mormonism

[Free]

Free,
Sorry for the delayed response. It has been a busy week. Here is my reply:

Mormons and most Bible believing Christians agree that Jesus Christ’s Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Ghost is God. We also agree that there is one true God. On the surface, it seems to be a contradiction to say that three persons are God, but there is only one God. The controversial theological battle of how to explain this apparent paradox was a large part of why the council of Nicea was called in the first place. The problem of explaining how there can be a plurality of Gods and at the same time be only one God, is a discussion that goes back to the second century of the Christian era. The doctrine of the Trinity is only one of the explanations that have come out of this discussion. The only reason it is so universally accepted is because at its inception the church and the state became one and every opposing idea was illegal to teach or discuss. Opposing writings were sought out and destroyed. This condition existed for several centuries until the time of the reformation.

I do not want to get into a discussion of the Trinity but it must be said that monotheism is foundational to Christianity, just as it is to Judaism. This is why Christians rightly believe there are three persons within the one being that is God.

The plurality of Gods and gods is taught in several places in the Bible. In Gen. 3:22 it says, “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...”. Us means plural.

I wouldn't even use this to support the Trinity as this says nothing about the being of God or how many gods there may be. There is nothing to suggest more than one God or even just one God. It could very well be God speaking to the heavenly host.

Psalm 110:1 says “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool”.

This is best seen in a translation which capitalizes "LORD" where YHWH, the one true God, is used:

1 The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." (ESV)

This is perhaps best understood as God speaking to the Messiah, his Son. Again, this does not show two gods.

And, of course, all the scriptures in the New Testament that identify the three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Paul even says in I Corinthians 8:5, that there are many gods and lords in Heaven.

It's interesting how most Mormons I have talked to do not grasp the idea of context and how verses simply cannot be taken out of the surrounding verses. So, looking at the context:

1 Cor 8:4-6, 4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one." 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"-- 6 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.

Clearly all these other supposed gods are not gods at all. And this is itself, I believe, Paul's expansion on the Shema:

Deut 6:4 4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (ESV)

This is a clear statement to Israel that there is only one God, this is the foundation of monotheism.

The way Mormons explain how the members of the Godhead are separate at the same time as being one is different than Trinitarians. We believe they are each a God, but are still part of the one and only God.

I do not believe that that is the case, at least from what I have read and discussed with other Mormons. Regardless, it is contradictory to say that they are each a God and yet together one God.

The one God is the one way, the one perfect plan for us his children, the one straight gate and narrow way, the one true way to worship. Whenever the prophets of the Bible emphasize the idea of one God, it is to prevent the people from worshiping false or competing gods. Mormons do not worship or teach obedience to false gods that involve a different gospel from the God of the Bible. We believe in only in the gospel Jesus and his prophets and apostles taught.

And yet, you believe that gods are created, including the God of the Bible. That would be a false god.

The God of the Bible is uncreated, having always existed, and is the source of all creation. There is no other God. Looking at what the Bible says, in addition to what has been given (all from ESV):

Gen1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Isa 43:10-11, 10 "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 god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. 11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.

Isa 44:6-8, 6 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. 7 Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen. 8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.

Isaiah 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

Not to mention that the context of many of these statements is that the LORD is the creator of everything:

Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Isa 42:5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it:

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Similar language is used throughout the Scriptures so I will not attempt to give an exhaustive list here but I will add some from the NT:

John 1:1-3, 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Col 1:15-17, 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last,

Rev 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

It cannot be any clearer that there is only one God, the creator who created everything. Men are creatures and cannot, by definition, ever become gods.

To my knowledge, the only place in the Bible that teaches us how the Father and the Son are one is John chapter 17. No less than three times Jesus asks the Father to help his disciples to become one as they are one. He even prays that they will become one with them. If you believe that the Father and the Son are one substance as the creeds teach(and which is not found anywhere in the Bible) then Jesus is asking for his disciples to become part of that same substance. Mormons don’t believe that. They believe that the only way the Father and the Son are one is in purpose and desire, for that is the only way that is described in the Bible. The idea of them being one substance is an invention of man.

If the apostles can become one with the Father and the Son, then why not any human? And if that is possible and even encouraged and desired by God, why would it not be appropriate to call that state of oneness, godhood?

No human can become a god; none ever has and none ever will.

Let's put this all within the context of the entirety of Scripture, as it should be. The Bible begins with the creation of everything--everything in the universe--by the one and only God. He creates man who then falls into rebellion and severs that relationship with God. God's plan to restore man begins, a long and winding story involving the Messiah through his chosen people, the Jews.

The plan was for the Messiah to be put to death as a propitiation for man's sin and then raise him again as the inauguration of the final redemption and healing power for the entire creation; the beginning of the restoration of all things, all the wrongs being made right. This will culminate in Jesus' final return when all enemies will have been defeated and all creation will finally be restored to how it was first made.

This is why God is described as "the beginning and the end" and why there cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination, more than one God. It is he alone who created everything and who will completely restore everything. This is what the Bible reveals from the verse first verse to the very last. Any understanding of God, any theology and any doctrine, must line up within this framework, this overarching story.

Mormonism would have us believe that the God of the Bible, the God who created everything that has ever been created, was once a man, created by another God, his Father. But right there that contradicts the very first verse in the Bible.

 

[Webb]

Response to LightWithin, #32: "---Who determines what Christianity is and who is Christian? Man."

No, man does not so determine. God does and reveals that to us through the scripture, NT scripture.

 

[Webb]

Response to Proveallthings, # 78: ''Just because Peter accepts some of the common nomenclature of the society in general for his religion, does not mean the term was divineliy given."---" You still have not shown where scripture teaches that the term Christian was a divinely given name for Christ's true followers."

I regret my slow response, have been away. The passage I gave as a "starter" was I Peter 4:14. The inspired and beloved apostle wrote: "--but in that name let him glorify God." Sounds like a divinely given command to me. But there is more. I know you have recently concluded a one-on-one with Mike but perhaps you would consider another one?

 

[proveallthings]

Free,
I do appreciate your willingness to participate in this discussion. It has been interesting for me. Here is my response.

I do not want to get into a discussion of the Trinity but it must be said that monotheism is foundational to Christianity, just as it is to Judaism. This is why Christians rightly believe there are three persons within the one being that is God.

Christian and Judaic monotheism is something that Mormons believe and teach. But where in the Bible does it say that the three persons of the Godhead are “one being�

I wouldn't even use this to support the Trinity as this says nothing about the being of God or how many gods there may be. There is nothing to suggest more than one God or even just one God. It could very well be God speaking to the heavenly host.

I agree that this could be interpreted as God speaking to the heavenly host, but to say there is nothing said in the context of this chapter that would lead one to conclude that the “us†is referring to another God or Gods is to ignore the context completely. The whole discussion is referring to becoming like God, knowing good and evil. There is no mention anywhere about heavenly hosts being involved in this discussion. At the very least, the idea of the “us†referring to diety, must be considered a possible interpretation. Taken in context with the rest of this chapter it seems to me to be the most likely interpretation.

[Psalm 110:1...]This is perhaps best understood as God speaking to the Messiah, his Son. Again, this does not show two gods.

This statement is confusing to me. I thought you believed that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God. I also thought you believed that Jesus Christ, the Messiah was and is God(see John chapter 1). If you do, are you not arguing here for my position?

It's interesting how most Mormons I have talked to do not grasp the idea of context and how verses simply cannot be taken out of the surrounding verses. So, looking at the context:

1 Cor 8:4-6, 4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one." 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"-- 6 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.

Clearly all these other supposed gods are not gods at all. And this is itself, I believe, Paul's expansion on the Shema:

Deut 6:4 4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (ESV)

This is a clear statement to Israel that there is only one God, this is the foundation of monotheism.

What you seem to be missing in this scripture is the fact that Paul acknowledges the existence of many gods in heaven as well as the false gods on earth. It seems to me a very plausible
understanding of this scripture that Paul is saying that although there are many gods both false and true, for us there is only one God that we worship and need to be concerned with. I think it highly unlikely that Paul believed there to be false gods in Heaven. My Bible, the KJV, does not use the term “so called godsâ€, but says “that are called godsâ€. This second way of saying it allows the possibility that some of the gods referred to could be called legitimate gods. I’m not saying that your interpretation is not reasonable. I simply suggest that there is at least one other plausible interpretation.

I do not believe that that is the case, at least from what I have read and discussed with other Mormons.

This is probably because you have not read or discussed these things with the intent to understand, but only with the intent to reply. You can be assured that what I said is very clearly basic Mormon doctrine to any knowledgeable Mormon.

Regardless, it is contradictory to say that they are each a God and yet together one God.
"Originally Posted by proveallthings
The one God is the one way, the one perfect plan for us his children, the one straight gate and narrow way, the one true way to worship. Whenever the prophets of the Bible emphasize the idea of one God, it is to prevent the people from worshiping false or competing gods. Mormons do not worship or teach obedience to false gods that involve a different gospel from the God of the Bible. We believe in only in the gospel Jesus and his prophets and apostles taught."
And yet, you believe that gods are created, including the God of the Bible. That would be a false god.

An interesting dodge here. First you simply dismiss my statement that each can be a God and also be a part of the one God, as being contradictory. Then you quote my explanation of how it is possible and don’t even address it. Instead you go off on the different subject of gods being created. Remember that this discussion involves whether a case can be made that the Bible includes a teaching of a plurality of gods. You may not agree that my interpretation is the right one, and that is fine. I can see how your interpretation is plausible, but I don’t happen to believe it is the right one. I just want you to see that my interpretation is reasonable. So why could not my explanation for the meaning of “one God†be just as plausible as the one found in the creeds of men?

No human can become a god; none ever has and none ever will.

Let's put this all within the context of the entirety of Scripture, as it should be...

You make a statement that says I am wrong, but do not make any effort to explain why. Then you say you are going to put what is said in John 17 into the context of the Bible, but never once attempt to do so. You give a brief summary of some of the Bible (which one could also learn in a Mormon Sunday School) that is supposed to be the context, but don’t bother to show how that summary affects how we should interpret what I quoted in John 17 differently than I did.

It is true that every scripture should be considered in the context of the rest of scripture, but it is also just as true that the rest of scripture must be understood in the context of the individual scripture. What you have done is completely ignored what I said about John 17. I can only conclude that you have no rational explanation to offer.

Thanks again for the discussion.
God Bless,
Alan

 

[proveallthings]

Response to Proveallthings, # 78: ''Just because Peter accepts some of the common nomenclature of the society in general for his religion, does not mean the term was divineliy given."---" You still have not shown where scripture teaches that the term Christian was a divinely given name for Christ's true followers."

I regret my slow response, have been away. The passage I gave as a "starter" was I Peter 4:14. The inspired and beloved apostle wrote: "--but in that name let him glorify God." Sounds like a divinely given command to me. But there is more. I know you have recently concluded a one-on-one with Mike but perhaps you would consider another one?

Webb,
I agree that a possible conclusion would be that the term Christian may have been divinely given. I just don't think it is the most likely conclusion. I would love to have a one on one with you, but not necessarily on this topic. Name a topic and we'll see.

 

[Webb]

Proveallthings---Thanks for your reply. I would not envision the discussion to be limited to only the divinely ordained name but at least included.

 

[Free]

Free,
I do appreciate your willingness to participate in this discussion. It has been interesting for me. Here is my response.

Likewise.

Christian and Judaic monotheism is something that Mormons believe and teach. But where in the Bible does it say that the three persons of the Godhead are “one being�

Mormons do not believe in monotheism, not in the slightest. You believe that one day you will be a god of your own planet, having spirit children who will later inhabit bodies and continue the process. This is what Mormons believe of God the Father and at least partly why there is such a strong emphasis placed on the family. But that is polytheism, or more precisely henotheism, definitely not monotheism.

And this raises an important question: if, as Mormonism teaches, the Father was once a man who became a god, and the Son likewise, how, as individual gods can they be one God in any sort of a monotheistic sense? That is logically impossible. Not to mention that it doesn't make sense in terms of the Holy Spirit who is the only one considered not to have a body of flesh and bone. How did the Holy Spirit become a god if he didn't go through the same process as the Father and the Son, or so it would seem? If he did go through the same process, why doesn't he have a body of flesh and bone?

We cannot say they are one in purpose and that is therefore monotheism. Monotheism, by definition means there is, only has ever been, and only ever will be, one God.

I agree that this could be interpreted as God speaking to the heavenly host, but to say there is nothing said in the context of this chapter that would lead one to conclude that the “us†is referring to another God or Gods is to ignore the context completely. The whole discussion is referring to becoming like God, knowing good and evil. There is no mention anywhere about heavenly hosts being involved in this discussion. At the very least, the idea of the “us†referring to diety, must be considered a possible interpretation. Taken in context with the rest of this chapter it seems to me to be the most likely interpretation.

There isn't anything within the context of Gen 3 to suggest it or give reason to believe it is 'the most likely interpretation.' The 'us' referring to deity simply cannot be referring to deity. We cannot remove Gen 3 from the rest of Genesis, which includes chapter 1. The very first verse in the entire Bible precludes the existence of more than one God.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The singular 'God' is the one who created the heavens and the earth, that is to say, all things that were ever created. Nor can Gen 3 be removed from the rest of Scripture which emphatically and clearly states that there is, ever has been, and ever will be, only one God.

[Psalm 110:1...]This is perhaps best understood as God speaking to the Messiah, his Son. Again, this does not show two gods.

This statement is confusing to me. I thought you believed that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God. I also thought you believed that Jesus Christ, the Messiah was and is God(see John chapter 1). If you do, are you not arguing here for my position?

No, I am not arguing for your position. Monotheism is throughout Scripture and is absolutely foundational to Judaism and Christianity. As such, it simply cannot mean two gods. This is why the Trinity makes best sense of what the Bible reveals; Jesus is God but God isn't Jesus.

Even if you don't like that explanation, from a Jewish standpoint, there is nothing in that passage to suggest that Yahweh is speaking to another god.

What you seem to be missing in this scripture is the fact that Paul acknowledges the existence of many gods in heaven as well as the false gods on earth. It seems to me a very plausible
understanding of this scripture that Paul is saying that although there are many gods both false and true, for us there is only one God that we worship and need to be concerned with. I think it highly unlikely that Paul believed there to be false gods in Heaven. My Bible, the KJV, does not use the term “so called godsâ€, but says “that are called godsâ€. This second way of saying it allows the possibility that some of the gods referred to could be called legitimate gods. I’m not saying that your interpretation is not reasonable. I simply suggest that there is at least one other plausible interpretation.

You completely missed what I was saying. In 1 Cor 8:4 Paul clearly states that there "is no God but one," affirming monotheism, that there is only one true God. This cannot be forgotten in what follows. In verse 5 he says there are "so-called gods," by which he means they are not gods at all, they are all false. They are only gods in the sense that people worship them. In verse 6 Paul once again reaffirms that there is only one God, the creator who created everything that was ever created, the one mentioned in Gen 1:1.

Even if we remove "so-called," there are many instances throughout the Bible which not only affirm a strict monotheism, but point out that the gods men worship are nothing but dumb idols. That man may refer to something or someone as god does not make that thing or person a god. I cannot overemphasize enough that Judaism and Christianity and their Scriptures, continually reaffirm a strict monotheism.

An interesting dodge here. First you simply dismiss my statement that each can be a God and also be a part of the one God, as being contradictory.

There was no dodge. You stated: "We believe they are each a God, but are still part of the one and only God." It is contradictory to say that three separate Gods can be one God.

Then you quote my explanation of how it is possible and don’t even address it. Instead you go off on the different subject of gods being created. Remember that this discussion involves whether a case can be made that the Bible includes a teaching of a plurality of gods. You may not agree that my interpretation is the right one, and that is fine. I can see how your interpretation is plausible, but I don’t happen to believe it is the right one. I just want you to see that my interpretation is reasonable. So why could not my explanation for the meaning of “one God†be just as plausible as the one found in the creeds of men?

What explanation is needed? Do three quarters equal one quarter? Can three people equal one person? How can three Gods equal one God? It is a contradiction and self-explanatory.

As for the "subject of gods being created," that is very much a part of this topic. Mormon men do believe that they will one day become gods of their own world, along with their wives, and create spirit children to inhabit bodies on that planet, do they not? They believe that this is precisely how God the Father came to be, is it not? This is the very reason you want to, and need to, believe in a plurality of gods in Scripture.

But you do not seem to understand the Scriptures I gave. All those passages show, beyond question, that there always has been and always will be only one God. From the very first verse of Scripture to the last. There has never existed another God, whether eternal or created, nor will there ever exist another God. This is a significant problem for Mormon theology.

You make a statement that says I am wrong, but do not make any effort to explain why. Then you say you are going to put what is said in John 17 into the context of the Bible, but never once attempt to do so. You give a brief summary of some of the Bible (which one could also learn in a Mormon Sunday School) that is supposed to be the context, but don’t bother to show how that summary affects how we should interpret what I quoted in John 17 differently than I did.

I wasn't addressing John 17 specifically but rather the polytheism of Mormonism. The overarching story of Scripture shows that polytheism--the idea that there exists any other God then the God of the Bible--is completely and utterly incompatible.

It is true that every scripture should be considered in the context of the rest of scripture, but it is also just as true that the rest of scripture must be understood in the context of the individual scripture. What you have done is completely ignored what I said about John 17. I can only conclude that you have no rational explanation to offer.

As to context, every verse must be understood within the context of the verses immediately around it. Then the context of the chapter must be considered. Then the surrounding chapters, the entire book. Then the context of the whole Bible must be considered. No one context can overrule another. The parts must make sense of the whole just as the whole must make sense of the parts.

I seem to have misread what you were saying. I'll address it now:

To my knowledge, the only place in the Bible that teaches us how the Father and the Son are one is John chapter 17. No less than three times Jesus asks the Father to help his disciples to become one as they are one. He even prays that they will become one with them. If you believe that the Father and the Son are one substance as the creeds teach(and which is not found anywhere in the Bible) then Jesus is asking for his disciples to become part of that same substance. Mormons don’t believe that. They believe that the only way the Father and the Son are one is in purpose and desire, for that is the only way that is described in the Bible. The idea of them being one substance is an invention of man.

John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." Here, "one" or en, is neuter which "implies unity of essence, not merely or will or of power." (Vincent's Word Studies)

Even despite that, the clear biblical teaching of monotheism with the teaching that Jesus is in some way God (John 1:1-3; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:5-8; Col 1:16-17), yet not the Father, clearly shows that they are one in essence.

John 17, on the other hand, is speaking of unity, using the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son as analogous for the unity that is desired among believers. And, of course, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers, there is a sense of us being in them as they are in us.

If the apostles can become one with the Father and the Son, then why not any human? And if that is possible and even encouraged and desired by God, why would it not be appropriate to call that state of oneness, godhood?

Again, John 17 is speaking of some sort of union between the Father and the Son and then with believers. There is nothing at all to suggest that we can become gods.

Please address the argument I gave with all those quotes from Scripture which you thought were off-topic.

 

[Webb]

Proveallthings--For our propoed one-on-one I would not exclude any topic regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Your thoughts?

 

[proveallthings]

Mormons do not believe in monotheism, not in the slightest. You believe that one day you will be a god of your own planet, having spirit children who will later inhabit bodies and continue the process. This is what Mormons believe of God the Father and at least partly why there is such a strong emphasis placed on the family. But that is polytheism, or more precisely henotheism, definitely not monotheism.

The monotheism I was referring to was what was taught by original Judaism and original Christianity, not the modern version. I know you disagree, but in order to prove this statement false, you would need an official statement on the term monotheism from an apostle we both agree was an official apostle.

Not to mention that it doesn't make sense in terms of the Holy Spirit who is the only one considered not to have a body of flesh and bone. How did the Holy Spirit become a god if he didn't go through the same process as the Father and the Son, or so it would seem? If he did go through the same process, why doesn't he have a body of flesh and bone?

You have to remember that we believe Christ was Jehovah of the Old Testament before he obtained a body, so a body is not a requirement to be a part of the Godhead.

We cannot say they are one in purpose and that is therefore monotheism. Monotheism, by definition means there is, only has ever been, and only ever will be, one God.

It appears that our problem here is a limitation on what you are willing to use as a definition of God. I see several uses of the term, “God or god†expressed throughout the Bible. Perhaps a review of some of the meanings we give to this term would be helpful.
Here are the definitions of false gods that can be gleaned from the Bible:
World English Dictionary
god
-- n
1. a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force related: divine
2. an image, idol, or symbolic representation of such a deity
3. any person or thing to which excessive attention is given:money was his god

I think these definitions pretty much cover every false god referred to in the Bible. Latter-day Saints agree that all these types of gods are false and are not to be worshiped or followed.
In all the verses you have quoted about the One God, they are all in the context of persuading the people to avoid these false gods. The reason these gods are so dangerous and why God speaks so strongly against them is because they lead us away from Him, from his plan of happiness for us. These other gods represent other paths, other ways of life that are deceptions and destructive to our temporal and eternal happiness.

Since there are several definitions for the lowercase god, why couldn‘t there be more than one definition for uppercase God? You keep insisting that the term God can only and always mean one being. Why couldn’t it also mean, in certain instances, one divine community perfectly united in all things? Since the only reason the Bible ever teaches us that there is only one God, is to prevent us from following the false philosophies of men and Satan, which can be called gods, could not the one and only true philosophy which is from the true God be another definition for the term God? Why not?

Where does the Bible say that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being? I realize it says in several places that there is only one God. We teach from and believe in all those scriptures you quoted. The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are that one God, in the sense that they are perfectly united in leading us their children on the same straight and narrow path. But in the other sense they are each Gods, separate and distinct beings that choose to be who they are.

The very first verse in the entire Bible precludes the existence of more than one God.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
The singular 'God' is the one who created the heavens and the earth, that is to say, all things that were ever created. Nor can Gen 3 be removed from the rest of Scripture which emphatically and clearly states that there is, ever has been, and ever will be, only one God.

The fact that there is a singular use of God being the creator in Genesis 1 and then in chapter 3 God, speaking to others involved in the creation, can imply there are both one God and multiple gods. My explanation above describes how this can be.

No, I am not arguing for your position. Monotheism is throughout Scripture and is absolutely foundational to Judaism and Christianity. As such, it simply cannot mean two gods.

My above explanation shows how it really could mean two gods without conflicting with the truth of only one God.

This is why the Trinity makes best sense of what the Bible reveals; Jesus is God but God isn't Jesus.

To someone who has been indoctrinated into Christianity with the Trinity as the only explanation of God, of course it would make the best sense. And that is okay, because by saying it makes the best sense, you are implying there are other explanations that also make sense, just not the best. That is all I am saying.

Even if you don't like that explanation, from a Jewish standpoint, there is nothing in that passage to suggest that Yahweh is speaking to another god.

Then who is the Lord that the LORD is speaking to? Who could be Lord and not be God? I am not saying that the possible interpretation here is that God is Jesus, but that Jesus is God. So my premise does not disagree with your statement that God isn’t Jesus.

You completely missed what I was saying. In 1 Cor 8:4 Paul clearly states that there "is no God but one," affirming monotheism, that there is only one true God. This cannot be forgotten in what follows. In verse 5 he says there are "so-called gods," by which he means they are not gods at all, they are all false. They are only gods in the sense that people worship them. In verse 6 Paul once again reaffirms that there is only one God, the creator who created everything that was ever created, the one mentioned in Gen 1:1.

Again, I refer you to my explanation toward the beginning of this post about how a reference to one God does not necessarily have to be a reference to one being. But you are missing one of Paul’s points. You could also call false gods, imaginary gods. They really don’t exist as actual gods. So when Paul says, “as there BE gods many, and lords manyâ€, one could conclude that he is saying there are also gods many and lords many that are real and not imaginary. This could be argued as the reason he said, “TO US, there is but one God the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christâ€. Besides, do you really think that Paul believed there were false gods in the real heaven?

There was no dodge. You stated: "We believe they are each a God, but are still part of the one and only God." It is contradictory to say that three separate Gods can be one God.

How is this any more contradictory than to say there are three persons in one being?
But I have explained above how it is not contradictory. What is unbiblical with my explanation?

What explanation is needed? Do three quarters equal one quarter? Can three people equal one person? How can three Gods equal one God? It is a contradiction and self-explanatory.

My above explanation goes into better detail this time to show how it is not contradictory for there to be one God in one sense and more than one God in another.

As for the "subject of gods being created," that is very much a part of this topic. Mormon men do believe that they will one day become gods of their own world, along with their wives, and create spirit children to inhabit bodies on that planet, do they not? They believe that this is precisely how God the Father came to be, is it not? This is the very reason you want to, and need to, believe in a plurality of gods in Scripture.

The idea that the Father or the Son could not have evolved to be Gods sometime before “the beginning†referred to by the Bible, is not found in the Bible. Therefore such a belief is not a biblical belief. Mormons believe that the beings who since sometime before “the beginning†of the Bible have been God, are eternal beings, as are we. As a God they live in the past, present and future simultaneously, so they ARE God from all eternity to all eternity. There is nothing in the Bible that says that this cannot be. Anything that says it cannot be is pure conjecture.

But you do not seem to understand the Scriptures I gave. All those passages show, beyond question, that there always has been and always will be only one God. From the very first verse of Scripture to the last. There has never existed another God, whether eternal or created, nor will there ever exist another God. This is a significant problem for Mormon theology.

This statement is answered in my explanation toward the beginning of this post.

I wasn't addressing John 17 specifically but rather the polytheism of Mormonism. The overarching story of Scripture shows that polytheism--the idea that there exists any other God then the God of the Bible--is completely and utterly incompatible.

This is also answered in my earlier explanation.

John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." Here, "one" or en, is neuter which "implies unity of essence, not merely or will or of power." (Vincent's Word Studies)

The Greek word for one here is the same one used in John 17. What does unity of essence mean, anyway? Essence of what? If you mean that essence means they are one being, then couldn’t it just as easily mean one person? Yet the Nicene Creed says they are separate persons. The argument could be made that the essence of God is His attributes. If that is what is being referred to here, Mormons have no problem with that. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost being united in their attributes of love, mercy, justice, etc. fits perfectly into my explanation near the beginning of this post.

Even despite that, the clear biblical teaching of monotheism with the teaching that Jesus is in some way God (John 1:1-3; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:5-8; Col 1:16-17), yet not the Father, clearly shows that they are one in essence.

If you read these scriptures with my above explanation of the oneness of God in mind, there is no contradiction. It all fits. And again I ask, what does “one in essence†mean?

John 17, on the other hand, is speaking of unity, using the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son as analogous for the unity that is desired among believers. And, of course, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers, there is a sense of us being in them as they are in us.

I’m glad you agree that their oneness here is referring to a special unity that can also be shared by believers. Why couldn’t this be the only way that they are one? Nowhere does the Bible say anything about being one in essence. It comes from the Greek schoolmen of the 4th century. John 17 says, “as we are oneâ€. This is the only place I am aware of in the Bible, where it even infers HOW they are one.

Again, John 17 is speaking of some sort of union between the Father and the Son and then with believers. There is nothing at all to suggest that we can become gods.

There is nothing there that suggests they can’t either. Why couldn’t being one with the Father and the Son in the same way that they are one with each other, infer that we would be gods? Where does the Bible say explicitly that man cannot become a god sometime in the future eternities?

Please address the argument I gave with all those quotes from Scripture which you thought were off-topic.

Again, all these scriptures are well known to Latter-day Saints. If you read them with the understanding of my explanation near the beginning of this post there is no contradiction.

Thanks for the exchange.

 

[proveallthings]

Proveallthings--For our propoed one-on-one I would not exclude any topic regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Your thoughts?

Webb,
I have no problem with that as long as we focus on one topic at a time.

 

[Webb]

Agreed. Lets proceed. I do not have a lot of time although I'm retired. My responses will not always be immediate. Further suggestions?

 

[Mike]

Web and proveallthings, please make your plans with PM's, and you'll be set up when you start the thread.

Thanks.

 

[Free]

The monotheism I was referring to was what was taught by original Judaism and original Christianity, not the modern version. I know you disagree, but in order to prove this statement false, you would need an official statement on the term monotheism from an apostle we both agree was an official apostle.

Incorrect. Monotheism means, and has always meant, that there is only one God. That is precisely what Judaism and early Christianity have always taught.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2612/jewish/The-History-of-Monotheism.htm

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/God/About_God/Monotheism_or_Monolatry.shtml

Since there are no Apostles, we cannot get a statement from an Apostle. What we can rely on is not only Church history but the Bible itself which makes it clear there is only one God.

It appears that our problem here is a limitation on what you are willing to use as a definition of God. I see several uses of the term, “God or god†expressed throughout the Bible. Perhaps a review of some of the meanings we give to this term would be helpful.
Here are the definitions of false gods that can be gleaned from the Bible:
World English Dictionary
god
-- n
1. a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force related: divine
2. an image, idol, or symbolic representation of such a deity
3. any person or thing to which excessive attention is given:money was his god

I think these definitions pretty much cover every false god referred to in the Bible. Latter-day Saints agree that all these types of gods are false and are not to be worshiped or followed.
In all the verses you have quoted about the One God, they are all in the context of persuading the people to avoid these false gods. The reason these gods are so dangerous and why God speaks so strongly against them is because they lead us away from Him, from his plan of happiness for us. These other gods represent other paths, other ways of life that are deceptions and destructive to our temporal and eternal happiness.

I am unsure as to what you are saying here as it doesn't go against anything I said. In fact, it actually supports what I said.

If, as you say, the passages I gave are to "[persuade] the people to avoid these false gods...because they lead us away from Him," then they still support that there is only one God. Put another way, if God is emphatically emphasizing that all other gods are false, then he is still saying that there is and never will be another true God, not one.

Since there are several definitions for the lowercase god, why couldn‘t there be more than one definition for uppercase God? You keep insisting that the term God can only and always mean one being. Why couldn’t it also mean, in certain instances, one divine community perfectly united in all things? Since the only reason the Bible ever teaches us that there is only one God, is to prevent us from following the false philosophies of men and Satan, which can be called gods, could not the one and only true philosophy which is from the true God be another definition for the term God? Why not?

You are begging the question. The Bible is clear that there is only one God and ever will be one God. We are to never worship as God any created being or thing as they are not God.

Without reading into the passages I gave, there is simply no way that the passages themselves ever teach that there is more than one God or ever will be more than one God.

Where does the Bible say that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being? I realize it says in several places that there is only one God. We teach from and believe in all those scriptures you quoted. The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are that one God, in the sense that they are perfectly united in leading us their children on the same straight and narrow path. But in the other sense they are each Gods, separate and distinct beings that choose to be who they are.

Again, because the Bible clearly teaches monotheism, any theology of God cannot violate that. Therefore, they simply cannot be separate beings. There is a distinctiveness between the two, for sure, but they cannot be said to be separate beings.

The fact that there is a singular use of God being the creator in Genesis 1 and then in chapter 3 God, speaking to others involved in the creation, can imply there are both one God and multiple gods. My explanation above describes how this can be.

The fact that there is a singular use of God as the Creator, shows that any other "god" is a created being and therefore cannot in any sense, be considered the same as the one God.

My above explanation shows how it really could mean two gods without conflicting with the truth of only one God.

No, it does not. It simply begs the question.

To someone who has been indoctrinated into Christianity with the Trinity as the only explanation of God, of course it would make the best sense. And that is okay, because by saying it makes the best sense, you are implying there are other explanations that also make sense, just not the best. That is all I am saying.

I could also claim you have been indoctrinated into what you believe so that is why it makes the most sense. Let's not use such arguments as they get us nowhere. I have done much study and that is why I believe the Trinity to be true, not because that is what I grew up believing.

And, no, I am not implying that there are other explanations that make sense. I am actually implying that other explanations severely lack in explanatory power and make little, if any, sense.

Then who is the Lord that the LORD is speaking to? Who could be Lord and not be God? I am not saying that the possible interpretation here is that God is Jesus, but that Jesus is God. So my premise does not disagree with your statement that God isn’t Jesus.

The word "Lord" here does not equate with God. I have made that clear. "LORD" is the translation of YHVH, the one true God. "Lord" is the translation of adon, and can mean "king" or "master." We can see in this case, at least from a post NT vantage point, that "Lord" is the Messiah. It is speaking of the lordship of the one to whom YHVH is speaking and not necessarily making any statement about the nature of God.

Again, I refer you to my explanation toward the beginning of this post about how a reference to one God does not necessarily have to be a reference to one being.

And again, your explanation begs the question and does not work.

But you are missing one of Paul’s points. You could also call false gods, imaginary gods. They really don’t exist as actual gods. So when Paul says, “as there BE gods many, and lords manyâ€, one could conclude that he is saying there are also gods many and lords many that are real and not imaginary. This could be argued as the reason he said, “TO US, there is but one God the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christâ€. Besides, do you really think that Paul believed there were false gods in the real heaven?

I cannot follow this argument, it makes no sense to me. There is simply no way to conclude that Paul "is saying there are also gods many and lords many that are real and not imaginary." His whole point is that these so-called gods and lords are not actually gods and lords, hence his contrasting them with the one true God and Lord.

Yes there are false gods in the heavens. Many religions throughout history have worshiped the sun, moon and stars.

There was no dodge. You stated: "We believe they are each a God, but are still part of the one and only God." It is contradictory to say that three separate Gods can be one God.

How is this any more contradictory than to say there are three persons in one being?
But I have explained above how it is not contradictory. What is unbiblical with my explanation?

The definition(s) of the Trinity was first stated with different terms precisely to avoid contradiction. Three Gods cannot be one God; three Persons cannot be one Person. What the Bible makes clear is that there is a diversity within the unity of the one being that is God.

What is unbiblical is that there is only one God and only ever will be one God, as this is what the Bible shows.

My above explanation goes into better detail this time to show how it is not contradictory for there to be one God in one sense and more than one God in another.

No, it is still a logical contradiction. There is no other sense in which any being other than the one true God can be called God.

The idea that the Father or the Son could not have evolved to be Gods sometime before “the beginning†referred to by the Bible, is not found in the Bible. Therefore such a belief is not a biblical belief. Mormons believe that the beings who since sometime before “the beginning†of the Bible have been God, are eternal beings, as are we. As a God they live in the past, present and future simultaneously, so they ARE God from all eternity to all eternity. There is nothing in the Bible that says that this cannot be. Anything that says it cannot be is pure conjecture.

This is completely unbiblical. There is only one God who is the eternal Creator; there is no other. But most importantly, we are not eternal beings, that idea is never found in Scripture and is pure conjecture.

Eternal preexistence is an attribute of God alone; that is precisely one of the things that makes him God. Everything else in existence was created by him and never existed in any form whatsoever prior to creation. This is absolutely foundational to Christianity.

But you do not seem to understand the Scriptures I gave. All those passages show, beyond question, that there always has been and always will be only one God. From the very first verse of Scripture to the last. There has never existed another God, whether eternal or created, nor will there ever exist another God. This is a significant problem for Mormon theology.

This statement is answered in my explanation toward the beginning of this post.

Again, your explanation begs the question and does not address how these verses simply and clearly state that there never has been nor ever will be another God other than the one true God.

John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." Here, "one" or en, is neuter which "implies unity of essence, not merely or will or of power." (Vincent's Word Studies)

The Greek word for one here is the same one used in John 17. What does unity of essence mean, anyway? Essence of what? If you mean that essence means they are one being, then couldn’t it just as easily mean one person? Yet the Nicene Creed says they are separate persons. The argument could be made that the essence of God is His attributes. If that is what is being referred to here, Mormons have no problem with that. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost being united in their attributes of love, mercy, justice, etc. fits perfectly into my explanation near the beginning of this post.

It doesn't matter that the word itself is the same, if the gender is different it brings about a slightly different meaning.

Even despite that, the clear biblical teaching of monotheism with the teaching that Jesus is in some way God (John 1:1-3; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:5-8; Col 1:16-17), yet not the Father, clearly shows that they are one in essence.

If you read these scriptures with my above explanation of the oneness of God in mind, there is no contradiction. It all fits. And again I ask, what does “one in essence†mean?

Your explanation does nothing to address these passages. "One in essence" is likely to be similar to "one in substance" and all those attributes which make God, God.

I’m glad you agree that their oneness here is referring to a special unity that can also be shared by believers. Why couldn’t this be the only way that they are one? Nowhere does the Bible say anything about being one in essence. It comes from the Greek schoolmen of the 4th century. John 17 says, “as we are oneâ€. This is the only place I am aware of in the Bible, where it even infers HOW they are one.

Don't say what the Bible doesn't say without studying what it says in the Greek. Besides, your position comes from one guy in the 19th century, so arguing to a certain group at a certain point in time is not going to be a good argument for you.

Again, John 17 is speaking of some sort of union between the Father and the Son and then with believers. There is nothing at all to suggest that we can become gods.

There is nothing there that suggests they can’t either. Why couldn’t being one with the Father and the Son in the same way that they are one with each other, infer that we would be gods? Where does the Bible say explicitly that man cannot become a god sometime in the future eternities?

There is everything to suggest we can't. The whole of Scripture testifies to this. We are creatures and by definition, cannot ever be gods. Scripture need not state it explicitly to make it true.

Scripture begins with creation and man in the garden with the command to subdue the earth and be fruitful and multiply. The Bible then ends with man back in the garden and all of creation put back the way it was intended. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that eternity will be something other than a return to what God had first intended.

Again, all these scriptures are well known to Latter-day Saints. If you read them with the understanding of my explanation near the beginning of this post there is no contradiction.

Clearly these Scriptures are not known in the way they should be known and have been filled with baseless presuppositions to make them say things they do not say. They have been eisegeted by Mormonism, not exegeted as they should be.

There is still no biblical support for the idea that there is more than one God or that there ever will be.

Thanks for the exchange.

You're welcome.

 

[proveallthings]

I am unsure as to what you are saying here as it doesn't go against anything I said. In fact, it actually supports what I said.

If that is the case, we are in agreement about what is most important about belief in God. That is my whole point.

If, as you say, the passages I gave are to "[persuade] the people to avoid these false gods...because they lead us away from Him," then they still support that there is only one God. Put another way, if God is emphatically emphasizing that all other gods are false, then he is still saying that there is and never will be another true God, not one.
You are begging the question. The Bible is clear that there is only one God and ever will be one God. We are to never worship as God any created being or thing as they are not God.

Again, this is my whole point. Mormons agree that there is only one God "for us" as Paul said. Mormons believe in worshiping only one God. We also agree with Paul that there may be other gods that we are not allowed to worship, but what is important is knowing the true God and worshiping Him. As you admitted, the only context in the Bible for God to emphasize the idea of only one God was to persuade those being addressed to not worship false gods. Mormons do not worship or believe any of those gods are real. According to the Bible this is the only reason to believe in the One God and Mormons are in perfect compliance with this Biblical command of God.

Please explain why my explanation begs the question. I don't see how it does. Perhaps you just need to read it more carefully with an open mind and a desire to understand.

 

[Free]

If that is the case, we are in agreement about what is most important about belief in God. That is my whole point.

Just what is it that you think we are in agreement about?

Again, this is my whole point. Mormons agree that there is only one God "for us" as Paul said. Mormons believe in worshiping only one God. We also agree with Paul that there may be other gods that we are not allowed to worship, but what is important is knowing the true God and worshiping Him. As you admitted, the only context in the Bible for God to emphasize the idea of only one God was to persuade those being addressed to not worship false gods. Mormons do not worship or believe any of those gods are real. According to the Bible this is the only reason to believe in the One God and Mormons are in perfect compliance with this Biblical command of God.

Clearly this is not precisely what Mormons believe. Mormons believe there are other literal Gods, just not of this world. This is how you can say we are to only worship the one God, despite even the contradiction that he is three Gods.

However, God himself, the creator of everything that is in existence and began to exist, says there are no other gods and never will be. This means none existed with him prior to creation. God is the only God in existence; that is precisely one of the things that makes him the only true God. If every other god is a false god, then that supports what I have been saying: there are no other gods. Period. There are no gods of other planets, Mormon men will not become gods of their own planets. There is only one God in existence and always will be only one God in existence. This is absolutely foundational to both Judaism and Christianity.

Please explain why my explanation begs the question. I don't see how it does. Perhaps you just need to read it more carefully with an open mind and a desire to understand.

You approach Scripture already believing there is more than one God in existence and then use the Bible to prove that there is. But you are ignoring what is clearly and plainly stated in Scripture, and that is, that there is no other God in existence, there never has been and never will be.

 

[Comprehender]

LDS/Mormons are taught in practice to worship church leaders above anything. They will never admit they worship & prioritize a prophet's command over any scripture - even Jesus' teachings, but the reality in practice is that they do.
So in a sense, their god is their prophet, who they consider the spokesman representative of God, who members believe, will never lead the church astray. In Elder's Quorum, Relief Society & to an extent Young Men/Women & Primary, Prophets are discussed for an hour each Sunday. Each member was given a manual each year, highlighting the teachings of particular church prophets and their his-stories. During worship services ("Sacrament Meeting") they sing "Praise to the Man" - which is a song praising Joseph Smith.

This is clearly against the commandment to not have any other gods before God.
It is also against what Jesus said were the 2 greatest commandments: to love god (& as we love God we love others) & to love others as ourselves... "on these 2 commandments hang all the law and the PROPHETS." -Matt 22:40
The LDS/Mormon teachings to prioritize unquestiong obedience to their prophets also contradicts their own doctrine... Satan's plan in the pre-existence "war in heaven" was to demand unquestioning obedience.
Also, their scripture in the Book of Mormon states that all things (including prophets and their prophecies) WILL FAIL - except "charity, which is the pure love of christ... charity endureth forever." -Moroni 7:47

 

[proveallthings]

Just what is it that you think we are in agreement about?

You agreed with my comment that whenever God, in the Bible, emphasizes the idea of only one God, he is doing so to persuade those He is addressing to avoid gods that offer an alternative gospel, a false path to happiness, ideas that draw us away from Him. That is what we seem to be in agreement about.

The other true gods that Mormonism acknowledges the existence of, are only true because they have become one with the Father and the Son and do not follow a false gospel. Therefore, they are not part of the subject matter being referred to when the Bible speaks of false gods.

If you know much about early Christian history, you are aware of the great early Christian Father, Origen. What he says in reference to 1Corinthians 8:5-6 explains my point quite well. “Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods...[However], as, then there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 8:5-6)â€. You see, much of the Mormon teachings that you condemn were taught very clearly by your early Christian Fathers. The closer you get to the first century, the closer the teachings of Christianity get to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You previously said that my explanation only begged the question. I then asked how my explanation was begging the question and this was your reply:

You approach Scripture already believing there is more than one God in existence and then use the Bible to prove that there is. But you are ignoring what is clearly and plainly stated in Scripture, and that is, that there is no other God in existence, there never has been and never will be.

What you are describing here is not begging any question, but simply the fact that I am subjective when approaching this subject. This is a condition we are all in and cannot avoid. Bringing it up only avoids confronting my argument head on.

I keep explaining that in one sense there is only one God, but in another sense there are multiple Gods or gods, which makes the idea compatible with the Bible. You have not explained why the Biblical idea of one God could not just be referring to the ONE WAY that was given to Christ by the Father and Christ to us, or to one, perfectly united, divine community. You only just keep repeating that the Bible says there is only one God. You avoid explaining why my definition is not Biblical. Repeating the fact that the Bible says several times that there is only one God, does not counter my explanation, because my explanation agrees with that idea.

 

[proveallthings]

LDS/Mormons are taught in practice to worship church leaders above anything. They will never admit they worship & prioritize a prophet's command over any scripture - even Jesus' teachings, but the reality in practice is that they do.
So in a sense, their god is their prophet, who they consider the spokesman representative of God, who members believe, will never lead the church astray. In Elder's Quorum, Relief Society & to an extent Young Men/Women & Primary, Prophets are discussed for an hour each Sunday. Each member was given a manual each year, highlighting the teachings of particular church prophets and their his-stories. During worship services ("Sacrament Meeting") they sing "Praise to the Man" - which is a song praising Joseph Smith.

This is clearly against the commandment to not have any other gods before God.
It is also against what Jesus said were the 2 greatest commandments: to love god (& as we love God we love others) & to love others as ourselves... "on these 2 commandments hang all the law and the PROPHETS." -Matt 22:40
The LDS/Mormon teachings to prioritize unquestiong obedience to their prophets also contradicts their own doctrine... Satan's plan in the pre-existence "war in heaven" was to demand unquestioning obedience.
Also, their scripture in the Book of Mormon states that all things (including prophets and their prophecies) WILL FAIL - except "charity, which is the pure love of christ... charity endureth forever." -Moroni 7:47

Comprehender, you show here that while you may comprehend some things, Mormonism is certainly not one of them. Mormons follow and obey their leaders in exactly the same way the saints of the Bible followed and obeyed the apostles. We are taught not to follow any of them blindly, but to seek confirmation from the Holy Ghost. Following living prophets and apostles is secondary to our personal relationship to God. A person is not a true Latter-day Saint who blindly follows his or her church leaders. The teachings of our leaders reference the scriptures as much as any Protestant or Catholic leader does. We are also admonished very strongly to prayerfully search the scriptures ourselves on our own and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our daily lives. Is this not exactly what we see with the early saints of the New Testament?

 

[Free]

The other true gods that Mormonism acknowledges the existence of, are only true because they have become one with the Father and the Son and do not follow a false gospel. Therefore, they are not part of the subject matter being referred to when the Bible speaks of false gods.

They are very much a part of the subject matter. God himself, the creator, clearly and unequivocally states that he knows of no other gods, that there were none before him (since he is the creator of everything) and there are none after.

If you know much about early Christian history, you are aware of the great early Christian Father, Origen. What he says in reference to 1Corinthians 8:5-6 explains my point quite well. “Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods...[However], as, then there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 8:5-6)â€. You see, much of the Mormon teachings that you condemn were taught very clearly by your early Christian Fathers. The closer you get to the first century, the closer the teachings of Christianity get to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Interesting how you quote one early church father who is known for his aberrant teachings and then pluralize it as those many taught it. Something you keep neglecting is that Judaism is strictly monotheistic and that Christianity came from Judaism. Christianity always was and is strictly monotheistic. That some here and there may have had different thoughts on the matter doesn't change that. Arguing to Origen on this matter does not help your case.

I keep explaining that in one sense there is only one God, but in another sense there are multiple Gods or gods, which makes the idea compatible with the Bible. You have not explained why the Biblical idea of one God could not just be referring to the ONE WAY that was given to Christ by the Father and Christ to us, or to one, perfectly united, divine community. You only just keep repeating that the Bible says there is only one God. You avoid explaining why my definition is not Biblical. Repeating the fact that the Bible says several times that there is only one God, does not counter my explanation, because my explanation agrees with that idea.

I keep repeating myself precisely because your explanation proposes polytheism which is anti-biblical. I have avoided nothing because your explanation does not agree with the idea that there is one, and only one, God. That is my point.

 

[Comprehender]

Comprehender, you show here that while you may comprehend some things, Mormonism is certainly not one of them. Mormons follow and obey their leaders in exactly the same way the saints of the Bible followed and obeyed the apostles. We are taught not to follow any of them blindly, but to seek confirmation from the Holy Ghost. Following living prophets and apostles is secondary to our personal relationship to God. A person is not a true Latter-day Saint who blindly follows his or her church leaders. The teachings of our leaders reference the scriptures as much as any Protestant or Catholic leader does. We are also admonished very strongly to prayerfully search the scriptures ourselves on our own and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our daily lives. Is this not exactly what we see with the early saints of the New Testament?

If LDS members worshiped God, they'd share tithes with those in need as instructed in Deut 14:28-29, not give it to church leaders. When LDS members they do give to church leaders, they consider it giving to God. If LDS members worshipped God, they'd see deception and exploitation for what it is... that when LDS leaders "charge money" for worthiness & try to hide scripture teachings about sharing TITHES with poor, LDS leaders are lying, deceiving and exploiting members.

If LDS members worshipped God, they'd realize that there are no "members" or "non-members" - but ALL are God's.

If LDS members worshipped God, that which is GOoD/LOVE... Utah (which is most influced by Mormonism) wouldn't lead the nation in anti-depressants.

If LDS members worshipped God, they would prioritize ministering to those in need, as if it were God, instead of worshipping the words of church leaders (in curriculum and in General Conferences).

If LDS members worshipped God, they would not try to justify robbing of the poor and using Jesus Christ's name to make money in another corporation (Mall).