Hello Sharon,Now, Isaiah 43:10-11. It looks so simple and clear when you read it, but can it have MORE than one LOGICAL interpretation? If you ask me, I will tell you that YES!…in the Bible gods sometimes mean people, sometimes idols or false gods. Israelites had a history to make false gods/golden calf/, other nations worshiped other false gods, they believed that those gods will save them or help them or whatever they believed. God wanted Israelites NOT to turn to those gods and when He said the[re] was no god formed before me, He was talking about those false gods…Sharon, those gods that God talks about are false gods of the world, and NOT divine beings.
Hi Anna,
You wrote about Isaiah 43-46…
To me, the text doesn’t make sense if we try to constrain God’s denunciation of other gods to mean only the “false gods of the world” (idols the Israelites were tempted to worship). I believe He is saying that He is the only true God. He is talking specifically about Gods like Himself. The following may seem silly, but to me it clarifies the passages. If we put “false gods” into the verses, this is what we get:
“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no false gods were formed,
nor shall there be any false gods after me. (43:10)
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
“I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no false god.” (44:6)
Fear not, nor be afraid;
have I not told you from of old and declared it?
And you are my witnesses!
Is there a false god besides me?
There is no false god; I know not any. (44:8)
I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no false god;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is no false god besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other false god. (45:5-6)
You see, this makes no sense. God is talking about Gods like Him — divine beings:
“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no gods were formed,
nor shall there be any gods after me. (43:10)
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
“I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god.” (44:6) etc.
It’s clear to me that God is really saying there are no other true Gods — period. “Therefore,… we know that ‘an idol has no real existence,’ and that ‘there is no God but one.’ For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge.” (1 Corinthians 8:4-7) Those who do possess this knowledge (i.e., the “us” Paul speaks of) understand God’s words, “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god”; they accept and recognize God alone as the one and only true God. None before, none after, first and last, no other.
No, No, No………………..what it really means is “of this world”. In-other-words false gods only apply to this world because members of the LDS and FLDS tell us that they only worship the “god” of this world. So there are other gods with their own planetary systems but that’s a whole other matter, right?
WRONG! God meant it when He told us in His revealed Word that He’s it. There are no other gods any where. Isn’t it amazing what a little twist here and there by a false prophet can do?
All that needs to happen is that these false prophets can find enough gullible people who will accept their false teachings and embrace the false prophet as someone who is an enlightened ascended master.
Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses for that matter, need to go back and ask a very simple question, “Who is Jesus?” Knowing who Jesus is will lead the members of these cults to a full understanding of the nature of God, the nature of man and God’s plan of salvation. Hint, the latter has nothing to do with men becoming gods and ruling, along with their goddess wives, their own planetary system where by the creatures they have birthed in some mythical pre-existence worship them as their god………….of their planet of course.
I think sometimes people miss the point of these statements from the Lord. In other words, these statements came in response to what issues. The issues were idol worship and apostasy from the true God. God’s purpose what to remind Israel of who is was that had saved them, who had created the earth and the heavens, and whom they were to worship. It is like a father holding the cheeks of his child and focusing that child’s face and eyes on his own- look at me, I am your dad and you have to listen to me.
Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often use these passages to argue that LDS are idolotrous or worshiping a false god. But, to me, this seems just a little silly considering the context of these Old Testamant passages and their intent to keep the Lord’s people from worshiping false gods. At least, it seems very circular to me.
It is beyond the scope of this forum, but most modern scholars would argue that these passages to not mean what the evangelical Christians say they mean. The majority of scholars believe the passages do not support strict monotheism. But that is beyond the scope of this forum.
This article is a creative way to demonstrate the foolishness of it stating there is more than one God, here or anywhere else. In a related discussion I had with someone regarding 1 Tim 1:17, the point was brought out that 1 Tim 1:17 states that God is the only wise God in the KJV. Other translations leave out “wise”. The assertion was brought up so as to insinuate that there may be other gods, if it states God is the only wise god. Well, logically then, all other gods are not wise, if we accept that possibility. Even if we don’t worship the other gods, its rather foolish to call them all unwise; they are gods after all.
So it is here with the language from Isaiah. You start expanding the language and necessary consequences of allowing for the worship of false, but real, gods, and it starts to make no sense.
Welcome back, FoF. I would love your thoughts on the previous posts. And also, since you brought up the modern scholars, and I think it is within the scope of this forum and post, please cite some. Without knowing who they are and what they say, its merely your word.
Rick, I know, but at least its on record for someone asking for these things, especially the citations.
What is most striking when we read comments from Mormon apologists is the necessity to twist scripture to fit the doctrines of the LDS church. I’ve said this so many times that I’m sure people must be bored with reading it but, the simplest answer that fits the facts is usually the correct one. In other words, if LDS doctrine were the truth there would be no need for any complicated reasoning & we would find its doctrine within the pages of the Bible simply by reading it. To be honest some of what I’ve read from them has made my head spin. I would have to have an IQ equal to Einstein to understand most of it.
How anyone can read into Isaiah 43 anything other that what it says is totally beyond me & perfectly illustrates the fact that Mormon doctrine can be Biblically supported only by twisting the accepted meaning out of all recognition.
Was it really Gods intention that his message should be understood only by a select few? If it was then it could certainly be found within the pages of Mormon scripture.
The truth however is far simpler; God intended that His words should be understood by all, only NOT through the medium of those who distort & use them to support false doctrine. The only truth to be found in Mormon scripture is that which was plagiarized from the Bible.
So once again my advice to those who come in here to argue against 2000 years of Christianity is, read the Bible without any preconceived ideas, read Gods word without bias as if you knew nothing. Then you will see how everything falls into place & LDS doctrine will be seen for what it is, the false doctrines of a false prophet
This is how I look at it.Even if FoF gives citations proving it is not his opinion, then the people he cite’s How do we know it is not their opinion?
I believe that their is more than enough evidence to prove the Bible true and show God is who He claims and that we can trust Him. So If we can trust Him and the Bible also says, God cannot lie, and it is impossible for god to Lie, then I would say, when He says He know of no other gods, and Non existed before Him and None will come after Him, Then I trust Him.
But I also know LDS dont want that passage to be true, because if it is, then they are all wrong, since their is No father God to our God, and they wont be gods themselves some day.
And this shows the trinity is real since, How can Jesus be a separate God, Yet God the father says, I know of no other gods? And how is it, if God the father has a father who is a god, and it keeps going back to an infinite amount of gods before Him, then thats a problem since God claims their are none. So did He lie?
FOF said,
The majority of scholars believe the passages do not support strict monotheism.
I say,
This is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. You are better than that FOF.
The majority of scholars believe that the BOM is pure looney tune caliber fiction but you would never accept that sort of statement as an argument if it came from us.
If you have evidence that the passage does not support “strict monotheism” present it.
You say,
It is like a father holding the cheeks of his child and focusing that child’s face and eyes on his own- look at me, I am your dad and you have to listen to me.
I say,
If a father held his child’s cheeks and said
“Before me no fathers were formed,
nor shall there be any fathers after me.”
We would rightly say he lying to the kid and not a very good parent. The rest of us Dads seem to be able get our children to listen to us with out resorting to blatant deception.
You said,
Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often use these passages to argue that LDS are idolatrous or worshiping a false god. But, to me, this seems just a little silly considering the context of these Old Testament passages and their intent to keep the Lord’s people from worshiping false gods.
I say,
Please explain.
These OT passages make it clear that if the God you worship is not uniquely God then you worship a false god. It’s just that simple.
Not to be too harsh but Isaiah is warning the Lord’s people from worshiping the false Mormon god.
PS
I would also like to see you comment on other threads. You kinda left us hanging
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Do I based my faith and religion upon the opinions of “scholars?” No, I don’t. But most of the arguments and criticisms against my religion come from people who try to appeal to “scholars,” even though, in my opinion, most of the time they have no idea what they (the critics) are talking about or are quite unfamiliar with the actual scholarship. Most of the time when I dialogue with our critics, my intent is to simply point out the double standards that are at the foundation of almost every argument they level. And there is a double standard seen in this common argument from our religious critics about monotheism. In this particular topic, the critics are making their argument in opposition to what is approaching a consensus of biblical scholars regarding the ancient religion of Israel. And in ignoring the evidences relating to this topic, the critics are again demonstrating a double standard in their protests against the restored church.
As far as the father and child analogy I used, I think it adds perspective on the context of those statements. Understanding the vehicle of Israel’s rebellion and apostasy which elicited such statements from God should provide valuable insight into the meaning of the passage. But almost without exception, critics of LDS ignore this and focus on far-out doctrine which I do not think is the focus of the initial statement from Jehovah.
(My statements here are not engaging the possibility of alteration in the scriptures in ancient times- there is evidence for redaction of the scriptures by some, including the Deuteronomists, who intended to shift the theology of ancient Israel.)
And the passages included here were not “a warning” of the “lord’s people from worshiping the false Mormon god.” You are reading into the text something that is not there. The primary false god worshiped by ancient Israel was Baal, which is nothing like my God.
I have been on a trip and away from this blog. In addition, my posts on one of the threads were not being posted for some reason.
FOF said,
In this particular topic, the critics are making their argument in opposition to what is approaching a consensus of biblical scholars regarding the ancient religion of Israel.
I say,
I think your engaging in a little wishful thinking here. I’m reasonably aware of the latest in liberal scholarship about ancient Israel and I don’t think it holds what you think it holds. I believe your claim is especially weak when we look at the religion as reflected in the later writings of the prophets like the passage in question. That is why I ask you to present you evidence
you say,
there is evidence for redaction of the scriptures by some, including the Deuteronomists, who intended to shift the theology of ancient Israel.)
I say,
I’m reasonably aware of those claims as well and find them utterly unconvincing and at their root based on not much more than antitheist bias. That is why I ask for actual evidence and not just appeal to authority.
Even if redaction was demonstrated those supposed lost subscriptural books are not part of the cannon accepted by Jews and Christians and even your organization and so are completely beside the point of this discussion.
you say,
The primary false god worshiped by ancient Israel was Baal,
I say,
Actually the nations surrounding Israel had an extensive pantheon, Baal was just one particular god among many. Baal was an important god in the ancient near east but not the only one. sound familiar?
Yahweh on the other hand is alone God and was/is jealous of his uniqueness. The God of Mormonism has little in common with him.
You say,
As far as the father and child analogy I used, I think it adds perspective on the context of those statements.
I say,
so you claim. But in order for an analogy to be helpful there must be some relationship between the two subjects. You fail to show what claiming to be the only God has in common with a father telling his child to listen to him.
PS I look forward to your replies on the other threads
peace
What is the deal with the other threads. One of them will not allow me to post- not sure why. The one on Adam God- I posted a brief opinion. I don’t claim to understand what Brigham Young really meant in the majority of his statements (and I don’t think other people do either). Either way, it is not a topic that is all that interesting to me or that motivates much of a response from me. Sorry if that is offensive to you.
I have been traveling to a conference and really don’t want to go back and deal with past threads to your liking.
The whole one god vs. many gods topic involving old testament texts doesn’t interest me too much either because it has all been argued so many times- it never solves or resolves anything. We are at a standstill, and it really doesn’t bother me. Maybe other LDS will be more motivated to get in the dirt over this.
I do think you are probably looking at only selected authors on the ancient Israel thing. There is truly a near consensus on the idea of ancient Israel acknowledging more than one God. What usually happens is that once this is established to a reasonable degree, our critics will simply say that it was all a matter of apostasy on the part of ancient Israel, thereby finalizing the waving of the hand by the critic. So let’s just cut to the chase and not bother with the back and forth a thousand times.
Thanks.
FoF,
You love to claim we are critics of your church, yet you never seem able to ever offer anything other than your opinion.
MJP said to you
In addition to providing citations as you said, you also said a few posts back that their was over whelming evidence for the BoM. Me and a t least one other asked you to provide this information. As of yet you have not. I suspect you cannot and will not, but if you have it, please post it. You said it, so back it up.
If you keep making all these claims, and cannot back them up, then why should we believe you? Then you said you wont waste your time on the Adam God subject and it has not real interest for you. Funny how that is, it seems it is a a huge deal among Mormons, your very confidant in past replays that BY did not mean what he said about Adam, But now your confident your not sure what he really meant. So if your not sure what he meant, how can you be sure he did not say what he said and BY really did mean Adam was our God?
I love How LDS avoided the topic of the trinity and the response was the same as to why LDS avoided that topic. They claimed it was no big deal and avoided it. Why are these topics no big deal when we only mention them as side issues, but when they become full blown serious topics, they they go avoided and labeled as no big deal. And you guys wonder why we think your less than trust worthy.
FOF,
It’s been revealed to me that the god of the LDS church in Salt Lake City, Utah is a false god.
That should end the discussion, right?
FoF,
Again, a statement about scholars in agreement with absolutely no source on it.
Your disinterest in some of these topics only goes to further our belief that you avoid topics that you cannot defend. Perhaps if you showed some interest in what Young clearly thought was an important topic you might get some more sympathy from us. And the Adam/God is not the only one here.
In the works discussion I actually outlined, again in detail, the logic for how your statements that works don’t save you is faulty. You saying that its so does not make it so. You repeating the same thing over and over again does not change the very real reasoning presented.
That you move on and avoid addressing these points and state that we are at a standstill is telling. Its telling us that you are not open to consider what we have presented, as if you are satisfied with your eyes closed and ears covered. I know you are going to perceive that description of you as narrow minded and you will reject it. I know you can just the same say we just aren’t listening to you. However, when we present so much evidence, and all you do is say, “No, that’s not it” who has the better position?
Now, I would love to see your thoughts on some of the newer topics presented. But I cannot force you to do anything, I wouldn’t pretend to do so. All I can do is express an interest. And so I present my interest.
On the current topic: how does a dad chiding a child as you say destroy our position that he means it when he says he is the only God?
Falcon,
It’s really sad how if we pray about the BoM and we hear God say it is a false book, we are wrong according to LDS. They claim they prayed about the BoM, God supposedly told them they are correct, So because they heard what they wanted to hear, it is true. Funny how that works.
fifth monarchy man said to Fof F :
” Yahweh on the other hand is alone God and was/is jealous of His uniqueness . The God of Mormonism has little in common with Him .”
There is some food for thought there . Mormon prophets have run way past the clear description
of our Creator as revealed in the Bible and have drifted into serious error . Jesus warned us all
to be on the lookout for these kinds of prophets in the latter days —-Matt 24:11 .
As far as taking Fof F ‘s testimony that Mormonism has the truth about the one true God is
concerned , remember he believes that his leaders have taught that Jesus has existed forever
as a perfect God , that He was always God etc. FofF is wrong on this . So can we trust what
Mormon leaders say about what Isaiah declares about Jehovah , or elsewhere about God ?
Ultimately we can’t because they have introduced to much error . God is not speaking to them.
The good news is that those Mormons who sense something is’nt quite right with what their
leaders have declared about God , will find the truth about God by getting alone with the Bible
( not one published by their church ) . It is the bed rock of the Christian faith . False prophets in
the latter days often start with it to gain a following but soon introduce new “truth” about God
or Jesus , long hidden but now due to be revealed by the prophet . But the apostle Paul long ago
warned of this behavior by some religious men , and this counsel applies to today as well —
2Tim 4:3-4 ; Gal 1:8 .
God help those Mormons who are wondering about God , may they take time to look into His
Word , He’ll be found there . Jn 17 : 3
FOF said,
There is truly a near consensus on the idea of ancient Israel acknowledging more than one God.
I say,
Of course most of ancient Israel acknowledged more than one god. As Calvin said the human heart is an idol factory. Israel was no exception. That is one of the central messages of the OT. You can scarcely read a chapter of scripture that does not emphasize this.
Do you somehow think that it is a concession on our part??
quote:
And this occurred because the people of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, who had brought them up out of the land of Egypt from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods
(2 Kings 17:7)
and
Then this people will rise and whore after the foreign gods among them in the land that they are entering,.
(Deuteronomy 31:16b)
etc etc etc.
you say,
What usually happens is that once this is established to a reasonable degree, our critics will simply say that it was all a matter of apostasy on the part of ancient Israel,
I say,
This is exactly what the prophets claimed was going on. Prophets repeatedly chastised people for acknowledging more than one God. That is what the very passage we are discussing is about.
It sounds like the “near consensus” you are touting is nothing but the orthodox interpretation of scripture. How exactly does that help your argument?
you say,
thereby finalizing the waving of the hand by the critic.
I say,
So the orthodox interpretation accepted by Christians and Jews for at least 2500 years is hand waving in you view. that is quite a web of denial you’ve got going there.
you say,
The whole one god vs. many gods topic involving old testament texts doesn’t interest me too much either because it has all been argued so many times- it never solves or resolves anything.
I say,
Tell me about it, God warns people over and over and over that he is the only God like a broken record and they never listen because it does not interest them. Finally his patience runs out and he holds them accountable and judges them for their rebellion.
That is the message of the Prophets in a nut shell.
Don’t say we did not warn you
peace
Fifth, well said.
And that only happened to you, on that thread. Interesting.
[I haven’t heard if anyone else has been having trouble with commenting on the Defending the Faith at Temple Square thread, but FoF contacted me on Labor Day weekend explaining the technical problem he was having. Regrettably, thus far we have been unable to fix the problem… -Sharon]
There is truly a near consensus on the idea of ancient Israel acknowledging more than one God.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim, faithoffathers?
Kenneth wrote:
“Do you have any evidence to support this claim, faithoffathers?”
Kenneth I must chide you. FOF is a Mormon and Mormons just believe!
There is no need for evidence or reasoned logic. What is needed is the small still voice and a burning in the bosom as confirmation that what you believe is true.
We are dealing with a naive TBM type here in FOF and attempting to reason with him and present the findings of solid research will only result in him digging deeper into his personal testimony.
One of the features of his religion that attracted people to Joseph Smith was his pronouncement that ordinary folks could receive personal revelation from God. This was very empowering and had these people jumping heavily onto Smith’s new religious bandwagon.
But a problem came with this empowerment and that was namely “power”. By “allowing” anyone to have a personal revelation, Smith couldn’t keep his grips on his own power. After all, why did the people need him if they could receive these personal revelations themselves?
So Smith had to retool his creation.
One of the things he did to consolidate his power was to switch from the Book of Commandments to the D&C. In doing so he changed the structure of his “revealed” and restored church. He lost members.
I’ve posted this before but it’s one of my favs:
“Unfortunately the devil was also hard at work at this time, trying to destroy the Church from without and within. The tempter used the same lies, appeals to pride and temptations of power that had worked in the past and in short order there were ideas and doctrines introduced which were not a part of the Gospel of Christ. Some of these ideas and doctrines caused the Church a great deal of difficulty and divisions. Some members of the Church were confused because they knew the truth of the Gospel; but confused by the new doctrines introduced by ministers they trusted, that were not found in the Bible or Book of Mormon. These doctrines included the consolidation of power into the hands of one man as “Prophet” (not unlike the Pope) the offices of a High Priest and a First Presidency, the practice of baptism for the dead, the belief in a changeable God and the mysticism of Free Masonry. The name of the Church had even been changed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
So when interacting with FOF I think it best just to respond to him by saying thus-and-such has been “revealed” to you. As I said, evidence and reasoned logic will not dent the mind set of a naive true believer. We might make some head way with the intellectually oriented Mormon by the use of solid research but not with the naive TBM.
For those interested in the above quote, you can read more at:
http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/about.html
The Church of Christ is one of many Mormon offshoots who have the true revelation and restoration of the true gospel. You might note a trend here within Mormonism. In fact in the book “Under the Banner of Heaven” there is a detailed account of this trend in Mormonism where by someone gets a revelation and off to the races they go. After all, why shouldn’t their revelation hold as much water as the LDS prophet in Salt Lake City. As we’ve seen on numerous threads, the LDS church has a real problem with consistency and clearly identifying what is real and what is Memorex…for those old enough to remember the commercial.
I knew as a kid, sitting in catechism class at Catholic School, the basic foundation of the Christian faith; there is One God. The whole point of God’s revelation to Abraham was that there were all these tribes of people chasing after idols whom they had identified as gods and they weren’t (gods).
Israel had a lot of trouble with idolatry until the Babylonian captivity and after their stay in that culture they had pretty much had their bellies full of false gods.
So any Mormon trying to find support for the notion of many gods from the Bible will be disappointed. They can torture the Scriptures and they still won’t find the concept of many gods except in idolatry.
“Idolatry”, “false gods” get it? God chooses Abraham, sets him and his people aside. He reveals Himself to this man and reveals to him that through him all the families of the earth will be blessed. He promises Abraham three things; land, seed and blessing. God seals the covenant with Abraham. The land promise is amplified in the Palestinian covenant. The seed blessing is amplified in the Davidic covenant. The blessing is amplified in the New Heart covenant found in Jeremiah 31:31-34.
BTW, I’ve had all of this revealed to me!
I’m still waiting for grindael to provide me with a visual representation of the Adam-God doctrine.
I got thinking about this especially since the Salt Lake City Mormons and their brothers in the FLDS want to insist that the OT Jews believed in many gods and promote this as Jewish Orthodoxy.
I would tell them to go find an Orthodox Jew and ask him what he believes regarding monotheism vs. polytheism. I know what the answer would be and it would not fit into the Mormon narrative. So our Mormon friends would then have to come up with a scenario where by the Jews lost the “gospel” which needed to be restored by Jesus which was then lost again.
It’s a good thing that that lost tribe of Jews got into those magic boats and came to America and wrote the Book of Mormon. What was the message in the BoM any way. I’m talking about the original BoM not one of these modern corrupted versions. Did that original BoM promote monotheism; a sort of pattern of Christian orthodoxy? Well yes it did. So that means that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and that the modern BoM doesn’t contain the fullness of the restored gospel.
Would someone please do a little research and find the true restored gospel of Mormonism. Wait, has anyone had it revealed to them? That would be even better!
Falcon,
If it helps, I know its not a visual, but Shem once told me that Adam is like earth’s stake president…
Oh, and there is only one God in Mormonism. Its just that its one God is really a committee of exalted beings who get the label of “God” not too dissimilar to our US Senate in that there are other senates, but the Senate means the US Senate.
Make sense?
grindael will get to it, but I’m really tied up with trying to finish up my article on the “Caractors” photo I found. I have sketched out a hierarchy, but I want to provide the documentation and then run it by Infographics creator to finish it… I will try and get to it soon, Falcon.
grindael,
Well hurry up because my head is still hurting from that thread on Adam-God.
BTW, is there any Mormon who would step forward and say they understand the mental meanderings of Brigham Young as he defined who the Mormon god is? We had Joseph Smith go through at least four renditions finally settling on the Egyptian Fertility god Min. BY then not to be out done went into full-on prophetic mode and “progressed” with the “revelation” with his Adam-God doctrine. Then the next bunch walked that back and settled on Smith’s fourth rendition without mentioning the facsimile in the BoA that depicted the Mormon god exposing himself.
Given what Joseph Smith was up to with the ladies of the church, I always thought that a fertility god was sort of a nice touch. It pretty much summarized what Smith enjoyed as the Mormon god’s prophet. It’s kind of confusing, in a way, why BY couldn’t just accept Smith’s prophetic work and needed to come up with his own rendition of a god.
Hay wait! Maybe both of these guys were right, in the Mormon sense of the word. Maybe they each had a god! Yea that’s it! Out there in the universe are millions perhaps billions of gods. What Mormons need to do is find their personal god. Since their gods are former men with flesh and bones, the faithful Mormon could make an icon of his god. He could have a little shrine in his house; pray to the god represented by the icon. The Mormon god system is sort of like a multi-level marketing plan anyway so they could just pick a god out that’s further “up line”.
You know, I just fascinate myself sometimes how well I can think Mormon.
Kenneth,
Here is a simple list of commentaries on Psalms 82 over the years. The trend should be obvious and is related to discoveries in the archaeological arena that have data relative to this discussion. The debate over Psalms 82 is central to this issue, and opinions about the correct interpretation reflect a growing body of evidence shifting the opinions of scholars. I have listed the commentary followed by the interpretation of the passage in Psalms about “gods”- the interpretation being either that “gods” refers to human judges or to celestial beings- “gods.” The trend is very clear in favoring an interpretation as being in reference to celestial beings.
Calvin (16th century) = judges
Dickson (1655) = judges
Matthew Henry (18th century) = judges
Keil & Delitzsch (1880s?) = judges
Nealle and Littledale (1887) = gives both
Briggs (1907) = judges
Spurgeon (1918) = judges
Soncino (1945) = judges (Rashi) or celestial beings (Ibn Ezra)
Interpreters (1955) = leans to celestial beings, but is uncertain
Beacon (1967) = judges
Eerdmans (1970) = judges
Broadman (1971) = celestial beings
New Century (1972) = celestial beings
Anchor (1970s?) = celestial beings
Cambridge (1977) = celestial beings
Kraus (1978) = celestial beings
Westminster (1982)= celestial beings
New Jerome (1990) = celestial beings
Word (1990) = celestial beings
Expositors (Zondervan, 1991) = celestial beings
Interpretation (1994) = celestial beings
New Interpreters (1996) = celestial beings
Goulden, Psalms of Asaph, (1996) = celestial beings
Society of Biblical literature (2001)= celestial beings
The trend continues since 2001- in favor of the passage referring to “gods” or celestial beings.
Cyrus Gordon, Michael Heiser, Carl Mosser, Anthony Hanson, and the majority of Bible scholars agree with this interpretation of this passage and the idea that ancient Israel orthodoxy included the recognition of more than one god.
It is interesting to note that an analysis of the patristic literature or Jewish writings of that period shows a uniform interpretation of Psalms 82 as referring to celestial beings and offers no justification for the interpretation as judges.
This should be a start. But to claim anything but that the majority of biblical scholars today believe ancient Israelite orthodoxy included the recognition of multiple gods is simply uninformed.
By the way, I have tried about 25 times to post comments on the “Defending the gospel at temple square” thread, including once today, but it does not allow me to post anything. Ask Sharon if you do not believe me.
We always wonder why it’s so difficult to nail down Mormonism. Well the history isn’t that difficult to nail down because their is a paper trail and a lot of documentation. The difficulty comes in interpreting that history. This is where the LDS church shines. They are extremely creative in a simple minded way in laying out there cards saying they have a full-house when in reality all they have are a bunch of unrelated (cards) that don’t add up to anything. But here’s where the brilliance comes in. The membership believes what the leadership tells them about the cards. It’s more like tarot card reading with the fortune teller spinning whatever story she wants and the dupe paying the money accepting the “fortune”.
When it comes to doctrine, the LDS church has an approach that can include the concepts of progressive revelation, denial, opinion, folk doctrine and feint ignorance.
The evolution of the Mormon multiple gods doctrine can be traced back to the creative “genius” (?) of Joseph Smith. It was continued by Brigham Young. The leaders that followed are assigned the job of cleaning it all up sort of like the guys with the big brooms that follow after the elephants in the circus parade.
FOF
Sometimes comments are “closed” on older threads. No one can comment on these.
Now what I want you to do is to tell us where you got this above information. Did you go out and do an analysis of all of these references or did you get them from another source? I’d like to have a link to where you obtained the information.
Lastly I can see your strategy here is to do the tactic called “muddying the waters” leading people to believe that this is an unsettled issue. Since I don’t have all of those references, I can’t check on them to see what they are saying and what the context of their comments are.
Now if it is referring to celestial beings, what might those beings be? If we read the sixth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians he talks about powers and principalities in the heavenly places. So what are these?
Finally, you seem to think that you’ve uncovered a tidbit of information that supports the SLC LDS sects doctrine of many gods in the universe and men becoming gods. Sorry, your pin ball game just went tilt!
falcon,
Do you think the fact that other people were posting after I made several attempts on that thread means anything? There is still no indication that the thread is closed as of now. Hmm.
I have studied many of the above citations, but not all. Is that necessary for my argument to be valid?
If so, then I suppose your arguments against the Book of Mormon are all irrelevant as you have yet to read the book in its entirety.
And whether any of those commentaries support the church’s doctrine of exaltation is completely beside the point. This thread is an argument that the Bible only supports a strict monotheistic religion. And that is a very naive claim.
If Psalms 82 is to be interpreted as referring to celestial gods in the plural, what does that do to John 10 in which Jesus quotes Psalms 82? And does that have significance in this whole argument?
on psalm 82
I happen to hold that it is talking about human rulers.
Because human rulers die (verse 7) and are not just (verse 2) and are ignorant(verse 5) etc.
If you are claiming that you when you achieve supposed Mormon godhood you will still be subject to the very human failings mentioned in psalm 82 then it is obvious you have a strange concept of divinity. One that would be unrecognizable to the average English speaker.
I’m reminded of the scene in the avengers movie when Loki demands that the Hulk bow down in respect of his supposed superior status and he proceeds to knock the stuffing out of him and say “puny god”
the theater erupted in laughter because everyone knows that what ever Loki was he was not God.
Even if we grant that the author of psalm 82 is referring to a celestial beings this presents no difficulty at all for the traditional understanding of the strict monotheism of the prophets
A mere celestial being is not God in the sense that Isaiah is discussing. No christian or Jew would deny that celestial beings exist their called Angels what we would object to is ascribing the divine attributes to them .
It is abundantly clear that the subjects of psalm 82 like the pretenders that the Lord is calling out in Isaiah do not posses the divine attributes of the one true God. This is not rocket science
quote:
I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!
(Psalms 82:6-8)
end quote:
nuff said
peace
you said,
If Psalms 82 is to be interpreted as referring to celestial gods in the plural, what does that do to John 10 in which Jesus quotes Psalms 82?
I say,
It simply means that if God in a poetic passage can choose to call others besides himself “gods” then it is not blasphemy for the actual true second person of the Trinity to claim the title of God.
You say,
And does that have significance in this whole argument?
I say,
As far as I can tell no it has no significance at all when discussing whether or not more than one God exists. I agree with falcon it’s just a weak attempt to muddy the waters
peace
Kenneth, the list Fof F provided is from non Mormon people who have no authority and who
do not dispense the official position of the church . But luckily the Mormon First Presidency
did recommend a work that taught the truth about Psalm 82 : “Jesus the Christ” p 501 says
that ” Divinely appointed judges called ‘ gods’ ” —- that judges invested by divine appointment
are called ” gods” . This was the counsel of the Mormon leadership then , now it’s changed
because of the work by non-Mormons ? Hmmm . Bottom line here : the testimony of Mormon
leaders as to the correct understanding of ” gods” in Psalms 82 is suspect . People are better
off looking elsewhere . The Bible talks a lot about “gods” vrs ” the One True God ” . Sadly but
Mormonism has made a mess out of understanding how great the difference is between the two.
FoF,
Thanks for providing a list. I am reading through some quick commentaries I can find online on Psalm 82. I don’t know their scholarly quality, but I am finding a variety of interpretations. One of the interpretations suggests a body of angels who are picked to rule over nations. The term “god” could, according to this view, mean that subordinate angels indeed exist. Another suggests “gods” actually refers to Israel, and is a reference more specifically to Mt. Sinai.
Interestingly, a quote from an article I read says this: “First, the historical occasion of Psalm 82 is regularly seen to be Israel’s reception of God’s word at Sinai.” (Source: https://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/Gods.html.) The author, Jerome Neyrey, I know little about, but a quick search of him reveals he is no slouch.
The use of the word “gods” is intriguing, but its important to note who has the supreme authority– God. Its also important to note that all the other gods will die (Psalm 82:7). What we have is a clear line of demarcation: big G God vs. little g gods, and the little g gods all die. Further, from my quick search today, I am not ready to concede that there is agreement in scholarship concerning Ps. 82. The evidence I found suggests a wide variety of interpretations.
Further, even if we accept multiple “gods” or celestial beings, it is clear that one remains all powerful and only one evades death: the one who rose from the dead. Everyone else will die. Worse, they know nothing and wander about in darkness. This is very different from how your other ‘gods’ live: as rules and organizers of other worlds, having lived lives with goodness and being worthy of becoming a god’.
FoF,
You have mentioned many times on various threads, a so called double standard in reference to us.
I see that in you and you wonder why we feel you lie, and I know that makes you upset when I or others say that.
But it was you who said, the evidence for the BoM is simply overwhelming, I and at least one other, maybe more asked you to provide this evidence. As of yet you are unable or unwilling, is this because it simply does not exist? This would show a double standard on your behalf since you would callus out for claiming sources or evidence, but then not providing it. So does this also mean you lied? or can you provide it, and if not why not?
Hello,
OK, never thought I’d post on a blog, but here I am:). I find it interesting that I just picked up a copy of Gordon B. Hinkley’s “Standing for Something”. Why does he quote a corrupted KJV Genesis 1:3, “And God said, let there be light”, rather than the correct and inspired BOA “And they (the Gods) said, let there be light”. Hmmm…
Interesting that in the entire book there are multiple reference to Bible verses and Bible stories, but not one reference to any Mormon scripture or character.
The list FOF gave is listed on the following websites:
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_04.html
http://vintage.aomin.org/Psalm82.html
I would highly recommend a reading of the second one to get a feel of what William Hamblin of BYU is really like. SHIELDS really down played him on their site. He and James White had a lengthy correspondence about Psalms 82.
I appreciate that list, faithoffathers. Could you provide the exact titles and page numbers of those references? I am not asking this to be difficult; I sincerely want to look at your sources myself. If you don’t have time to provide that information, that is completely understandable. I am eager to read your response to some of the comments this afternoon, especially the criticism about the apparent mortality of the “gods” mentioned in Psalm 82.
fifthmonarchyman,
The “gods” in the divine council as referenced in Psalms 82 would be subject to death as mere “mortals.” But the context is quite clear in stating that their death would be contrary to normal events. These “gods” are called “the children of the most high.” Then the statement that “But ye shall die like men.” If these “gods” were mortals already, why use the clause “but” and “like men?” It makes no sense.
I understand that you “hold that it is talking about human rulers.” But your opinion contradicts the majority of biblical scholars who have spent a great deal of time studying the matter. And it contradicts the evidence upon which those opinions are based.
I made no claim about these gods being exalted persons according to LDS doctrine. If anything, it would relate or correspond more to pre-mortal children of God or “children of the most High.” But that is beside the point and beyond the scope of this thread.
And by the way, it does cause a problem for the strict monotheistic view because these gods are called elohim in the Hebrew. It causes major problems for you.
MikeR- you are engaging in circular logic here. I am asked to provide evidence that a majority of biblical scholars support the claim that ancient Israelite orthodoxy included the recognition of more than one God. I offer support, and you respond by claiming these scholars have no authority in the church, so my argument falls short. Do you see why anybody opposing the accepted dogma here might be a little frustrated in trying to make arguments and engage in debate here?
MJP- yes. There are some who maintain the traditional interpretation of Psalms 82. But the majority of scholars support what I am arguing. And this is the result of the discovery of additional information and evidence upon which to base one’s opinion.
RickB- you are not understanding my claims about double standards. My complaint has not been that you guys do not support your arguments with evidence. My complaint is that you employ two entirely different sets of standards in evaluating LDS faith claims vs. your own. You take the position and approach of the atheist when looking at the Book of Mormon, etc. You employ the pseudo-intellectual argument and appeal to your perceptions of scientific evidences (although your understanding of those evidences is limited). Then, you jump ship when it comes to your own faith claims and adopt not the atheist mindset, but the believing, supernatural mindset which believes in miracles and accepts the limitation of man’s perspective.
Posting evidences for the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham is simply ineffective in forums like this. Every single piece of evidence elicits a thousand questions and “rabbit holes” from people who are unaware of the related field or lines of evidences. A person is simply unable to get anywhere with such attempts. I have tried it many times in many different sites. And I don’t have the motivation to exert that much energy when it never goes anywhere. (I have posted some evidences here in the past- 2-3 years ago I think).
This thread demonstrates the abandonment of scholarly appeal. When it comes to passages like Psalms 82, you will uniformly dismiss the near consensus among scholars on the interpretation and insist they are worldly heretics.
The debate over archaeology is no different. You will appeal exclusively to the opinions of archaeologists who are believers in the Bible. But you reject the opinions of archaeologists who are believers in the Book of Mormon.
Those are the double standards to which I refer.
FOF said
If these “gods” were mortals already, why use the clause “but” and “like men?” It makes no sense.
I say,
In the ANE rulers often were treated as demigods the point of the psalm in my opinion is to show that wadges of sin is the same for even the rich and powerful. Death is no respecter of persons
you say,
And by the way, it does cause a problem for the strict monotheistic view because these gods are called elohim in the Hebrew. It causes major problems for you.
I say,
So why is that a problem? You need to explain yourself. It looks like you are committing the Word-Concept Fallacy. Just because two unrelated passages use the same word does not mean they are describing exactly the same concept.
I thought we covered that when discussing James two’s use of the term justified
you say,
This thread demonstrates the abandonment of scholarly appeal. When it comes to passages like Psalms 82, you will uniformly dismiss the near consensus among scholars on the interpretation and insist they are worldly heretics.
I say,
What are you talking about??? You are mistaking a lack of uniformity in interpretation for abandonment of scholarship.
I’m perfectly willing to grant your interpretation for the sake of argument I only ask that you demonstrate why it matters a hill of beans to the subject at hand.
It does not effect my understanding of the monotheism of the OT in the slightest if psalm 82 is referring to celestial beings.
celestial beings are not god in the sense that Isaiah is describing
peace
For those who missed this explanation I left on this thread earlier today, here it is again:
[I haven’t heard if anyone else has been having trouble with commenting on the Defending the Faith at Temple Square thread, but FoF contacted me on Labor Day weekend explaining the technical problem he was having. Regrettably, thus far we have been unable to fix the problem… -Sharon]
FoF,
You said, “Here is a simple list of commentaries on Psalms 82 over the years. The trend should be obvious and is related to discoveries in the archaeological arena that have data relative to this discussion. The debate over Psalms 82 is central to this issue, and opinions about the correct interpretation reflect a growing body of evidence shifting the opinions of scholars.”
You are falsely arguing that Biblical scholarship is evolving and thus vindicating your false claims of uniquely Mormon monolatrianism, yet Jesus quoted this Psalm when addressing the leaders in Israel as “gods” in John 10:34-36. This is not some great scholarly revelation. When you made the claim, “There is truly a near consensus on the idea of ancient Israel acknowledging more than one God,” and Kenneth challenged you with, “Do you have any evidence to support this claim, faithoffathers?”, you produced this information about Psalm 82 as your proof text, which even Jesus did not understand as you are trying to distort scripture now.
It’s amazing that you have repeatedly made the claim the scholarship proves the BoM to be true. However, scholarship has flatly destroyed any of your claims of the veracity of the BoM as an ancient text, so you reject scholarship that is against the BoM and embrace scholarship that embraces the ancient Israelites as practicing henotheism. It is true that there is a debate among secular scholars as to the Israelites during the very earliest period being either henotheists or monotheists, but the henotheistic position is far from being the dominant position—but all scholarship is flatly against the historicity of the BoM. Point in case, show me just one Lehite or Jaredite artifact. Since the BoM is false, Joseph Smith was not a prophet, therefore the uniquely Utah Mormon monolatrianism is worthless as well, and siding with Mosaic-era henotheistic scholarship is not helping your claim either. Swallow the whole pill, not just some of it.
@ Faithoffathers
The God of the Bible clearly identifies himself as being only one in nature. The issue with the LDS is that they are worshiping a false God or false Gods depending on whom they worship – either Adam ondi-Ahman or Yahweh or the many others described in their past.
As for you, faithoffathers, you yourself have admitted it:
“The issues were idol worship and apostasy from the true God”
I rest my case.
FOF,
You wrote:
“I have studied many of the above citations, but not all. Is that necessary for my argument to be valid?”
I asked you to provide your source which you did not. Thanks to Kate, we now know where you got your information.
So here we go again with the falcon hasn’t read the BoM argument. Well why would I? It’s obviously false. What do you think FOF, I’ll read it, get the hippie, hippie shakes and determine that it’s true?
I haven’t read through all the comments but I noticed there is a lot of talk on psalm 82 as support for Mormon doctrine, brought up by FoF.
I’m not super knowledgable on the latest scholarship. I have to admit I am a little lost on some of the things being referred to and I will not claim that my thoughts on this scripture are perfect.
But I comment, I guess at FoF. But it’s mainly my thoughts on the subject.
I read that psalm a couple times now and I not once thought to myslef that it supports Mormonism. I’m sure a Mormon would say that’s because you are fighting agaist it or what not but Im pretty open minded, that’s why I left Mormonism in the first place. Because I wasn’t afraid to look and admit I was wrong.
now when I read it my first thought was that this scripture is referring to people as “gods” like how Adam and Eve ate of the fruit to become “gods” but because they chose to step outside Gods will we brought upon our death. I’m not sure how Mormon doctrine is supported by this Psalm, if Adam and Eve were already considered “little gods” (gods in embryo) before the fall then why would the snake telling them that they could BECOME gods be so enticing? (I guess you could argue that Mormon God didn’t tell them they were gods, and then you are again left with this very tricky Mormon god interacting with Adam and Eve, but that’s nothing new with the whole “to obey me you must disobey thing”. And gods to me does not seem to have the same meaning as when we refer to God with a big G. My thoughts are that gods mainly refers to the image of God in us, not an exact duplicate of God, but that we can live forever, know God, and can reflect His moral character. That we can have love in relationships and that we have dominion over other living creatures. And as an Orthodox Christian I also believe in theosis, which basically means through Christ we become like God,by having the image of Him with in us being made perfect (which I described what that image means above, no perpetuation of the God species and receiving our own worlds included).
And the assembly or congregation of the mighty doesn’t mean “many gods” to me in the Mormon sense. Whether it refers to celestial beings or not, I know God isn’t all alone. He has all Holy angels. I’m sure He talks with them.
So I guess my point is, the traditional Christian viewpoint makes more sense than Mormonism. To accept the Mormon viewpoint you would be left with too many scriptures (particularly many scriptures that support strict monotheism) that don’t make sense. There is much more explanation and mental gymnastics needed for the Mormon point of view than the traditional Christian teaching.
And as for the Book of Mormon evidence. I would be interested in names of scientists or historians that support the Book of Mormon as historically accurate that are not LDS. You can find non Christian historians and scientists that support the existence of Bible people and places… the only documentary I have seen supporting Joseph Smith’s story was this Alien series done a few years ago. They claimed Moroni was an alien. The series was for entertainment purposes, I wouldn’t say it was credible by any means. So, any credible non Mormon supporters of the Book of Mormon?
Fof F , sorry but you make your own trouble in the way you attempt to prove your point .
The same rationale you use now in proving that the “gods” in Psalms 82 are “celestial beings”
your predecessors no doubt used and they bolstered it by trusting the interpretation of “gods”
in Psalms 82 that was then recommended by their leadership i.e. human judges .
Mormon leaders claim to be the sole legal channel that God uses to teach His church , and these
men claim to provide Divinely directed scriptural interpretation . Yet now their interpretation
is seen to have been inaccurate ? You offer no assurance that we can trust Mormon leadership
on this issue .
Now , I’m wondering how you switched the dialogue from what Isaiah states about God , which
Sharon cited , over to Psalms 82 ?
Celestial being doesn’t necessarily mean god. Satan is a celestial being but is not a god, though he is called the god of this world. Try again FOF. Your argument is unconvincing, and it is just a diversion since you can’t address the OP with any reasonable explanation that doesn’t involve massive speculation.
I’ve already addressed this multiple times here Jaxi, and have only had the Mormons retreat, and then regurgitate this argument again and again. Typical. This is all speculation based on guesswork about some “connection” between the Ugaritic Texts and ancient Israel. It’s nothing but smoke, and totally unprovable. The amount of sheer speculation and conjecture to make it work is stupendous.
“Scholars” once believed the world was flat too. It is not. Theories come and go. Until it’s proven by EVIDENCE, it’s all speculation and dismissable to those who still believe what Jesus taught in the Bible.
Kate,
Here is Hamblin’s resignation from the Interpreter. Why? Because,
I’m not surprised.
FoF, Stop wasting our time and playing games.
You cannot say the evidence is over whelming, then make excuses as to why you wont post it, or sit here and judge us and our hearts claiming even if you did, we would not believe it.
Then you say, I think I posted it a few years back. Again with I think, or my opinions. Thats all you have. If you cannot post it or will not post it, then dont mention it.
I have said before, at least two people, Josh McDowell and one other guy when I remember his name I will post it, they were hard core atheists, one a lawyer one a journalist, they set out to prove the Bible wrong. They looked at all the evidence and concluded the Bible was true.
Name Books and authors of respected people or people in general, that started out as atheists trying to prove the BoM wrong, looked at all the evidence and then said, The BoM is true. Then wrote and published a book about what happened. Not some guy like you bearing their testimony. They give evidence in the books for what they found.
You will not be able to mention the books or people that did this with the BoM, since their really is no evidence. I also get tired of Mormons claiming we judge them, yet the sit and judge us when they decide what we will accept and what we wont when they make excuses as to why they wont post evidence. And you wonder why we dont trust you guys?