From the Mailbag (Isaiah and Idols)

forever-stamps by samantha celera (Flickr)

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.

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 God the Father, Nature of God and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to From the Mailbag (Isaiah and Idols)

  1. grindael says:

    Notice MT, that FOF has offered you nothing but his worn out opinons. NOTHING. He never does, and never will, and since he is no Mormon “authority” his opinion truly doesn’t matter or convince anyone that he knows what the heck he is talking about.

  2. MistakenTestimony says:


    You completely avoided what I said. You are arguing for polytheism in the Bible…

    1) because you are a polytheist,

    2) not because you want to demonstrate that Christians have sloppy scholarship.

    Don’t derail the OP.
    Prove from the Book of Mormon that it’s civilizations were practicing polytheists like yourself.

  3. grindael says:

    One of the primary differences in the Book of Mormon and Bible from my perspective is the fact that every person in the chain of people who had care for the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated is known and accounted for

    Yeah, “known”. Jo said he was Moroni in the D&C and then changed it to “Nephi” in his official History. He went from “bloody ghost” to an angel. Funny how the “three witnesses” in their official statement never identify who the “angel” was who showed them the plates. We only have Jo’s word for it, and that ain’t much, considering he was a known liar.

    If opinions don’t matter, why do all the critics rely so heavily upon the opinions of scholars in their dismissal of the Book of Mormon? Of course opinions matter. And the best opinions come from the people who are most informed, best trained in their fields, and most objective.

    But that doesn’t apply to Mormon “prophets” and “apostles” according to FOF and the Mormons here, who throw most of their doctrinal statements under the bus and label them as “opinion”. Now that is truly comical. Opinion NOW matters! But only when it agrees with what you are saying, right FOF? You are always good for a laugh, my man. Thanks. I guess your “prophets” aren’t “the best in their field”, “most informed” or “objective” at all.

  4. MistakenTestimony says:

    The conversation is theism, not scholasticism. Prove your polytheism. You have laid your case for polytheism in the corrupted Bible. Now, are you capable of proving polytheism from the white and delightsome Book of Mormon?

  5. MJP says:

    And here we go. The waters have been muddied, which is entirely your purpose.

    What I see you saying when you write about evidence for the BoM is that it takes a lot of getting the story straight before presenting the evidence. Which is perhaps another way of saying you have to get the audience on board to accept your assumptions before presenting the evidence. Which is yet still another way of saying milk before meat, a favorite clause in accepting Mormon ideology.

    The thing is, when looking at Biblical evidence, we can read a verse about someone sneaking through a wall and we can point to the wall they snuck through, and the means by which they snuck through it. We can look to a person named David in the Bible and find evidence that a person named David once lived in the area. We can look to practices dictated by group X in the Bible and find evidence that group X actually practiced as described in the Bible.

    All of this and more is supported clearly by evidence outside of the Bible. There is no need to set the scene. All we have to do is look to the Bible, and then look to the evidence found and accepted by historians and archeologists. It is not subject to opinion: the evidence is there for all to see.

    Now, getting back to the original post, the claim made by Sharon is that the Bible says there is only one God. You used Ps. 82 for a reason. What that reason appears to have been is not entirely clear, as if you are playing a game here. Ps. 82 directly addresses the contention of the existence of one God, but apparently that’s not the reason you posted it. You, apparently, seek not to question Sharon’s original premise but to make us seem like we are hypocrites and full of double standards.

    I’ll ask again: what is it that you get by demonstrating our double standards? I’ll even ask a slightly different question: how does showing us to be hypocrites help suggest Mormonism is not a false religion as we claim? A third manifestation of the question is: how does showing us to be hypocrites advance your cause?

    I can see no reason apart from muddying the waters and to lift yourself up. It does nothing to promote your evidence. It does nothing to suggest we are wrong or that you are right. All it does is allow you to say that we don’t fairly look at the evidence, and it certainly does not show that we, in fact, don’t fairly look at the evidence. It merely muddies the water.

  6. grindael says:

    My argument is that modern Biblical scholarship supports the claim that the Bible does not support only a monotheistic theology. In fact, most modern Biblical scholars agree that ancient, pre-exile Orthodox Judaism recognized the existence of more than one God. And as I stated previously (attention grindael), I really am not interested in debating the details of the evidence on this. Grindael is pounding his chest because he can post one side of Heiser’s paper. That’s great. Such a debate is beyond the scope or capacity of this forum. I intentionally included Heiser because he is an evangelical Christian who even agrees with what I am saying. I see you made no attempt to explore any of the other authors.

    I’m not pounding my chest, genius, I’m only doing what I ALWAYS DO, prove you wrong. You are totally wrong about what you are saying. You don’t understand the issue, haven’t read the relevant material, and only quote summaries from FAIR and discredited Mormon “scholars.” EVERYTHING that YOU bring up, when rebutted, you immediately say is “beyond the scope of this discussion”. And I don’t have to “explore” the other authors because I’ve never made the claim that there aren’t some who hold to that opinion. But if I did start quoting them, you would find that there statements are full of “may be this” or “might be that”, because they are ALL SPECULATION, as Hieser astutely pointed out. So really FOF, stop with the diversions into territory you know nothing about. But if you REALLY want to claim you have proven me wrong, then quote me whole paragraphs from any of those authors with page numbers so I know you read them. But I bet you can’t, and won’t. And I bet I’m right about that. But prove me wrong FOF, or will you have another comment malfunction?

    For example, here is Beebe’s quote:

    It seems clear enough…that Moses was not a monotheist. Yet, to call him a polytheist seems inaccurate too. We can conclude that Moses stood somewhere between totemism and monotheism. A term to describe this position is henotheism. – H. Keith Beebe

    Please provide me with the ENTIRE QUOTE, without the ellipses. Can you? Otherwise, you just copied and pasted it and I have no idea it if was doctored or not. Please also, quote the entire paragraph before and after each quote you gave me. Then I will know if you are on the up and up and can back up what you claim.

    How about it FOF, are you full of crap, or are you legit?

  7. MistakenTestimony says:

    Here’s the facts. FoF cannot demonstrate from the BoM that the Lehites practiced polytheism of any kind. His only real answer would be to say that there are truly gods over other worlds, but since we are only aware of the god over our own world there is no need to the Lehites to discuss the matter. And yet, he does not apply the same standard to the Bible. He instead wants to show that the Bible teaches an ENTIRELY different flavor polytheism than the one is actually advocating (ie, pantheons over nations vs one god per world). This argument does NOT in any anyway vindicate his unique flavor of polytheism, it actually undermines his whole point. So why is he intentionally cutting his self down at the knees? To muddy the waters and fling cow patties to see what will stick, as has been stated earlier. His whole argument is merely a smoke screen designed to destroy the conversation at hand, but the investigators see it for what it is. Where are those artifacts my friend?

  8. fifth monarchy man says:

    FOF said,

    You can pick any line of argument against the Book of Mormon- DNA, archaeology, geography, history, etc.- every argument against the book that appeals to “evidence” is going to include interpretations of the primary data from scholars.

    I say,

    The primarily reason I reject Mormonism is because it does not cohere with what is contained in the word of God. I do not base that appraisal on “interpretations of the primary data from scholars” I base it on my own investigation of the text.

    Notice that when Sharon presented an argument to this effect in this very thread she did not present “interpretations of the primary data from scholars” but quoted for the primary source itself.

    as for things like DNA, archaeology, geography, history, etc. I know of no evidence from such fields that support Mormon claims artifacts from the Mormon peoples. If you are aware of that sort of thing it would be easy for you provide it here.

    Sort of like what I did awhile ago

    I provided a link to report of a discovery of an inscription of a name from the first temple period that included a picture detailing the actual inscription. No “interpretations of the primary data” were necessary.

    Now I’m not too up on Hebrew script so I am willing to entertain arguments this inscription was mistranslated for example and the report I linked was I error but in order for me to take those arguments seriously they will have to include objective data on the artifact. Perhaps pictures detailing other possible matches to the letters in question that are different than those proposed

    Either way acceptable arguments will always be based on actual evidence and not just opinions.

    I’m not claiming that I never in everyday life make decisions based on the opinions of others I trust of course I do .

    I’m merely pointing out that opinions are not evidence and therefore are not the proper basis for an argument.

    Do you understand??

  9. fifth monarchy man says:


    I tried to do a little work for you and Googled “Archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon”

    The first entry is an article from a Mormon apologetics site

    Here is the money quote from the conclusion:

    Those who make claims that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon are right in one respect–we don’t know where the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon are located.

    end quote:

    The article then proceeds to give the author’s opinion as to reasons that perhaps explain why such evidence is lacking.

    The message I took away was that even Mormon apologists acknowledge that there is no archeological evidence for the BOM cities.

    Next to be sure that I was not applying a double standard I Googled “Archaeological evidence for the Bible”

    None of the first 10 sites were overtly Christian site at all. This Wikipedia page was the third in rank

    It’s a list of literally dozens of artifacts that cast light on the historicity of the Bible

    I truly hope you can see the difference in the two approaches to the question archeological evidence.


  10. grindael says:

    You know, I would like to address the two “quotes” (more like snips) that FOF left us to prove his point about “multiple gods”. Here is what he quoted,

    Another statement from another scholar: “It seems clear enough…that Moses was not a monotheist. Yet, to call him a polytheist seems inaccurate too. We can conclude that Moses stood somewhere between totemism and monotheism. A term to describe this position is henotheism.” – H. Keith Beebe

    Another: “The Israelite tribes were heirs to a religious tradition which can only have been polytheistic. ” – Yehezkel Kaufmann

    But what he doesn’t realize, perhaps is that they contradict each other. Beebe says that Israel was NOT polytheistic, and Kaufmann says that they were. So FOF, which is it? And can you provide the evidence why Beebe thinks they are not and Kaufmann thinks that they are? What did you do, just google “henotheism” and copy what looked good?

    Here is Beebe’s complete quote (since FOF will never provide it),

    It seems clear enough, from this evidence, that Moses was not a monotheist. Yet to call him a polytheist seems inaccurate too. We can conclude that Moses stood somewhere between totemism and monotheism. A term to describe this position is henotheism. Moses certainly believed in Yahweh, but not to the exclusion of the existence of other gods for other people. The study of religion in the ancient Near East supports such a view of the earliest beliefs about Yahweh.

    Beebe’s “evidence” is speculation about totemism. Bravo. You have proved what? That scholars have gone off the deep end?

    These other “gods” were actually condemned by Moses. When did he believe in them, when he was an Egyptian? You see how silly this is. Moses invented the new, monotheistic YHWH as a conglomeration of other, older deities. Every one of these scholars may define the divine council as “gods”, but yet when you explore how they got there, you see all kinds of crazy theories that involve some kind of collective borrowing and swapping of gods between groups of Near Eastern cultures. How this was accomplished NO ONE CAN TELL US. It is pure as*umption, based on what? Speculation.

    Do you even know what totemism is FOF? Here is what Beebe is advocating,

    Totemism is a system of belief in which each human is thought to have a spiritual connection or a kinship with another physical being, such as an animal or plant, often called a “spirit-being” or “totem.” The totem is thought to interact with a given kin group or an individual and to serve as their emblem or symbol. (wiki)

    Please read up on Teraphim, and what they actually were, not the application invented by William Wines Phelps that morphed into the Urim and Thummim. They were household gods. Statues. Here is the foolishness of Phelps in black and white,

    The fourth verse shows the time that the children of Israel were to remain scattered abroad, without the sacred things which God gave unto them when they were in favour [favor] with him. They were even to do without the Teraphim, [Urim & Thummim, perhaps] or sacred spectacles or declarers; supposed to be the same called gods and images when Jacob fled, from Laban. For Jacob was a man of God and did not worship idols or images. The original in Hebrew is Teraphim. Moses when blessing the tribes in the 33rd of Deuteronomy, says: Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy Holy one. (The Evening and Morning Star, Vol. 1. No. 2, page 14, July, 1832, ed. by W.W. Phelps)

    Jo and the rest of them immediately snatched this up and started calling his “spectacles” (or magic rocks) the Urim and Thummim. How ridiculous is this? The very next month, Samuel H. Smith & Orson Hyde were calling Jo’s spectacles the Urim and Thummim in public.

    Why would you even quote Beebe? Where does Beebe get this from? He writes,

    The Hebrews, like the Israelites, thought of gods as members of tribes. Some of the tribal gods originated in totemism. Leah, for example, means “wild cow, “ Rachel means “ewe,” and Caleb means “dog.” Dan, Gad, and Asher were the names of gods. Beebe, The Old Testament, page 160)

    Beebe is basically saying that Moses invented Yahweh by conflating Caananite or other cultural gods with his ancestors tribal totem gods. (The Teraphim of Leah’s father, Laban) Actual proof of this? None.

    Yet, let’s keep on.

    What about Kaufmann? How has this quote been butchered? Let’s see what Kaufmann (who died in 1963) taught..

    Kaufmann’s main contribution to the study of biblical religion was his thesis that Israel’s monotheism was not a gradual evolutionary development from paganism but an entirely new beginning, sui generis, in religious history. From its beginnings, Kaufmann asserted, the Israelite monotheistic structure was devoid of any element of polytheistic mythology. Kaufmann claimed that nowhere in the Bible is there any trace of mythical elements – no battles among gods or birth of gods – and that theogony is totally absent. He suggested that this is due to the fact that the battle with myth had been waged and won long before the Bible was compiled. Israelite monotheism for Kaufmann began with Moses.
    To bridge the gap between the concept of the one God of all humankind, on the one hand, and on the other, the fact that God’s grace and works were known for 1,000 years only to Israel, Kaufmann developed the principle of theoretical (or ideational) universalism. So long as Israel was in its native land, this was expressed in the wish that all nations would some day acknowledge the one God, just as, according to Genesis, all humankind in the beginning knew only one God. In the exilic period, Israel began to move the monotheistic teaching beyond its territorial borders.

    On Kaufmann’s reading, the Bible was so fundamentally the product of a monotheistic world view that it claimed that all humans were originally monotheistic; it was human rebelliousness that produced the religious retrogression of paganism. Kaufmann went so far as to argue that Israelites of the biblical period had no understanding of polytheism. Ancient Israelites did not even know how to worship gods other than Yahweh and assumed that their neighbors worshipped fetishes of wood and stone. Most Bible scholars, in the main Protestant, tended to paraphrase the biblical accounts of Israelite idolatry, and conclude that there was a vast difference between the official religion, which was either monolatrous or monotheistic, and the popular religion, which was polytheistic. In contrast, Kaufmann maintained that there was no fundamental difference between “popular” and “official” religion with regard to monotheism. The prophetic denunciations of Israelite “idolatry” were the rhetoric of zealots who equated low-level superstition with full-blown apostasy from Yahweh. Much of the prophetic critique, argued Kaufmann, was due to the demands of theodicy; the prophets needed to account for Israel’s frequent reversals. What were in reality minor superstitious lapses were transformed by the prophets into apostasy.

    Why would you even quote this person, FOF? How does this scholarship advance any knowledge about the ancient Israelites and what they believed, except as Kaufmann’s rank speculation? Now, for some quotes,

    “There is room in monotheism for the worship of lower divine beings—with the understanding that they belong to the suite of the One” (Religion of Israel, page 137, Quoted in Recontextualizing Kaufmann, His Empirical Conception of the Bible and its Significance in Jewish Intellectual History, Job Y. Jindo, NYU, page, 115.

    Jindo continues,

    Kaufmann notes: “The[biblical] war against polytheistic idolatry was at the same time a war against the intellectual deification of reason, against the belief that intellectual knowledge could redeem humankind.” No wonder,then, that the monotheistic mind discredits reliance on human reason (e.g., Jer 9:23–24 [Eng]; Ezek 28; Prov 3:5–7; 26:12), and insists, instead, on an undivided faith in the redeeming power of the absolute deity.

    Accordingly, Kaufmann maintains that the polytheistic and mono-theistic worldviews are categorically incompatible, requiring a mental breakthrough to move from one perception to the other, and this shift cannot be explained by a theory of gradual progression such as Wellhausen’s. Put differently, the conception of biblical monotheism is revolutionary, not evolutionary—it has no antecedents, as Kaufmann sees it, in human history.

    That breakthrough is described by Kaufmann (below) as a “psychic experience” that the ancient Israelites could never understand. If they could not, how could they write in their scriptures about other gods that they claim were real?

    Answer, they could not, and this destroys FOF argument.

    In Mormonism though, they are totally compatible, but this point seems lost on those who would quote these scholars and not understand a single thing they say; and only want to exploit them because they use the word “gods” or “polytheism” in a sentence. FOF hasn’t read Kaufmann, doesn’t understand his worldview or how he arrived at it, but relies on others that obviously do not either; and FOF only snatches up their out of context quotes to try and make himself look superior to us poor Evangelical slobs that according to him know nothing about these scholars, or what they write, and that we are stupid for not agreeing with the obvious plethora of other modern scholars that spout the same kind of nonsense that Kauffman does.

    Gee FOF do you feel stupid yet? I don’t need to “pound my chest” with you, it is a given that you are too intellectually vapid to ever research anything and therefore it’s terribly simple to make you look so. And if I seem harsh here, well, I’m sick and tired of it. You constantly do this. You and the other constant Mormon visitors who say we know nothing and you everything, but everything you write falls apart under scrutiny. I wonder why that is FOF? But I’m not done yet. Let’s have at it some more. What else does Kauffman teach?

    Jindo’s note about Kauffman’s disdain for polytheism is also instructive,

    See Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel , vol. 4, 569–77, where he contrasts Greek culture, which he considers the “glory of polytheistic civilization,” with Judaism. For more on this, see Finkelstein, “The West, the Bible, and the Ancient Near East.” Jacob Milgrom discusses the sin of Moses in Num 20:1–13 along thelines of Kaufmann’s notion of magic—i.e., as if Moses were ascribing miraculous powers to Aaron and himself; see Milgrom, “Magic, Monotheism, and the Sin of Moses,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of G. E. Mendenhall , ed. Herbert B. Huffmon et al. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 251–61. (Jindo, page 117)

    Kauffman compares the Greek made up gods, with those of pre-exilic Judaism. That means that before Moses and his Monotheism (according to Kauffman) Israel believed in made up gods, and all of those gods and the gods of others fell into a whole other class BELOW Yahweh. Or do you want to affirm, FOF, that the Greek gods are some of the gods that are referred to in the divine council?

    Jindo adds,

    Kaufmann argues: because their monotheistic perception of reality was fundamentally different from that of their neighboring societies, biblical authors were unable to understand the true experience of polytheism, as a “vital, fundamental, psychic experience,” that is, they were unable to conceive of and experience the world and life according to the notion of the metadivine. Thus he concludes that “in the sphere of religious creativity,” polytheism and monotheism “were two worlds, distinct and mutually incomprehensible.” (Jindo, page 120)

    Do I need to quote more? This is most assuredly all speculation, because how can you evidence that polytheism is a “psychic experience” that the Ancient Israelites were unable to understand? Jindo then says something very telling, he says,

    Kaufmann’s conception of the Bible was very much consonant with an intellectual trend, albeit a minor one,of his period. (page 122).

    And who is to say that the “intellectual trend” that you are so confident in now FOF, won’t change? That is why it really means little, because there is no proof to back it up. It is all speculation.

    I notice you did not answer my one question to you about how the Biblical authors could have learned about the Ugarit pantheon. Since you are so knowledgeable about these scholars, FOF, it should have been simple for you. Why haven’t you? Because you can’t, because you have no idea what these people have written or any idea about what you are quoting, and certainly have no grounds to arrogantly proclaim that Evangelicals simply ignore them out of hand. That is because nothing earth shattering has been discovered to give us any reason to doubt the Biblical version of Israel’s Ancient Worldview. So stop quoting these guys. Stop making yourself look foolish. And certainly, if you want to quote them, then don’t do so and tell us that you are doing it because we know nothing about what they teach.

    Still, we have to listen to you lecture us with gems like,

    Your refusal to acknowledge the scholarship on this topic is what I am talking about when I speak of double standards. You insist on accepting the opinions of non-believing scholars when it comes to the Book of Mormon, etc. But when it comes to your own faith claims and the Bible, you jump ship and only recognize as valid the opinions of “believing” scholars.


    I am simply pointing out what the cumulative evidence supports according to most scholars. And that near consensus among scholars contradicts the article in this thread.

    Pointing out what you know nothing about? And… What does it support, FOF? Belief in what kind of gods? How did they arrive at what those gods are? And is it reasonable to assume that the Ancient Israelites actually thought they were real gods? How would the scholars know — from reading about the Ugarit Pantheon that was buried in the earth for 500 years by the time the Biblical narrative was supposedly written? Really? From what we have seen here, I don’t think so, and so I don’t recognize most of their CONCLUSIONS as valid, because as you can see from what I dissected above, they are totally wackadoodle. Why would you, FOF? Probably because you haven’t read them.

    And the reason that I may believe the conclusions of “unbelieving” scholars that write about the Book of Mormon is that I have actually read them and understand their argument, the same as I have read and understand their argument when it comes to the Bible, which you obviously, have not. That is why I can quote them, because when they are right, they are right. But you have to read them first, to make that determination. A “consensus” or “numbers” means nothing. These Biblical scholars are using conjecture with Psalms 82, while unbelieving scholars who write about the BOM don’t need to do so because we actually have evidence in Smith’s story (contradictions and lies) and in the BOM itself (anachronisms) and the lack of any archaeology to back up its claims.

    I wonder why you would even buy Sorenson’s book. From what I’ve seen here, I doubt you will ever read it.

  11. Kate says:

    Mormons have a bigger problem than differing opinions of scholars.. One of their Apostles stated very plainly and directly that the gods in Psalms 82 are judges. Mere men. This is an Apostle people. Why aren’t Mormons following the teachings of their own Apostle? Why are they throwing out this divinely called leader of their church in favor of scholars who don’t believe one word of Mormonism? Scholars who from what I have actually read, are pretty far out there with their opinions. As I said, the Bible is the final word. What does God’s Word tell us. The Bible as a whole? Go ahead, believe every scholar that comes down the pike, I choose to believe God. And once again we have Mormons throwing their Apostle under the bus, showing us all that there is absolutely no need to follow LDS leaders. They never get anything right anyways.

  12. Mike R says:

    Kate said, ” ….there is absolutely no need to follow LDS leaders .”

    Bingo ! That’s the beautiful truth for everyone today . We have apostles that preached the
    gospel of salvation ( Rom 1:16) , that message has saved people down through the centuries
    and still is mighty to save in these latter days . Mormon apostles are men who have mis-directed
    people by mimicking the claims of Jesus’ true apostles and sadly people have accepted their
    aberrant teachings —Gal 1:8 .
    Many sincere LDS are finding out they’ve been misled into embracing a imitation ,
    and are exchanging that for the true authentic gospel of salvation and the true Jesus .

Leave a Reply