us. Since being rude is your game, I better stop before you
    resort to using the ” F – word ” . I’m no prophet, but I see it coming. May you turn to God.

  40. falcon says:

    Let’s emphasize the fact that what Joseph Smith came up with regarding his ever changing view on who God is, was another one of his “revelations”. In-other-words like all of his “revelations” he made it up.
    Smith was a religious entrepreneur, one of many who was roaming about in that particular era in American history. He is seen by some Mormon groups as a fallen prophet. So it would seem that the different sects of Mormonism have a real argument going regarding which has the “true” restored gospel. Funny thing but at least a couple of these that I know of actually follow what the BoM says about the nature of God which is pretty much the orthodox Christian view.
    Once Smith got his revelatory mojo going he would wax eloquent on all sorts of topics which sound pretty goofy in retrospect.
    The truth?
    “Holy is the way God is. To be holy He does not conform to a standard. He is that standard. He is absolutely holy with an infinite, incomprehensible fullness of purity that is incapable of being other than it is. Because He is holy, His attributes are holy; that is, whatever we think of as belonging to God must be thought of as holy…..God is holy with an absolute holiness that knows no degrees, and this He cannot impart to His creatures. But there is a relative and contingent holiness which He shares with angels and seraphim in heaven and with redeemed men on earth as their preparation for heaven. This holiness God can and does impart to His children. He shares it with them by imputation and by impartation, and because He has made it available to them through the blood of the Lamb, He requires it of them.”
    (The Knowledge of the Holy; A.W. Tozer)

  41. Mike R says:

    Some more important info for our Mormon guests to ponder: Before we look at
    another hymn that Mormons once sang, we need to answer a question that a Church
    manual once asked : ” How confidently may we follow the instructions of the head of
    the Church ? ” [ Search These Commandments, p209 ] . The answer to this question
    was actually answered in the 1912 Conference by Elder Joseph F. Smith Jr. when he
    proclaimed : ” The time will never come when we will not be able to put confidence
    and exercise faith in the teachings and in the instruction of those who lead us. ”
    Now the hymn, titled, ” We Believe in our God ” :
    ” We believe in our God the great Prince of His race ,
    The Archangel MICHAEL , the Ancient of Days ,
    Our own Father Adam , earth’s Lord , as is plain,
    Who’ll counsel and fight for his children again.
    We believe in His Son, JESUS CHRIST, who in love to
    His brethren and sisters, came down from above……
    We Believe in THE SPIRIT, most holy, that’s given……”
    Was this a Mormon trinity? Are these the three gods in the Godhead– Michael, Jesus,
    and the Holy Spirit ? This hymn was sung by the LDS in England in 1856. Back in
    America the Mormon prophet was busy preaching who this hymn alluded to , namely
    that Adam was the Father of the spirits born in heaven , including Jesus .
    This is why we here ache for the Mormon people. Good , decent people being misled
    by false teachers/prophets. At any time the guidance by Mormon leaders could
    again reveal ” truth ” like this , or worse. Please ponder 1 Jn 4:1

  42. falcon says:

    Thanks Mike R.
    Might we say that Mormons are “confused” about who their god is?
    We’ve got Michael in the mix here along with Adam. And as I point out every chance I get, the god Joseph Smith included a picture of in his BoA faux scripture, was an Egyptian fertility god, sitting on a throne exposing himself. What do I think? I think Joseph Smith was working on mysteries without any clues. Unfortunately that was the manner in which all of the early Mormons operated.
    Now days the leaders simply make statements about leading a good life and maintaining a positive attitude. They know better than to put out statements on church doctrine that could go viral in two minutes and be sliced, diced and examined carefully.
    Since Bruce McConkie died there’s been a total sea change in what’s articulated by the Mormon leadership in SLC. In fact they’ve told members to quit sending them letters regarding matters of doctrine. It’s not a matter of being too busy. These guys just don’t want to mess with what’s become very messy.
    With Mitt Romney running for president again, you can bet there will be new scrutiny of the Mormon religion. It’s going to become increasingly difficult for the Mormon leadership to hide what the religion teaches along with its history and extensive record of the utterances of its early leaders.
    Those who don’t know already will have a clear view of who the Mormons identify as their god. It will become obvious that this Mormon god is not “God” but an entity that Christians view as foreign in nature.

  43. CD-Host says:

    Falcon —

    I don’t disagree with you here. Mormonism is very messy. I still find it amazing that there can be a mixture of people that are culturally Evangelical and religiously much more accord with various fringe movements like Hermetic Christianity. It’s this tension that makes Mormonism so unique.

    But there are other outcomes for Mormons. An analogy is Sufism which is to Islam what Mormonism is to Christianity. There are traditionalist Sufi who hold that one must observe Sharia to be a good Sufi. There are non traditionalists like the Chishti (active in the areas of Afghanistan US troops are in, so dimes to dollars there are Mormons right now seeing the obvious parallels) who practice sunna prayer but reinterpret them in terms of Sufism, wanting to maintain both connection and distance with Islam. Sufism has 13th centuries of maintaining this tension, and Mormons, especially Mormon leaders could learn a lot from them about how to handle it.

    Once Mormons come in contact with other traditions that are much more supportive of their beliefs and history they might be able to start meaningfully dialoguing. When Joseph Smith was alive, there was no Sufism in America today there is. Moreover since both Mormonism and Sufism have active missionary cultures in Africa, they are going to run into and have to respond to one another. When Joseph Smith was alive, Hermetic Christianity was a religion of European elites, today there are small groups throughout the United States; once they reach across the isle Mormons can learn what their temple symbols mean and rich traditions going back as far as human writing.

    The Mormon church has a feckless leadership, but the country has changed. Sikhs are common place in America now, how long till Mormons make the connection between nām and Mormon exaltation?

  44. Mike R says:

    Falcon, makes the warning of Jesus come alive when you observe some of the
    proclamations of Mormon leaders– Matt.7:15 . Claiming insight to God’s
    spiritual truths , prophet Young publically advocated LDS to consider Adam( who
    is Michael ) as being one member of the team of three creator gods ( trinity? ) of
    this earth. It is on record that Young’s teachings on Adam did cause confusion
    to many LDS. Of course the problem here was with these sincere LDS, they
    were’nt totally submitted to their leaders authority as trustworthy guides.
    In other words , it was’nt the prophet’s problem ! This type of scenario has been
    addressed by Mormons leaders every now and then in order to keep LDS in line.
    Mormon leaders have to many times given the Mormon people spiritual food that
    is actually only the ” precepts of men ” [ 2Nephi] disguised as being spiritual healthy .
    The Mormon people can be free when they dismiss these men from their lives.
    This undoubtedly sounds like an impossible thing for them to do , seeing as they
    have been led to believe that their gaining eternal life with God in heaven is at stake
    if they do this . May God give them the strength to do this soon. Heb.7:25

  45. Rick B says:

    You can say what you want, But in my experience dealing with atheists it’s like this. Their are two types of atheists. The First one is pretty much raised in a Non-religious home, they were never Christians or Catholics, or Mormons, Or Muslim, Etc. Now they tend to not care what Christians say or do, They dont start websites wasting their lives trying to convince people God does not exist.

    The Second type of Atheist came from a religious background and for what ever reason walked away from the God they believed in, now they claim they dont believe God exists, yet despite that belief they have such hatred and anger towards deity, they devote their lives to trying to tell people God is evil, hateful and that he does not exist. How can a being that does not exist be hateful? The Bible says, From the mouth flow the issues of the heart. The atheists issues flow from their hearts and those issues are anger towards God.

    Now you said you were lied to, yet you yourself Lie, so it’s ok for you to lie, but not for people to do that about you or towards you. Funny how that works. If you say, How did I lie, You said you were done and leaving, yet you stick around and tell us God is this, that or the Bible is wrong, etc. Also you lie by not caring what we say. You claim we are protestants. Yet I told you I am not and never have been. I am just a guy that reads the Bible, chapter by chapter, verse by verse, and my church is NON-DENOMINATIONAL. How can we be non-denominational , yet be a protestant at the same time? But why argue, You dont care, your convinced I am

  46. Rick B says:

    You dont care, your convinced I am something I am not and their is no telling you anything because your to busy going, LA, LA, LA, I cant hear you, I am believing what I want to believe.

  47. CD-Host says:

    How can we be non-denominational , yet be a protestant at the same time?

    Try this question, ” How can we claim to be non-denominational, yet be a protestant at the same time?” The answer is you are wrong.

    I used to go to a “non-denominational” church. Of course I was honest, and called it “non-denominational baptist”. All non-denominational means is that your church isn’t kicking money up the chain and isn’t getting support from a larger body. It has nothing to do with you theology.
    If someone showed up in your church and believed in anything outside the Protestant norm:

    — Say the Marian dogmas.
    — Worship of saints.
    — Used a different canon like say the Ethiopian one
    — Universalism
    — Kept a saturday sabbath

    You’d be pretty denominational pretty quick. Should I link to your whole Catholics are child molesters screed?

    Besides you remember that thread about how you got your old testament canon from Jesus and I gave you that long list of quotes from Jesus in the gospels to the apocrypha, linked and all. No response. Why? Because when Jesus conflicts with Protestantism, you know which side you have to be on.

    You are a mainstream, baptist protestant with a very bad case of denial. And I’m tired of repeating myself on this point, like it hasn’t been addressed a 1/2 dozen times. You want to convince me you aren’t Protestant, disagree with Protestantism on a major doctrine.

    And I don’t remember saying God is hateful or any of that other stuff.

  48. Kix_ says:


    You said
    “The Trinitarian God is in eternal hypostatic union with a human being. Its hard to imagine something more degrading to God than that. Even when I was a Christian I found that doctrine, incredibly offensive. ”

    Can you clarify what you’re talking about here? The Hypostatic Union of the Word was not from eternity but merely in the incarnation. God has chosen to use a human vehicle for our salvation and to interact with us. This doesn’t cause a change in God’s essential nature so I don’t know what’s so terribly degrading when it doesn’t affect the divine attributes.

    I don’t mean to say it wasn’t an act of humility, but that, again, isn’t to say that it diminishes God in any way.

  49. helenlouissmith says:

    Falcon rationalizes: “With Mitt Romney running for president again, you can bet there will be new scrutiny of the Mormon religion. It’s going to become increasingly difficult for the Mormon leadership to hide what the religion teaches along with its history and extensive record of the utterances of its early leaders.”

    What’s the old saying, you got to get them thru the front door if you want to do business. Perfect advertising for those who may not know much about Mormonism and it’s all free. Of course it all depends on what course they pursue, meaning listening to Critics, Sensationalist or False Witnesses “OR” those who actually know something about Mormonism and can give them the correct Doctrine.
    Then there is the First Vision and Book of Mormon account followed with the encouragement to read the Book of Mormon and take the test of asking God. Yep, free advertisement just can’t be beat.

    Helen/Louis 🙂

  50. Mike R says:

    Kate, this is a bit late but I thought to share with you since it proves
    your point made on Aug 2 concerning “worlds” and “planets” . You were
    correct in your comment about this subject. Orson F. Whitney was a
    man totally dedicated to defining and defending Mormonism, a college
    prof., Church historian, and called on to lecture in the Temple itself on
    the truths of his faith. His dedication finally rewarded with him being
    called to be an Apostle in 1905. Asked to preach to the Y.M.M.I.A. annual
    Conference in June 1895 he taught the standard belief that men could
    become Gods, God was once a man who became God who then peopled worlds.
    He then said of “Mormonism” , that ” It teaches that these worlds are peopled
    with human beings, God’s sons and daughters, and that every husband and
    father may become an Adam, and every wife and mother an Eve, TO SOME

Leave a Reply