Mormonism - Rejecting the sine qua non of Christian orthodoxy

[Red Rooster]

Greetings Friends,
I have spent several weeks reading through many of the posts regarding Mormonism. There is alot of debate going on (much of it sarcastic, demeaning and accusatory unfortunately) about many different topics. It seems to me that productive dialogue should center around essential Christian doctrines. If the teachings of the Mormon church, both contemporary and historical, are found to be in error when compared to biblical orthodoxy, then they must be rejected. The ONLY method of determining what is scriptural is through sound hermeneutics and diligent exegesis. The Bible is literature, and as such, we approach the study of scripture as we would other literary works. That is to say, we employ the same methods to determine its veracity and authenticity as we would other ancient writings. When we debate the essential doctrines that define what it is to be Christian, we have to go to the text to determine meaning. Beginning with Joseph Smith, Mormons have consistently failed to apply the art and science of interpretation to their study of the Bible, relying instead on subjective feelings and continuing revelation.

Perhaps no doctrine separates two theological systems so sharply as the nature of God. This is where I would like to begin in my next post. I welcome vigorous debate that is honest and irenic in tone. I have family that joined the LDS in the early eighties, so I do have a passionate interest in the doctrinal differences. Let me preface my next post with this: Mormons can insist they are right in their beliefs. Thay can say that Christians are apostate. But what neither Christians nor Mormons can say is that Mormonism is Christianity.

Peace,
Red Rooster

[Bib Lit Major]

I look foward to reading through this! :thumb:

[Bill the Cat]

Rooster, I am in this debate you speak of. If you read carefully, the Mormons claim orthodox Christianity is apostate from the teachings of the Apostles. The charge will not stand. you must first get them to define exactly what their position is, what the words they use mean and where they get their information. They do not believe that all truth is contained in the Bible.

But Good luck!! :btc:

[dizzle]

. But what neither Christians nor Mormons can say is that Mormonism is Christianity.


Exactly. I know that many Mormons are very fine people and we have much in common in common cause issues, but it is not Christianity if words have any meaning at all.

[Red Rooster]

Greetings,

Christian orthodoxy can be fairly summarized by the following biblical truths:

~ There is only one true God
~ God has eternally been God
~ God is the creator (ex nihilo) of all things
~ God is immutable
~ God is independent of his creation
~ God is all powerful

I'd like to consider the first subject on this list. Orthodox Christianity is unwaveringly monotheistic. This is the clear teaching of the Scriptures, the apostles, and the creeds of the early church. Mormonism by contrast is polytheistic in its theology. It must be necessarily so to lay the foundation for the doctrine of eternal progression. Logically, if man can become god, and God was once a man, we have a multitude of exalted beings. The emphasis of Smith's doctrine was not so much the idea of a plurality of gods, but rather the exaltation of man to god through his eternal progression. The prophets and apostles that succeeded consistently and emphatically taught and continue to teach the same doctrine.

"We believe in one God". Absolute, ontological monotheism is foundational to Christianity. To be a Christian , one must believe this about God. Any deviance from this most basic, biblical truth places one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into heresy. In his King Follet Discourse, Smith had much more to declare about the nature of God. We'll next look at the second item on the list in light of Mormon doctrine.

I have not provided references to scripture or Joseph Smith but I would be glad to if necessary. But if we go to the text, be ready to break out the lexicon!

His Peace,
RR

[John Powell]

RED ROOSTER (RR):
. . . But what neither Christians nor Mormons can say is that Mormonism is Christianity.


JOHN MORMON (My former believing self):
Then to be consistent RR, you should say that Mormons aren't theists either because they don't believe in the God that really exists (according to you). Right?

Your argument is that Mormons aren't Christians because they don't believe in Christ the same way that "orthodox" Christians do. Therefore, you should also say that Mormons aren't theists because they don't believe in God the same way that "orthodox" theists do. Right?


RR:
The Nature of God

Greetings,

Christian orthodoxy can be fairly summarized by the following biblical truths:

~ There is only one true God
~ God has eternally been God
~ God is the creator (ex nihilo) of all things
~ God is immutable
~ God is independent of his creation
~ God is all powerful

I'd like to consider the first subject on this list. Orthodox Christianity is unwaveringly monotheistic.


JOHN MORMON:
Misleading. They are trinitarian, which is a strange kind of monotheism. They believe in one substance that is God, but three separate persons that each have all that substance, not just part.

Mormons believe in one Godhead over this world.

RR:
This is the clear teaching of the Scriptures, the apostles, and the creeds of the early church.


JM:
If it's so clear that there's only one God thing, RR, then why did the Christians add Jesus as a God thing and the Holy Spirit as another God thing?

RR:
Mormonism by contrast is polytheistic in its theology.


JM:
In a sense yes, but not in the sense that polytheism is usually understood. The historical polytheistic religions had their gods often doing their own thing despite the will of the supreme God, sometimes they were even in outright rebellion. Think of the Romans and Greeks. In Mormonism this rarely happens (the fall of Satan would be an exception).

RR:
It must be necessarily so to lay the foundation for the doctrine of eternal progression. Logically, if man can become god, and God was once a man, we have a multitude of exalted beings. The emphasis of Smith's doctrine was not so much the idea of a plurality of gods, but rather the exaltation of man to god through his eternal progression. The prophets and apostles that succeeded consistently and emphatically taught and continue to teach the same doctrine.

"We believe in one God". Absolute, ontological monotheism is foundational to Christianity. To be a Christian , one must believe this about God.


JM:
To be "orthodox" Christian one must believe this. Remember what you wrote at the top, RR. You're describing what it means to be "orthodox" Christian, not merely Christian.

RR:
Any deviance from this most basic, biblical truth places one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into heresy.


JM:
Fine. Let's agree for the moment that Mormons are heretics with respect to "orthodox" Christianity. That does not mean they aren't Christians, however. In fact, it means you should accept that they are "heretic Christians," right?

RR:
In his King Follet Discourse, Smith had much more to declare about the nature of God. We'll next look at the second item on the list in light of Mormon doctrine.

I have not provided references to scripture or Joseph Smith but I would be glad to if necessary. But if we go to the text, be ready to break out the lexicon!

His Peace,
RR


JOHN MORMON:
Fine.

John Powell

[Bill the Cat]

John, whether a god exists or not does not negate the belief in it/him/her/they. Belief is what defines a theist, not existence.

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 11:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146191#post146191)
John Powell:

JM:
Fine. Let's agree for the moment that Mormons are heretics with respect to "orthodox" Christianity. That does not mean they aren't Christians, however. In fact, it means you should accept that they are "heretic Christians," right?


Although Christians were once considered a sect of Judaism, Mormonism could never be considered a sect of Judaism, because Judaism is monotheistic (and always has been).

If you presented your views of "god" and "heaven" and the afterlife to any Jew, from any jewish sect, they wouldn't call you a heretic, they'd call you a polytheist. And if you did it today, in some neighborhoods of Jerusalem, you'd be stoned for your pagan ideas.

Unlike your views, Christians were at first considered another Jewish sect, and often worshipped in the temple or synogagues with Jews.

Jacob

[John Powell]

BILL THE CAT:
John, whether a god exists or not does not negate the belief in it/him/her/they. Belief is what defines a theist, not existence.


JOHN MORMON:
Exactly, Bill. Likewise whether one's belief ABOUT Jesus are correct or not does not negate belief IN Jesus. Belief in Jesus as God (or god) or something like that is what defines a Christian, not whether those specific beliefs about Him are true in reality.

POWELL:
It does not matter if Jesus isn't actually God, nor does it matter if Jesus was even a historical person for this determination of who is a Christian.

John Powell

[Bill the Cat]

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Gnostics believed in a form of Jesus but were sternly labeled as not Christian by Paul, John, Iraneas, etc...

[John Powell]

JACOB:
Although Christians were once considered a sect of Judaism, Mormonism could never be considered a sect of Judaism, because Judaism is monotheistic (and always has been).


JOHN MORMON:
Mormonism is monotheistic in the sense that they believe in one Godhead or presidency of Gods that isn't divided by purpose like historical polytheistic religions.

The Christian 3 God thing is significantly different from the Jewish 1 God thing. In some ways, one might argue that the trinitarian vew of God is more different from the Jewish than the Mormon concept.

JACOB:
If you presented your views of "god" and "heaven" and the afterlife to any Jew, from any jewish sect, they wouldn't call you a heretic, they'd call you a polytheist. And if you did it today, in some neighborhoods of Jerusalem, you'd be stoned for your pagan ideas.


JOHN MORMON:
Are you suggesting that Jews of those neighborhoods are that backwards in their social tolerance?

JACOB:
Unlike your views, Christians were at first considered another Jewish sect, and often worshipped in the temple or synogagues with Jews.

Jacob


JOHN MORMON:
Were those Christian Jews believers in Jesus as the Son of God / the servant of God, or as God Himself?

You make the mistake, Jacob, of assuming that you and the early Christians had the same beliefs that were different from the Mormons. This is controversial.

John Powell

[John Powell]

BILL THE CAT:
Nothing could be further from the truth.


JOHN MORMON:
You're exaggerating, Bill.

BILL THE CAT:
The Gnostics believed in a form of Jesus but were sternly labeled as not Christian by Paul, John, Iraneas, etc...


JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps we could consider the passages supporting that position. Ok?

Maybe Paul, John, and the others were merely asserting that other Christian groups weren't Christian in the same way that Paul, et. al. were Christian. In other words, that those others weren't "authorized" Christians or something like that.

POWELL:
While waiting for that, however, let's jump to a related issue of name calling.

The Romans called the Christians atheists, Bill, so why do modern Christians feel justified in refusing to accept that designation? Could it be that ancient sources for definitions aren't necessarily applicable today? Could it be that definitions of things like "atheist" and "Christian" sometimes change over the centuries?

John Powell

[Red Rooster]

Bill, first a quick comment on your initial reply:

Many, if not most Mormons will say they are Christian. This puts them in an untenable position. To say "We are just like you with only a few minor differences" on one hand, and then assert that Christianity is apostate is in effect relegating themselves to apostasy as well - if they want to say they believe the same things Christians believe. I have pressed my family members on christian apostasy and they do not hold to that. They believe I am "ok" as far as my eternal destiny. I suspect they believe I'm headed for the Terrestrial Kingdom. However, if you press the leaders and the apologists, they will admit that they are not Christian nor do they want to be because Christian "sects" are apostate. Now they will not say this to the press. The Church has been very careful to present itself as "christian" to the media for obvious reasons.




Thanks for your response.

[Red Rooster]

[QUOTE]Yesterday @ 05:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146191#post146191)
John Powell:

John Mormon,
Thanks for the response. I'll try to take these one at a time.

JOHN MORMON (My former believing self):
Then to be consistent RR, you should say that Mormons aren't theists either because they don't believe in the God that really exists (according to you). Right?

Bill handled that one pretty well.

JM - Your argument is that Mormons aren't Christians because they don't believe in Christ the same way that "orthodox" Christians do. Therefore, you should also say that Mormons aren't theists because they don't believe in God the same way that "orthodox" theists do. Right?

No Sir. My argument is Mormons aren't Christians because they don't beleive in the Christ revealed in the Bible, the true Christ. Their's is a false christ. Mormons aren't theists because they do not believe in the same God as Christians, not because they don't believe in God in the same way as Christians.



JOHN MORMON:
Misleading. They are trinitarian, which is a strange kind of monotheism. They believe in one substance that is God, but three separate persons that each have all that substance, not just part.

Mormons believe in one Godhead over this world.

To say that Christianity is unwaveringly monotheistic is not misleading at all. I have no doubt Trinitarianism is strange to Jews and Muslems. It is the doctrine of the Trinity that distinguishes christian monotheism from Islam and Judaism. The Trinity is implicitly revealed in Scripture. The Bible cannot be interpreted correctly apart from Trinitarianism. The fact that we can't understand the Trinity does not make it an errant doctrine. To be Christian, you must be trinitarian. Mormon doctrine denies the Trinity.

JM:
If it's so clear that there's only one God thing, RR, then why did the Christians add Jesus as a God thing and the Holy Spirit as another God thing?

I'm not sure I follow this one(god thing?). Christians didn't "add" the teaching of the deity of Jesus and the Holy Ghost, they believed it - because this is what Jesus and the apostles taught. Christ claimed to be God. He taught his disciples that he was God. He proved he was God by his miracles, sinless life and resurrection. The apostles merely continued to teach what Jesus taught and what they believed to be true about him because they were witnesses of these things. The church fathers taught the same and we continue to teach and believe this today.



JM:
In a sense yes, but not in the sense that polytheism is usually understood. The historical polytheistic religions had their gods often doing their own thing despite the will of the supreme God, sometimes they were even in outright rebellion. Think of the Romans and Greeks. In Mormonism this rarely happens (the fall of Satan would be an exception).

There are no shades of polytheism John. You either believe in one god or in more than one god. Henotheism is a form of polytheism. This is what mormon doctrine teaches.


JM:
To be "orthodox" Christian one must believe this. Remember what you wrote at the top, RR. You're describing what it means to be "orthodox" Christian, not merely Christian.

You are making a false distinction between orthodox Christian and Christian. To be orthodox is to hold to the essential doctrines. If you do not believe the essentials you are not a Christian.



JM:
Fine. Let's agree for the moment that Mormons are heretics with respect to "orthodox" Christianity. That does not mean they aren't Christians, however. In fact, it means you should accept that they are "heretic Christians," right?

I pretty well covered this above. "Heretic christian" is an oxymoron.

Supper's on the table so I'll be off now.

His Peace,
Rooster

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON (JM):
Then to be consistent RR, you should say that Mormons aren't theists either because they don't believe in the God that really exists (according to you). Right?

RED ROOSTER (RR):
Bill handled that one pretty well.


JM:
Then could you indicate what your position is? Are Mormons theists?

JM:
Your argument is that Mormons aren't Christians because they don't believe in Christ the same way that "orthodox" Christians do. Therefore, you should also say that Mormons aren't theists because they don't believe in God the same way that "orthodox" theists do. Right?

RR:
No Sir. My argument is Mormons aren't Christians because they don't beleive in the Christ revealed in the Bible, the true Christ. Their's is a false christ. Mormons aren't theists because they do not believe in the same God as Christians, not because they don't believe in God in the same way as Christians.


JM:
Ok, so you believe that "Mormons are not theists," is that correct?

POWELL:
Then, RR, that suggests that you should think that Mormons are atheists since atheist means "not theist" like "amoral" means "not moral."

JM:
Misleading. They are trinitarian, which is a strange kind of monotheism. They believe in one substance that is God, but three separate persons that each have all that substance, not just part.

Mormons believe in one Godhead over this world.

RR:
To say that Christianity is unwaveringly monotheistic is not misleading at all.


JM:
Well then is it one God thing or three God things that you believe in, RR?

RR:
I have no doubt Trinitarianism is strange to Jews and Muslems. It is the doctrine of the Trinity that distinguishes christian monotheism from Islam and Judaism.


JM:
Exactly. It's a unique kind of monotheism: one substance = one God, but three persons who share that substance, but each have all of it. I would not characterize that as "unwaveringly" in support of monotheism.

RR:
The Trinity is implicitly revealed in Scripture. The Bible cannot be interpreted correctly apart from trinitarianism.


JM:
That's clearly wrong. Jews and Mormons do it, therefore it can be done. Perhaps you meant to put "properly" in there.

RR:
The fact that we can't understand the Trinity does not make it an errant doctrine.


JM:
Agreed.

RR:
To be Christian, you must be trinitarian. Mormon doctrine denies the Trinity.


JM:
So, RR, are you defining a Christian to be someone who believes that the Jesus of the Bible is the triune God?

JM (this should be POWELL):
If it's so clear that there's only one God thing, RR, then why did the Christians add Jesus as a God thing and the Holy Spirit as another God thing?

RR:
I'm not sure I follow this one(god thing?). Christians didn't "add" the teaching of the deity of Jesus and the Holy Ghost, they belived it - because this is what Jesus and the apostles taught. Christ claimed to be God. He taught his disciples that he was God. He proved he was God by his miracles, sinless life and resurrection. The apostles merely continued to teach what Jesus taught and what they believed to be true about him because they were witnesses of these things. The church fathers taught the same as we do today.


POWELL:
I meant this Christian concept was added to the one God thing described in the Old Testament.

JM:
In a sense yes, but not in the sense that polytheism is usually understood. The historical polytheistic religions had their gods often doing their own thing despite the will of the supreme God, sometimes they were even in outright rebellion. Think of the Romans and Greeks. In Mormonism this rarely happens (the fall of Satan would be an exception).

RR:
There are no shades of polytheism John. You either believe in one god or in more than one god. Henotheism is a form of polytheism. This is what mormon doctrine teaches.


JM:
Oh really. If it's so clear then tell me if the following is an example of mono or polytheism.

Person A believes that the Father is God and he believes that Jesus is God and he believes that the Holy Spirit is God and he believes that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate persons. Does person A believe in one God or three Gods?

JM:
To be "orthodox" Christian one must believe this. Remember what you wrote at the top, RR. You're describing what it means to be "orthodox" Christian, not merely Christian.

RR:
You are making a false distinction between orthodox Christian and Christian. To be orthodox is to hold to the essential doctrines. If you do not believe the essentials you are not a Christian.


JM:
Are you saying that "unorthodox Christian" is a contradiction of terms, a logical impossibility?

JM:
Fine. Let's agree for the moment that Mormons are heretics with respect to "orthodox" Christianity. That does not mean they aren't Christians, however. In fact, it means you should accept that they are "heretic Christians," right?

RR:
I pretty well covered this above. "Heretic christian" is an oxymoron.

Supper's on the table so I'll be off now.

His Peace,
Rooster


JM:
Then I take it that you believe that "unorthodox Christian" is also an oxymoron, right?

John Powell

[Red Rooster]

Hi John Mormon,
Here goes:



John Powell:

JM:
Then could you indicate what your position is? Are Mormons theists?



JM:
Ok, so you believe that "Mormons are not theists," is that correct?

Mormons are polythiests. I thought I made that point pretty clear.


POWELL:
Then, RR, that suggests that you should think that Mormons are atheists since atheist means "not theist" like "amoral" means "not moral."

See above


JM:
Well then is it one God thing or three God things that you believe in, RR?

One God who is not a "thing", but who reveals himself to us in three persons. C'mon John, this is basic Nicene, Athanasian Creed. I accept those creeds because they were derived from scripture.



JM:
Exactly. It's a unique kind of monotheism: one substance = one God, but three persons who share that substance, but each have all of it. I would not characterize that as "unwaveringly" in support of monotheism.



JM:
That's clearly wrong. Jews and Mormons do it, therefore it can be done. Perhaps you meant to put "properly" in there.

Agreed.


JM:
So, RR, are you defining a Christian to be someone who believes that the Jesus of the Bible is the triune God?

Yes




JM:
Oh really. If it's so clear then tell me if the following is an example of mono or polytheism.

Person A believes that the Father is God and he believes that Jesus is God and he believes that the Holy Spirit is God and he believes that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate persons. Does person A believe in one God or three Gods?

One

JM:
Are you saying that "unorthodox Christian" is a contradiction of terms, a logical impossibility?



JM:
Then I take it that you believe that "unorthodox Christian" is also an oxymoron, right?

Yes

John Powell

By the way, John, Did I read in another post that you left the LDS church, and you are playing the "mormon's advocate" so-to-speak? Where are you now in terms of what you believe?

Rooster

[John Powell]

RED ROOSTER (RR):
Hi John Mormon,
Here goes:

JOHN MORMON (JM):
Then could you indicate what your position is? Are Mormons theists?

JM:
Ok, so you believe that "Mormons are not theists," is that correct?

RR:
Mormons are polythiests. I thought I made that point pretty clear.


JM:
Perhaps. Your answer to what person A is, however, suggests it's not as clear as you seem to think.

POWELL (atheist):
Then, RR, that suggests that you should think that Mormons are atheists since atheist means "not theist" like "amoral" means "not moral."

RR:
See above


POWELL:
Are you denying that "atheist" means "not a theist," RR?

Didn't you claim that Mormons are NOT theists, RR? Let me requote you below.

RR
Mormons aren't theists because they do not believe in the same God as Christians, not because they don't believe in God in the same way as Christians.


POWELL:
Do the dictionaries support you in this position, RR, or is this claim that Mormons aren't theists something you came up with on your own?

You don't seem to realize, RR, that to be a polytheist or a monotheist or a henotheist requires that you also be a theist. These others are subsets of theism.

JM:
Well then is it one God thing or three God things that you believe in, RR?

RR:
One God who is not a "thing", but who reveals himself to us in three persons.


JM:
You don't seem to realize, RR, that everything is a thing, even God. Do you disagree? On the contrary, do you believe that some things aren't things?

So, RR, to make sure you said what you mean do you deny that you believe in three God things?

RR:
C'mon John, this is basic Nicene, Athanasian Creed. I accept those creeds because they were derived from scripture.


JM:
Sure, so it should be relatively easy for you to explain it, right? It's been Christian doctrine for a long time, right?

JM:
Exactly. It's a unique kind of monotheism: one substance = one God, but three persons who share that substance, but each have all of it. I would not characterize that as "unwaveringly" in support of monotheism.

JM:
That's clearly wrong. Jews and Mormons do it, therefore it can be done. Perhaps you meant to put "properly" in there.

RR:
Agreed.

JM:
So, RR, are you defining a Christian to be someone who believes that the Jesus of the Bible is the triune God?

RR:
Yes


JM:
I see. Do the dictionaries support you in this position or is this something you made up on your own?

JM:
Oh really. If it's so clear then tell me if the following is an example of mono or polytheism.

Person A believes that the Father is God and he believes that Jesus is God and he believes that the Holy Spirit is God and he believes that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate persons. Does person A believe in one God or three Gods?

RR:
One


JM:
Good. Mormons believe this, so wouldn't that suggest that they are monotheists to you, RR?

JM:
Are you saying that "unorthodox Christian" is a contradiction of terms, a logical impossibility?

JM:
Then I take it that you believe that "unorthodox Christian" is also an oxymoron, right?

Yes


JM:
So, orthodox Christians are the only kind of Christians there are, is that your position, RR?

RR:
By the way, John, Did I read in another post that you left the LDS church, and you are playing the "mormon's advocate" so-to-speak? Where are you now in terms of what you believe?


POWELL:
I'm an athe-ist or strong atheist.
I don't believe your triune OmniGod exists.
I don't know this like I don't know that Santa Claus, as usually described, does not exist, but I'm confident enough to boldly proclaim it.

My purpose in defending my former beliefs is for several reasons. One is to encourage more thoughtful, less emotional, dialogue at TWEB. Since you know that I don't really believe it anymore, you should be encouraged to focus on the arguments.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

[Red Rooster]

Greetings Friends,

I began this thread to discuss the differences between Mormon and Christian doctrine. My purpose is to show that the two are not compatible because Mormonism presents a very different theology from that which defines the essentials of Christianity. Some of these teachings, such as their doctrine of God are diametrically opposed to Christian theology. It has been my experience that the Mormons I meet and interact with, including members of my own family, truly believe that they are Christians and the differences are not that great. I believe this is so because there is a widespread lack within the Mormon church of thoughtful, spirit-led bible study coupled with a woeful lack of critical thinking with respect to the revelations, teachings and theology of LDS prophets and apostles. Mormons have much company in this regard. I believe biblical illiteracy poses the greatest threat to the Christian church as a whole. The immense popularity of Word of Faith teachers underscores this sad state of affairs. We simply do not know what the Bible says, so we are swept away into error. It is my hope that readers of these posts will think deeply about the claims of Joseph Smith and the men that followed him as leaders of the LDS in light of the Biblical text.

We first looked at the most fundamental difference between Mormon theology and Christian doctrine - that being the polytheism of Mormonism and the monotheism of Christianity. I'd like to examine God's immutability and his nature in the remainder of this post.

One of the interesting aspects of Smith's theology was the evolution it underwent between 1829 and 1844. His earlier writings affirmed the truth that there is only one, true God (Book of Mormon and early sections of D&C). But by 1836 this had changed. In June of 1844 Smith declared:

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods.

A few months later Smith delivered a sermon that would become the fountainhead of Mormon doctrine, the King Follet Discourse. Smith asserted he was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to speak on the nature of God. The following are excerpts from this famous sermon.

I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to SHOW WHAT KIND OF BEING GOD IS. What sort of being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible,...

Smith goes on to say:

GOD WAS ONCE AS WE ARE NOW, AND IS AN EXALTED MAN, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible - I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form - like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man;...

...for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I WILL REFUTE THAT IDEA, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

The Mormon must understand how blasphemous this is in light of Scripture, and how offensive to the Christian who has a high and reverant view of God. Here was a man who claimed to be a Christian prophet of God declaring that God once existed in a corporeal, human state. Smith claimed that God has a physical body for he is an exalted man, just as the 1838 edition of the First Vision asserts. If these things are true about God, then other things cannot be true. First, God has not been God from eternity. Secondly, if God has not been eternally God, then there must have been a god or gods before him.

I offer the following scriptures for consideration:

De.33:27 The ETERNAL God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.
Ps. 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from EVERLASTING TO EVERLASTING, THOU ART GOD.
Mal.3:6 For I am the Lord, I CHANGE NOT.
Ja. 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, WITH WHOM THERE IS NO VARIABLENESS, NEITHER SHADOW OF TURNING.
Num.23:19 GOD IS NOT A MAN, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.
Hos.11:9 ...for I am God, AND NOT A MAN; the Holy One in the midst of the.
John4:24 GOD IS A SPIRIT: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and TRUTH.
Is.42:8 I am the Lord: that is my name: AND MY GLORY I WILL NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER, niether my praise to graven images
Is43:10 BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME.
Is.44:6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I AM THE FIRST, AND I AM THE LAST; AND BESIDE ME THERE IS NO GOD.
IS.45:5 I am the Lord, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE, THERE IS NO GOD BESIDE ME:
Is.45:18 I am the Lord; AND THERE IS NONE ELSE
Is45:22 ... for I am God, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE
Is.46:9 Remeber the former things of old: for I am God, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE; I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE LIKE ME.

This is quite a list, but by no means exhaustive, that deals with God's true nature. He has always existed as God from eternity. He has not progressed fom man to God. He alone exists as God. I realize that many Mormons have encountered these passages and have followed their leaders in dismissing them as a matter of interpretation. But the intellectually honest person will utilize the tools available(lexicons, concordances, commentaries), take the time to study the words and context for themselves, and make their own decision as to the correct interpretation. Either these passages present essential christian truths about God, determined by context, auhtor's own belief and intent, a grammatical/historical and literal hermeneutic, or the explanations of these passages by Mormon apologists, prophets and apostles are correct, using some other method of interpretation.

His Peace,
Rooster

[Red Rooster]

John Mormon, I'm glad you want to stay focused. I think it would be more helpful to our Mormon readers if we stuck with defending and discussing doctrine. Whether Mormons are theists or not is really not an issue. I have read several of your posts on similar threads and you seem to be preoccupied with this issue. However, I"ll explain my use of "theist" so we can hopefully put this to rest.

I have two dictionaries on my desk. One is a Webster Collegiate and the other is a Merriam Webster. The older Collegiate defines theism as "One who believes in the existence of a god." The newer MW defines theism as "One who believes in the existence of a god or gods." So according to the former a theist would be one who believes in A god. The latter would define a theist as one who believes in one or more gods. I used the first definition in this discussion because it differentiates between monotheism and polytheism. By that definition a Mormon is not a theist. If you wish to classify Mormons as theists per the second definition, that's fine. Again, I don't think this is terribly productive dialogue. (My American Heritage at the office is consistent with the MW and defines theism as either or as well).

Regarding your other question:

JM:
So, RR, are you defining a Christian to be someone who believes that the Jesus of the Bible is the triune God?
RR:
Yes
JM:
I see. Do the dictionaries support you in this position or is this something you made up on your own?

The New American Heritage defines "christian" as - One who professes belief in Christianity.
Since Christianity teaches that Jesus is indeed part of the triune Godhead, this definition supports my statement. Sorry, I can't take credit for having "made that up on my own"! Therefore let me reiterate, a christian believes in the orthodox, historical, essential doctrines as set forth in scripture and debated and agreed upon in the councils. If you do not hold to essential christian doctrines you are not a Christian. Lets concentrate on the doctrinal differences instead of debating whether I know the definition of "thing" or not and the supposed difference between a christian and an orthodox christian.

To that end, would you please defend the Mormon doctrines concerning the nature of God mentioned previously, and would you do so from the Bible. I am aware of the "translated correctly" clause in the Articles of Faith. However, if Mormons claim the King James is scripture and they carry it around with them to sacrament meetings, and they quote and teach from it (occasionally), then I think it is fair to ask them to use it to defend their doctrines.

A case in point: Gordon Hinckley, in his book Standing For Something, includes 84 scripture references. Not one of them is from Mormon scripture. Hinckley takes all 84 quotes from the Bible. Surely he would not do so if he lacked confidence in the correct translation of the passages he used. If there were any doubt on his part about the veracity of the Bible, at least the portions he cites for the encouragement and edification of the reader, he would no doubt have turned to "unpolluted" scripture, the Book of Mormon, D&C or Pearl of Great Price. If the Mormon prophet can use the Bible, then other Mormons should be confident in using it as well.

(Of course John Powell knows that LDS use the Bible when it suits their purposes and that Hinckley's book was packaged to appeal to a christian market and make Mrmonism appear to be "mainstream christianity")

I look forward to your reply John. Perhaps there are some current Mormon readers who would like to defend these doctrines as well, rather than relying on someone who has left the church to do so for them. I welcome their participation.

To John Powell:

John, I am curious if it was your experience in Mormonism that destroyed your faith in God or other factors. I also have some questions I'd like to ask you about your atheistic worldview and belief system. Watch for my post in Apologetics (is that the right place moderator?).

His Peace,
Rooster

[Bib Lit Major]

To John Powell:

John, I am curious if it was your experience in Mormonism that destroyed your faith in God or other factors. I also have some questions I'd like to ask you about your atheistic worldview and belief system. Watch for my post in Apologetics (is that the right place moderator?).

/ot Yes, Apologetics is for atheist vs. theist discussions John posts here in Comparative Religion froma theistic worldview, i.e., his former belief in Mormonism. Discussion about his atheistic worldview would probably best be in Apologetics. Thanks for asking.

[Bill the Cat]

A case in point: Gordon Hinckley, in his book Standing For Something, includes 84 scripture references. Not one of them is from Mormon scripture. Hinckley takes all 84 quotes from the Bible. Surely he would not do so if he lacked confidence in the correct translation of the passages he used. If there were any doubt on his part about the veracity of the Bible, at least the portions he cites for the encouragement and edification of the reader, he would no doubt have turned to "unpolluted" scripture, the Book of Mormon, D&C or Pearl of Great Price. If the Mormon prophet can use the Bible, then other Mormons should be confident in using it as well.


RR, thanks, I just saved this to my compilation of Mormon "stuff" Have some pearls

[John Powell]

RED ROOSTER (RR):
John Mormon, I'm glad you want to stay focused. I think it would be more helpful to our Mormon readers if we stuck with defending and discussing doctrine. Whether Mormons are theists or not is really not an issue. I have read several of your posts on similar threads and you seem to be preoccupied with this issue.


JOHN MORMON (JM):
I think this "are Mormons theists?" question helps to illustrate the inconsistency of those who deny that Mormons are Christians.

RR:
However, I"ll explain my use of "theist" so we can hopefully put this to rest.

I have two dictionaries on my desk. One is a Webster Collegiate and the other is a Merriam Webster. The older Collegiate defines theism as "One who believes in the existence of a god." The newer MW defines theism as "One who believes in the existence of a god or gods." So according to the former a theist would be one who believes in A god. The latter would define a theist as one who believes in one or more gods. I used the first definition in this discussion because it differentiates between monotheism and polytheism. By that definition a Mormon is not a theist.


JM:
Are you suggesting that the writer(s) of the Webster Collegiate Dictionary definition of "theist" believed that polytheists are not theists? Incredible. Perhaps later editions added "or gods" because too many dictionary users did not realize that if you have more than one then you necessarily must have one.

If you have two quarters, RR, do you have one?

Panhandler:
"Do you have a quarter to spare a poor man?"

Potential Benefactor with two quarters.
"Sorry, I don't have a quarter." (I have two, he thinks)

Is this potential benefactor deceitful?

RR:
If you wish to classify Mormons as theists per the second definition, that's fine. Again, I don't think this is terribly productive dialogue. (My American Heritage at the office is consistent with the MW and defines theism as either or as well).


JM:
Since you seem to now accept that Mormons are theists, RR, the old consistency question returns. If you deny that Mormons are Christians because their Jesus Christ is not essentially the same as that of the majority of Christians then why don't you deny that Mormons are theists because their God is not essentially the same as that of the majority of theists?

RR:
Regarding your other question:

JM:
So, RR, are you defining a Christian to be someone who believes that the Jesus of the Bible is the triune God?

RR:
Yes

JM:
I see. Do the dictionaries support you in this position or is this something you made up on your own?

RR:
The New American Heritage defines "christian" as - One who professes belief in Christianity.


JM:
Mormons profess belief in Christianity, but not necessarily in the Christianity of other Christians.

RR:
Since Christianity teaches that Jesus is indeed part of the triune Godhead, this definition supports my statement.


JM:
Since the majority of Christianity teach this. Whether the Bible teaches this is controversial.

RR:
Sorry, I can't take credit for having "made that up on my own"! Therefore let me reiterate, a christian believes in the orthodox, historical, essential doctrines as set forth in scripture and debated and agreed upon in the councils.


JM:
The majority of christians believe this. "Orthodox" and "mainstream" christians believe this. This fact does not mean that minority christians or unorthodox christians also believe it. Just like a person's beliefs about god does not disqualify them from being theist, likewise a person's beliefs about Jesus does not disqualify them from being christian.

RR:
If you do not hold to essential christian doctrines you are not a Christian.


JM:
If you don't hold to the doctrines of the majority of christians then you aren't part of that majority group.

RR:
Lets concentrate on the doctrinal differences instead of debating whether I know the definition of "thing" or not and the supposed difference between a christian and an orthodox christian.

To that end, would you please defend the Mormon doctrines concerning the nature of God mentioned previously, and would you do so from the Bible. I am aware of the "translated correctly" clause in the Articles of Faith. However, if Mormons claim the King James is scripture and they carry it around with them to sacrament meetings, and they quote and teach from it (occasionally), then I think it is fair to ask them to use it to defend their doctrines.


JM:
Sure. Genesis teaches the plurality of Gods ("Let us. . ."), but most of the rest of the O.T teaches there is only one God, meaning only one supreme God or one Godhead or presidency of Gods that is very different from the pagan gods in terms of unity of purpose. The N.T. teaches that Jesus is also God and the Holy Ghost is also God. So, that makes three Gods since the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate individuals.

RR, would you believe the Bible to be the Word of God even if it were not translated correctly? Of course not.

RR:
A case in point: Gordon Hinckley, in his book Standing For Something, includes 84 scripture references. Not one of them is from Mormon scripture. Hinckley takes all 84 quotes from the Bible. Surely he would not do so if he lacked confidence in the correct translation of the passages he used. If there were any doubt on his part about the veracity of the Bible, at least the portions he cites for the encouragement and edification of the reader, he would no doubt have turned to "unpolluted" scripture, the Book of Mormon, D&C or Pearl of Great Price. If the Mormon prophet can use the Bible, then other Mormons should be confident in using it as well.

(Of course John Powell knows that LDS use the Bible when it suits their purposes and that Hinckley's book was packaged to appeal to a christian market and make Mrmonism appear to be "mainstream christianity")

I look forward to your reply John. Perhaps there are some current Mormon readers who would like to defend these doctrines as well, rather than relying on someone who has left the church to do so for them. I welcome their participation.


JM:
Since non-Mormon Christians do not accept the Mormon scriptures, it is important to use the Bible as much as possible to persuade them to our way of thinking. Likewise, it was important for the early Christians to use the O.T. as much as possible to persuade the Jews. Sometimes, however, one needs to use the newer scriptures, whether that means Christians using the N.T. or Mormons using the Book of Mormon / P of GP / D&C.

POWELL (atheist):
Mormons have tried hard to support their beliefs from the Bible. Perhaps they've done a good job.

RR:
To John Powell:

John, I am curious if it was your experience in Mormonism that destroyed your faith in God or other factors.


POWELL:
It was the reasoning about my experiences as a Mormon believer in God. I probably would have left theism even sooner if I had been born into a different religion. Mormonism does better than most, I think, in trying to answer difficult religious questions.

JM:
I also have some questions I'd like to ask you about your atheistic worldview and belief system. Watch for my post in Apologetics (is that the right place moderator?).


POWELL:
Right.

John Powell

[Red Rooster]

Hello John,
Sorry it's taken a few days to get back to you.
Thanks for the Genesis reference.



JM> Sure. Genesis teaches a plurality of gods - "Let us" . But most of the OT teaches there is only one God, meaning only one supreme God or one Godhead or presidency of Gods that is very different from the pagan gods in terms of unity and purpose.

This passage in no way teaches a plurality of Gods. "Elohim" is the generic Hebrew word for "God". Though it is a plural noun (from eloahh), it is translated in the singular "God" in the vast majority of cases and is grammatically treated as singular in Hebrew. Many conservative scholars believe this is a majesty of plural because of its link to "us" in the passage. The passage reads literally "and He said God let us make...". Those that hold to this view believe the plural reflects an intensification or absolutization, i.e. "God of gods".

Others hold that "let us" is a plural of self deliberation, a Hebraic grammatical form to show determined intention (cf. Gen.11:7; Ps. 2:3)

Still many others, myself included, believe God was addressing his heavenly court (cf. Is. 6:8). I do not believe Moses, who I believe to be the author, had a concept of the Trinity developed enough to write of YHWH in trinitarian terms. The Trinity would be more clearly revealed in the NT, most dramatically in the incarnation, baptism and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

While it is true that many evangelical theologians believe the plural represents the plurality within the Godhead and thus is an early reflection of the Trinity, this is very different than interpeting this passage as teaching polytheism. Whether one believes that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch (as Jesus himself attests to), or holds the liberal Documentary Hypothesis, no scholars that I am aware of claim this passage, or any of the OT, teaches polytheism. The Hebrews were, and are, staunch monotheists. The assertion that Hebrew manuscripts (the OT) teach polytheism is akin to a KKK tome calling for racial justice and cannot be supported by any serious or respected scholarship outside of Mormonism. Mormon writers have simply repeated and repackaged what their revered prophet first taught to them. The Mormon position is untenable. In light of the passages listed for you in the previous post and the consistent teaching of the whole of the OT, your characterization of OT teaching concerning one God ( a presidency of Gods one in purpose) does not stand up to accepted scholarship and proper hermenuetics.

John, if you can present other passages that you feel supports Mormon polytheism, please produce them for discussion. Genesis 1:26 does not make your case for you.

Peace,

Rooster

[John Powell]

REDROOSTER (RR):
Elohim and "Let us"

Hello John,
Sorry it's taken a few days to get back to you.
Thanks for the Genesis reference.

This passage in no way teaches a plurality of Gods. "Elohim" is the generic Hebrew word for "God". Though it is a plural noun (from eloahh), it is translated in the singular "God" in the vast majority of cases and is grammatically treated as singular in Hebrew. Many conservative scholars believe this is a majesty of plural because of its link to "us" in the passage. The passage reads literally "and He said God let us make...". Those that hold to this view believe the plural reflects an intensification or absolutization, i.e. "God of gods".


JOHN MORMON (JM):
If "elohim" is the Hebrew plural of "god" then it literally says "and the gods said let us . . ."

Actually, Mormons somewhat subscribe to this idea since they believe "Elohim" is a valid name for the single person who is the supreme God.

RR:
Others hold that "let us" is a plural of self deliberation, a Hebraic grammatical form to show determined intention (cf. Gen.11:7; Ps. 2:3)


JM:
Yes, we understand yous people.

POWELL (atheist):
I wonder how much this modern use of "we" when speaking of oneself is due to monotheistic religious interpretation of the Biblical writings of ancient polytheists. It's like our continued use of the "heart" for things that the blood pumping organ has little to do with. Some outdated Biblical ideas remain in our language partly as a way for us to persuade our youth to believe our religious views.

RR:
Still many others, myself included, believe God was addressing his heavenly court (cf. Is. 6:8).


JM:
Does that mean you believe other beings like Michael may have helped out with the creation?

If a being helps significantly in the creation of the Earth then wouldn't that make him at least a demi-god of some sort?

RR:
I do not believe Moses, who I believe to be the author, had a concept of the Trinity developed enough to write of YHWH in trinitarian terms. The Trinity would be more clearly revealed in the NT, most dramatically in the incarnation, baptism and resurrection of Christ Jesus.


JM:
The incarnation, baptism, and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus (eg. to Stephen) are clear examples of the separation of the three members of the Godhead. Examples of the oneness are either oneness in purpose or testimony. Where is there a clear indication in the N.T. that the "only one God" is other than the Father?

RR:
While it is true that many evangelical theologians believe the plural represents the plurality within the Godhead and thus is an early reflection of the Trinity, this is very different than interpeting this passage as teaching polytheism. Whether one believes that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch (as Jesus himself attests to), or holds the liberal Documentary Hypothesis, no scholars that I am aware of claim this passage, or any of the OT, teaches polytheism. The Hebrews were, and are, staunch monotheists. The assertion that Hebrew manuscripts (the OT) teach polytheism is akin to a KKK tome calling for racial justice and cannot be supported by any serious or respected scholarship outside of Mormonism. Mormon writers have simply repeated and repackaged what their revered prophet first taught to them. The Mormon position is untenable. In light of the passages listed for you in the previous post and the consistent teaching of the whole of the OT, your characterization of OT teaching concerning one God ( a presidency of Gods one in purpose) does not stand up to accepted scholarship and proper hermenuetics.


JM:
Were those scholars you quoted either monotheists or trinitarians? If they were you can see an unfortunate bias. If you skip scholars who have religious reasons to believe the God described in the Bible was one or was three, what do the non-biased scholars say?

RR:
John, if you can present other passages that you feel supports Mormon polytheism, please produce them for discussion. Genesis 1:26 does not make your case for you.

Peace,

Rooster


JM:
If God desired that the early readers of Genesis understand that when He said "let us" He had some alternative meaning to what the people probably always previously understood it to mean, then I would have expected God to have made a greater effort in Genesis to make that clear.

What I think we have here is later monotheist and trinitarian theologians re-interpretating what was originally clearly a statement of multiplicity of Gods. I hesitate to say "polytheism" since that is usually associated with the bickering kind of multiple gods of the pagans.

If Jesus had said these words,

"God is one. I am another. The Holy Spirit is a third. Yet, we are one, as are my true disciples."

would you understand these words to be support for the Mormon concept of the Godhead or Trinitarianism or what?

Perhaps we could look at some more scriptures.

John Powell

[Red Rooster]

John, Good Dialogue. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Here goes:

JM - If "elohim" is the plural of "god" then it literally says "and the gods said let us..."

That is not correct. Remember that elohim is almost always translated in the singular, as it is here in Gen. 1:26. It is literally translated how I posted above - "and He said God let us make". If you have a Hebrew lexicon that renders the translation in your post I would like to have that reference. When interpreting any literature, we are bound by the rules of grammar and the meaning of the words themselves. We cannot make the text say what we want it to say.

JM - I wonder how much this modern use of "we" when speaking of oneself is due to monotheistic religious interpretation of the Biblical writings of ancient polytheists.

You are going to be hard-pressed my friend to show that the OT was penned by polytheists rather than Hebrews who were monotheists. Cite just one OT book that you believe was authored by a polytheist and support you argument from the text (any indication that the writer believed in many gods) and reliable scholarship.

I'll reserve comments on the rest of that quote for the apologetics discussion.



JM - Does that mean you believe other beings like Michael may have helped out with creation?

Not at all. I offfer this analogy;
A mother says to her infant child, Let's clean up the kitchen now Sweetie." The use of a contraction for "let us" in no way indicates any level of participation by the child. She will merely sit in the highchair and witness the cleaning of the kitchen.

Is.6:8 sheds light on this passage. Here we have God asking a rhetorical question in the presence of his angels - "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" The angels take no part in the act of commissioning the prophet. Nor does Isaiah comply in response to them, but in obedience to God. God uses inclusive language because he is speaking in their presence.


Well, that's all I have time for this evening. I'll respond to the other points in your post tomorrow. Take care John.

His Peace,
Rooster

[John Powell]

RED ROOSTER (RR):
John, Good Dialogue. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Here goes:


JOHN MORMON (JM):
Likewise.

JM:
If "elohim" is the plural of "god" then it literally says "and the gods said let us..." ”

RR:
That is not correct. Remember that elohim is almost always translated in the singular, as it is here in Gen. 1:26.


JM:
Maybe all of these translators are monotheists or trinitarians. Have polytheists or nontheists done any translations of Genesis?

RR:
It is literally translated how I posted above - "and He said God let us make". If you have a Hebrew lexicon that renders the translation in your post I would like to have that reference. When interpreting any literature, we are bound by the rules of grammar and the meaning of the words themselves. We cannot make the text say what we want it to say.


JM:
Are you aware of any polytheist / nontheist Hebrew lexicon writers? Even if there are some, are their readers likely to be monotheists / trinitarians?

We should translate into our language what the original writer meant by his words, not what people way down the road decided he should have meant. Later Jewish monotheists may have adulterated their ancient texts.

In Hebrew, plurality is indicated by adding "him," right? In English we usually add "s" or "es."

I believe "El" or "Eloah" or something like that was the generic Semitic word for god. Allah probably derives from that.

How would you designate plural "gods" in Hebrew, RR? Perhaps you think "El / Eloah" and "Elohim" is like the way many people use the words "datum" and "data" as both singular words when the first should be singular and the second plural. Is that it?

JM:
I wonder how much this modern use of "we" when speaking of oneself is due to monotheistic religious interpretation of the Biblical writings of ancient polytheists.

RR:
You are going to be hard-pressed my friend to show that the OT was penned by polytheists rather than Hebrews who were monotheists. Cite just one OT book that you believe was authored by a polytheist and support you argument from the text (any indication that the writer believed in many gods) and reliable scholarship.

I'll reserve comments on the rest of that quote for the apologetics discussion.


JM:
Well, we're talking about Moses and Genesis, right? The word "elohim" is plural for god. "Us" is also plural. Poetic license allows one to alter these basic meanings, but the writer should be clear when doing so and, presumably, have a good reason for playing games with the language. Moses did not seem to satisfy his readers with this important information so we should assume that elohim means "gods" and "us" means more than one god. Later monotheists, however, apparently decided on their own that Moses meant something different.

JM:
Does that mean you believe other beings like Michael may have helped out with creation?

RR:
Not at all. I offfer this analogy;
A mother says to her infant child, Let's clean up the kitchen now Sweetie." The use of a contraction for "let us" in no way indicates any level of participation by the child. She will merely sit in the highchair and witness the cleaning of the kitchen.


JM:
If the child tries to help out, should the mother scold him for not understanding that her words meant "I will clean the kitchen while you watch" rather than "we will both clean the kitchen."

Again, this technically incorrect, but poetically allowed, construction of "let us" meaning "I will, while you watch" may be due to problems in our modern language left over from the conclusion of later monotheists about what God meant in places like Genesis by the words "let us."

RR:
Is.6:8 sheds light on this passage. Here we have God asking a rhetorical question in the presence of his angels - "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" The angels take no part in the act of commissioning the prophet. Nor does Isaiah comply in response to them, but in obedience to God. God uses inclusive language because he is speaking in their presence.


JM:
Again, God speaks of "us" as if there are more than one of Him. God's questions / requests to the angels are not always rhetorical. Or, do you disagree?

RR:
Well, that's all I have time for this evening. I'll respond to the other points in your post tomorrow. Take care John.

His Peace,
Rooster


JM:
That would be bad at TWEB. You're not supposed to submit back-to-back posts until I have a chance to answer. Since I've responded to your first one, however, no rules have been broken.

John Powell

[Red Rooster]

Good Day John,

I'd like to return your previous post and pick up an important point if I may.

Let me remind our readers ( if there are any) that we are discussing the nature of God as it pertains to Christian monotheism over against Mormon polytheism. Our debate centers around which view of God is best supported from the Bible.

JM - The incarnation, baptism and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus (eg. to Stephen) are clear examples of the separation of the three members of the Godhead. Examples of the oneness are either in purpose or testimony. Where is there a clear indication in the N.T. that the "only one God" is other than the Father?

The incarnation, baptism and resurrection are clear examples of the DISTINCTION between the three members of the Godhead, not their separation. In fact, they demonstrate unity that is more than merely purpose or testimony.
Consider the incarnation:
Luke 1:35 - And the angel said unto her, "The HOLY SPIRIT will come upon you, and the power of the MOST HIGH wil overshadow you; and for that reason the HOLY OFFSPRING shall be called the SON OF GOD."

The baptism:
Matthew 3:16,17 - And after being baptized, JESUS went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the SPIRIT OF GOD descending as a dove, and coming upon him, and behold, a VOICE out of the heavens saying, "This is my beloved SON, in whom I am well-pleased."

The resurrection:
John 20:28 - Thomas answered and said to Him, "My LORD and my GOD!"

John, consider this confession of Thomas. He is saying that Jesus is his (personal) God (theos). Thomas is testifying to the deity of Christ. As a Jew( a monotheist), it would be blasphemy for Thomas to ascribe deity to any other than YHWH, the God of his fathers. He is not confessing belief in two gods, but in the one God of Israel, now manifest in glorified flesh before him.

All of these examples attest to the unity of the Godhead, not just in purpose, but in presence, action and being, while preserving the distinctiveness of the persons.

Regarding a N.T. indication that the "only one God" is other than the Father, please reflect on the following:

John1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS GOD.

The "Word" is understood to be Jesus because of
vs. 14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father.

John 5:46 -
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me."

Moses wrote of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - YHWH. In this passage, Jesu equtes himself with the subject Moses' writing.

John 8:24 -
"I said therefore that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM HE, you shall die in your sins."

John 8:28 -"When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM HE..."

Who is Jesus referring to when He says "HE"? The reference is to YHWH. The Pharisees do not believe he is the God of the scriptures, the God of Abraham. Jesus drives this home when He proclaims - "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM." John 8:58

Jesus declares ego eimi , a direct allusion to Exodus 2:14. The unbelieving Pharisees knew exactly what Jesu was saying - I AM THE "ONLY ONE GOD".

John 10:30 - "I and the Father are ONE."
The GreekHEN is here translated 'one' and is a form of the word eis , a cognate of henotes . This word is found only in Ephesians 4:3 & 13, and means unity, or oneness. This is an appropriate choice of words for a passage teaching the oneness and unity of the church, the body of Christ.hen is a neuter noun which indicates equality of essence, will, or attributes. Therefore Jesus is asserting the essential unity between himself and the Father. He distinguishes the "I" form the "Father" and uses the plural verb "are" denoting "we are." Thus he affirms the distinctive persons within the Godhead but assets their unity of essence or nature as identical.

John 14:9 - "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to KNOW Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; How do you say, 'Show us the Father'? As a Jew, Philip knows the God of Abraham, the Father. Jesu is incredulous that Philip has yet to see that He is the SAME God.

Acts 20:28 - "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the HOLY SPIRIT has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of GOD, which HE PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD."

"God" is translated "theou" and is translated with "kuriou" (LORD) in the variant texts. The church is typically referred to as Christ's in the N.T.. But here the head of the church (Christ) called God.

I go back to the "unity" passage now.
Ephesians 4:4-6 There is ONE body and ONE Spirit, just as also you were called in ONE hope of your calling; ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

How can ONE God that is over, in and through ALL, possibly be understood apart from ONE god that is triune?

JM - If God desired that the early readers of Genesis understand that when he said "let us" he had some alternative meaning to what the people probably always previously understood it to mean, then I would have expected God to have made a greater effort in Genesis to make that clear.

First of all, you are assuming that the intended reader understood "let us" to mean a plurality of gods. The intended readers were Jews. Judaism is a monotheistic religion. God spoke unceasingly through His prophets to His covenant people about the sin of idolatry, the worship of false gods. You cannot miss this dominant theme as you read the OT narratives John. Your contention that God wanted the reader to believe in other gods in light of his severe judgement on Israel whenever they went after false gods, resulting ultimately in exile, is simply not a defensible position. Futhermore, He did make it UNMISTAKEABLY clear that He ALONE is God. We looked at Gen1:26 and 11:7 the f ONLY TWO "let us" clauses. The very next verse in both cases read:
1:27 - And GOD created man in HIS own image...

11:8 - So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth...

Notice the SINGULAR translation for God. Where did all the other gods go who were to be part of the creating and scattering? The singular is consistent throughout the rest of the entire Pentateuch, not just Genesis. The burden of proof is with you to show that Genesis teaches polytheism based on two clauses.

What I think we have here is later monotheists and trinitarian theologians re-interpreting what was originally CLEARLY A STATEMENT OF MULTIPLICITY OF GODS.

Can you support this remarkable assertion with ANY historical or contemporary scholarship? Who are these supposed re-interpreters and when did this re-interpretation take place? What became of the original polytheistic readers and their ancestry?
Or, to borrow your phrase - did you come up with this on your own? In making the statement I capitalized above John, you totally disregard the Hebrew grammer and how it used to convey meaning and intent. Jewish scholars, who I daresay know a bit more about Hebrew that you or me, have understood "let us" to be referring the heavenly court. Again, the burden of proof is with you to demonstrate otherwise.

I hesitate to say polytheism since that word is usually associated with the bickering kind of multiple gods of the pagans.

Don't hesitate, because that is what the word means. The malevolence of pernicious gods does not negate the fact that those who believe in them are polytheists. The pagan is a polytheist by virtue of the fact that he believes in more than one god. If Mormons are uncomfortable with that label, which they are, perhaps they should re-examine what their beliefs are concerning God. As a Mormon, do you also believe in other gods of pagans? Do you believe in the millions of Hindu gods or the countless gods of animistic religions? Or, is Mormon polytheism limited somehow to the gods of its own construct? If so, how do you know the difference? As a Mormon, do you believe the false gods mentioned in scripture (Chemosh, Moloch, Artemis, Baal etc.) are actually real gods that were once men who have been exalted through eternal progression? If not, how can you be sure the millions of gods of Mormonism are real? Just a few things to ponder.

His Peace,
Rooster

[John Powell]

RED ROOSTER (RR):
Continuing Response to John Mormon

Good Day John,


JOHN MORMON (JM):
Good day.

RR:
I'd like to return your previous post and pick up an important point if I may.

Let me remind our readers ( if there are any) that we are discussing the nature of God as it pertains to Christian monotheism over against Mormon polytheism. Our debate centers around which view of God is best supported from the Bible.

The incarnation, baptism and resurrection are clear examples of the DISTINCTION between the three members of the Godhead, not their separation. In fact, they demonstrate unity that is more than merely purpose or testimony.

Consider the incarnation:
Luke 1:35 - And the angel said unto her, "The HOLY SPIRIT will come upon you, and the power of the MOST HIGH wil overshadow you; and for that reason the HOLY OFFSPRING shall be called the SON OF GOD."


JOHN MORMON (JM):
I recognize that sometimes in the Bible the same thing might be used in a parallel construction similar to this. However, in those cases it's usually clear that the writer is referring to the same thing. Here it looks like it's saying two divine persons will be at the conception of Jesus, namely the Holy Spirit and the Most High.

Do you agree that two divine persons distinct from Jesus, namely the Holy Spirit and the Most High, were at the conception of Jesus or do you believe there was only one divine person there?

RR:
The baptism:
Matthew 3:16,17 - And after being baptized, JESUS went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the SPIRIT OF GOD descending as a dove, and coming upon him, and behold, a VOICE out of the heavens saying, "This is my beloved SON, in whom I am well-pleased."


JM:
Right. There isn't just one divine person being seen here, but three distinct divine persons. The Father is speaking from the heavens. The Holy Spirit descends like a bird or, as Mormons believe, its presence is indicated by the sign of the dove. And, Jesus is coming out of the water. Perhaps you believe there is a single substance that flows from Jesus to the dove and to the clouds.

You surely don't believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same person do you, just the same divine thing? Well, Mormons sort of agree, but they think that "same divine thing" is the Godhead. Perhaps you think this "same divine thing" is a divine substance they share, but each have in its entirety.

RR:
The resurrection:
John 20:28 - Thomas answered and said to Him, "My LORD and my GOD!"

John, consider this confession of Thomas. He is saying that Jesus is his (personal) God (theos). Thomas is testifying to the deity of Christ. As a Jew( a monotheist), it would be blasphemy for Thomas to ascribe deity to any other than YHWH, the God of his fathers. He is not confessing belief in two gods, but in the one God of Israel, now manifest in glorified flesh before him.


JM:
Well, have you seriously considered that maybe Thomas was a polytheist in that he believed that the Father of Jesus was God, but that Jesus was also God, but they weren't the same person?

Remember that Jesus also spoke of "your God and My God." Surely Jesus is not His own God, right?

John 20: 17 (KJV):
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

RR:
All of these examples attest to the unity of the Godhead, not just in purpose, but in presence, action and being, while preserving the distinctiveness of the persons.

Regarding a N.T. indication that the "only one God" is other than the Father, please reflect on the following:

John1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS GOD.

The "Word" is understood to be Jesus because of
vs. 14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father.


JM:
Yes. This is speaking of Jesus. Jesus was (a) God even before the creation of the World. He was also God in the sense of being a member of the Godhead.

RR:
John 5:46 -
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me."

Moses wrote of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - YHWH. In this passage, Jesu equtes himself with the subject Moses' writing.


JM:
With few exceptions, the God of the OT was Jesus speaking on behalf of the Godhead.

RR:
John 8:24 -
"I said therefore that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM HE, you shall die in your sins."

John 8:28 -"When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM HE..."

Who is Jesus referring to when He says "HE"? The reference is to YHWH. The Pharisees do not believe he is the God of the scriptures, the God of Abraham. Jesus drives this home when He proclaims -
"Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM." John 8:58

Jesus declares ego eimi , a direct allusion to Exodus 2:14. The unbelieving Pharisees knew exactly what Jesu was saying - I AM THE "ONLY ONE GOD".


JM:
There is only one Godhead over this Earth. Jesus represents that presidency of Gods.

RR:
John 10:30 - "I and the Father are ONE."

The GreekHEN is here translated 'one' and is a form of the word eis , a cognate of henotes . This word is found only in Ephesians 4:3 & 13, and means unity, or oneness. This is an appropriate choice of words for a passage teaching the oneness and unity of the church, the body of Christ.hen is a neuter noun which indicates equality of essence, will, or attributes. Therefore Jesus is asserting the essential unity between himself and the Father. He distinguishes the "I" form the "Father" and uses the plural verb "are" denoting "we are." Thus he affirms the distinctive persons within the Godhead but assets their unity of essence or nature as identical.


JM:
Then why was Jesus praying that His disciples be "one" like He and the Father were one?

RR:
John 14:9 - "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to KNOW Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; How do you say, 'Show us the Father'? As a Jew, Philip knows the God of Abraham, the Father. Jesu is incredulous that Philip has yet to see that He is the SAME God.


JM:
Mormons believe this refers to the physical and behavioral similarity between the Son and the Father. It should not be so surprising as you seem to think given that Jesus repeatedly spoke of "the father" as being distinct from Himself.

RR:
Acts 20:28 - "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the HOLY SPIRIT has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of GOD, which HE PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD."

"God" is translated "theou" and is translated with "kuriou" (LORD) in the variant texts. The church is typically referred to as Christ's in the N.T.. But here the head of the church (Christ) called God.


JM:
This one is odd. I would have expected this to say something more like ". . . to shepherd the church of God, which Jesus purchased with His own blood."

Well, Jesus is a God and is God (meaning a member of the Godhead) so I guess this is ok, but it seems unnecessarily confusing. Maybe a scribe miscopied it.

RR:
I go back to the "unity" passage now.

Ephesians 4:4-6 There is ONE body and ONE Spirit, just as also you were called in ONE hope of your calling; ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

How can ONE God that is over, in and through ALL, possibly be understood apart from ONE god that is triune?


JM:
The Mormon way.

RR:
First of all, you are assuming that the intended reader understood "let us" to mean a plurality of gods. The intended readers were Jews. Judaism is a monotheistic religion. God spoke unceasingly through His prophets to His covenant people about the sin of idolatry, the worship of false gods. You cannot miss this dominant theme as you read the OT narratives John. Your contention that God wanted the reader to believe in other gods in light of his severe judgement on Israel whenever they went after false gods, resulting ultimately in exile, is simply not a defensible position.


JM:
You would think they would have learned their lesson sooner.

Does it surprise you that Mormons sometimes apostacize over the issue of polygamy or worship of mother in heaven since those are concepts taught as somewhat "true" in Mormonism?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense why the Israelites had so much trouble following other gods knowing from God Himself that there were other Gods, but just not in charge? It would to me.

RR:
Futhermore, He did make it UNMISTAKEABLY clear that He ALONE is God.

JM:
The Godhead is the only "God" for this Earth.

RR:
We looked at Gen1:26 and 11:7 the f ONLY TWO "let us" clauses. The very next verse in both cases read:

1:27 - And GOD created man in HIS own image...

11:8 - So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth...

Notice the SINGULAR translation for God. Where did all the other gods go who were to be part of the creating and scattering? The singular is consistent throughout the rest of the entire Pentateuch, not just Genesis. The burden of proof is with you to show that Genesis teaches polytheism based on two clauses.


JM:
I don't know why the plurality was not carried through. Maybe it sounded too verbose since the Father was the one behind all this even though it was the Son and helpers carrying it out.

RR:
Can you support this remarkable assertion with ANY historical or contemporary scholarship? Who are these supposed re-interpreters and when did this re-interpretation take place? What became of the original polytheistic readers and their ancestry?


JM:
I don't know the details. It could have happened when copies of the Bible were made. Monotheistic scribes may have intentionally or inadvertently made changes to the ancient texts.

Do you deny that this could have happened many times in many places of the Bible?

RR:
Or, to borrow your phrase - did you come up with this on your own?


JM:
No, it's the Mormon attitude.

RR:
In making the statement I capitalized above John, you totally disregard the Hebrew grammer and how it used to convey meaning and intent. Jewish scholars, who I daresay know a bit more about Hebrew that you or me, have understood "let us" to be referring the heavenly court. Again, the burden of proof is with you to demonstrate otherwise.


JM:
Again, are there Jewish scholars who are neither monotheists themselves nor writing to a monotheistic audience that I can consider?

RR:
Don't hesitate, because that is what the word means. The malevolence of pernicious gods does not negate the fact that those who believe in them are polytheists. The pagan is a polytheist by virtue of the fact that he believes in more than one god. If Mormons are uncomfortable with that label, which they are, perhaps they should re-examine what their beliefs are concerning God.


JM:
Technically trinitarianism is a form of monotheism, but it's a different kind. It's tripersonism monotheism. Perhaps Mormonism is polytheism monogodheadism.

RR:
As a Mormon, do you also believe in other gods of pagans?


JM:
No.

RR:
Do you believe in the millions of Hindu gods or the countless gods of animistic religions?


JM:
Neither.

RR:
Or, is Mormon polytheism limited somehow to the gods of its own construct?


JM:
Sort of. We believe in the Gods who exist, not those who are merely believed to exist by nonMormons.

RR:
If so, how do you know the difference?


JM:
By the power of the Holy Ghost.

RR:
As a Mormon, do you believe the false gods mentioned in scripture (Chemosh, Moloch, Artemis, Baal etc.) are actually real gods that were once men who have been exalted through eternal progression?


JM:
No.

RR:
If not, how can you be sure the millions of gods of Mormonism are real? Just a few things to ponder.


JM:
Perhaps one can never be absolutely certain while in this mortal tabernacle, but by the power of the Holy Ghost you can be as sure as possible.

John Powell

[Red Rooster]

Hello John Mormon,
I hope all is well with you and yours.

JM - We should translate into our language what the original writer meant by his words, not what people way down the road decided he should have meant.

I couldn't agree more. The question is, do you really believe you have shown conclusively that the OT books were authored by polytheists and thus point to a plurality of gods in the face of the overwhelming evidence of monotheism throught the OT and the monotheism of Jews themselves who regard the OT as sacred scripture?

Later Jewish monotheists may have adulterated their ancient texts.

Do you have ANY support for this?

The word "Elohim" is plural for God. "Us" is also plural. Poetic license allows one to alter the these basic meanings, but the writer should be clear when doing so, and presumably, have a good reason for playing games with the language. Moses did not seem to satisfy his readers with this important information so we should assume that elohim means "gods" and "us" means more than one god. Later monotheists apparently decided on their own that Moses meant something different.

You have consistently ignored in this discussion the fact that in the Hebrew language Elohim is translated in the singular. You can't get around how Hebrews write and speak their own language. We do not have to make this erroneous assumption because we have been told by those who speak the language how it is to be translated properly, not because they are monotheists, but because of the grammatical rules of the language they speak. Again, you have absolutely no basis for your assertions.


JM - Do you agree that two divine persons distinct from Jesus, namely the Holy Spirit and the Most High, were at the conception of Jesus or do you believe there was only one divine person there?

After re-reading the passage I think the "power of the Most High" probably refers also to the Holy Spirit, so the phrases "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" and "the power of the Most High will overshadow you" form a couplet emphasizing that the conception is a supernatural event.

You surely don't believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same person do you, just the same divine thing? Well, Mormons sort of agree, but they think that the "same divine thing" is the Godhead.

No I don't believe that. That is Modalism. They are three distinct persons yet one God - I hold to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Mormons believe they are distinct persons BECAUSE they are distinct gods. Thay believe the Godhead consists of three separate gods. So for Mormons, the use of the word Godhead is nonsensical. They should say "Godshead" I suppose.

Well, have you seriously considered that Thomas was a polytheist in that he believed that the father of Jesus was God, but that Jesus was also God but they weren't the same person?

Of course not. To do so would require I ignore the context of the passage, the Greek text and the historical setting. This is what Mormons ( and all cultists for that matter) do to make the biblical texts fit their theology. But it is futile.

Remember, that Jesus also spoke of "your God and my God". Surely Jesus is not his own God, right?

This underscores the subject/object relationship between the Father and the Son and models for us divine authority. Just as Jesus was under the authority of the Father, Christians are under the authority of Jesus. The Bible teaches very clearly the interrelationships within the Godhead.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense why the Israelites had so much trouble following other gods knowing from God Himself that there were other gods, but just not in charge? It would to me.


This is nonsense John. In light of the many passages I posted earlier from just Isaiah alone where God declares EXPLICITLY that HE IS IT, as well as the consistent witness of the Bible as a whole, you want to argue that God told his covenant people the exact opposite? How can you explain the many passages where God uses sarcasm to deride the Israelites for worshipping idols - literally "nothings". God was incredulous because no other gods exist. The idolatry of Israel (and our own) is folly. What about Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal beacause they were trying in vain to summon a god who didn't exist? Can you give me one passage that indicates God knew there were other gods around beside Him and then reconcile it with the all the texts that prove otherwise?

I have offered ample BIBLICAL support for the One, True God who is revealed in three persons. You, on the other hand have not supported in any substantial way your contention for Mormon polytheism from the Bible. You have offered only weak speculation about imagined polytheistic ancients who wrote to a polytheistic culture that you contend is a more accurate historical assessment of ancient Judaism. You have given no scriptural or scholarly support for these claims.

So let me ask you to defend this as well:
You stated:

With few exceptions, the God of the OT was Jesus speaking on behalf of the Godhead.

Mormons assert that Jehovah in the OT is actually Jesus while Elohim is "Heavenly Father". There is no basis for making this distinction because the two words are used together in numerous places to refer to the one God ( "Lord God"). "Jehovah" is nothing more than a poor pronunciation/translation of "Yahweh" that has stuck out of tradition and usage. So "Lord" is translated properly as Yahweh. As you stated above, Mormons believe when we read Jehovah (Yahweh) , it is Jesus speaking. Consider the following passage:

Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavans by myself and spreading out the earth all alone. (Isa. 44.24)

But how could Jesus be alone? Where is "Heavenly Father and Mother". Where are all the spirit brothers and sisters?

I quote James White:

This passage presents numerous difficulties for the LDS viewpoint. Yahweh speaks. He claims to be the Maker, the one who formed man. Indeed, He claims to be the Maker of ALL things. But the final two phrase are simply beyond explanation for the Mormon Church. Yahweh (remember, this is the Son, a second and less exalted God than Elohim in modern LDS theology) says that he stretches the heavens "by Myself" and the earth "all alone." Remember the scene we recounted from the CURRENT LDS Temple ceremonies in which Elohim directs Jehovah AND MICHAEL to go down and "organize" the earth? This passage is directly contradictory to the assertions found in the Endowment ceremony, which as we saw, is considered to have been given BY REVELATION. Yahweh did not stretch out the heavens under the orders of some greater god and in company with Michael. He ALONE is Creator.

From Is the Mormon My Brother , pg 148.

After your response John, I'd like to step back and move over to Apologetics for some questions I have of Atheists and their worldview. I'll be addressing anyone who cares to respond but I certainly value your thoughts there as I have in this forum. When we get back to our discussion here I would like to move on to the Mormon doctrine of the corporeality of God. I see you are engaged elswhere as well and I look forward to peeking in on that debate, so if time becomes an issue, I understand.

His Peace

[Bloodnut]

== I have spent several weeks reading through many of the posts regarding Mormonism. There is alot of debate going on (much of it sarcastic, demeaning and accusatory unfortunately) about many different topics. It seems to me that productive dialog should center around essential Christian doctrines.

I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, I was so involved in the bickering months ago that I had to physically ban myself from the forum. But I like how you present yourself, and you seem genuinely sincere in your efforts to dialogue in a civil manner.

I'd also like to discuss the nature of God, according to Mormonism and Orthodox Christianity. I will only have time enough to post once a week, perhaps, but I'd like to discuss some of these things with you if you would like.

== But what neither Christians nor Mormons can say is that Mormonism is Christianity.

Mormonism is Christian, but it certainly doesn't encapsulate "Christianity" anymore than does Catholicism or Protestantism. Modern Christianity today is a mixed bag of beliefs, just as it was in the first century. To be Christian means, for me anyway, to accept Jesus as the savior of the world. This is the most common understanding of the word all throughout the world. The problem I have with Evangelical definitions, is that they rarely ever admit that it is just that: their own personal definition. It is designed to exclude others, but the simple fact remains the Bible nowhere defines the term Christian.

== I'd like to consider the first subject on this list. Orthodox Christianity is unwaveringly monotheistic. This is the clear teaching of the Scriptures, the apostles, and the creeds of the early church. Mormonism by contrast is polytheistic in its theology.

Again, this is another instance where we should probably define our terms first. What do you mean by polytheism and monotheism? You might be interested to know that many scholars today feel these terms have been misused for polemical purposes. Evangelical scholar Larry Hurtado has summed up the situation and I can say with confidence that the LDS paradigm fits in rather nicely with what he described.

"Jewish Monotheism can be taken as constituting a distinctive version of the commonly-attested belief structure described by Nilsson as involving a 'high god' who presides over other deities. The God of Israel presides over a court of heavenly beings who are likened to him." (Larry Hurtado. First-Century Jewish Monotheism, 365)

In other words, Jewish Monotheism was no different than what counter-cultists call Mormon Polytheism. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, "biblical monotheism is [now] seen by modern biblical scholars as emerging gradually and in a continuous line from polytheistic thought." (Encyclopedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, "Monotheism," Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997)

Mormons accept "One God" in the sense of "One authority" or "One Throne." Not in the sense that there is only one entity that can be properly described as divine.

== It must be necessarily so to lay the foundation for the doctrine of eternal progression.

True, and for this reason Latter-day Saints do not find any difficult at all with biblical thought.

== Logically, if man can become god, and God was once a man, we have a multitude of exalted beings. The emphasis of Smith's doctrine was not so much the idea of a plurality of gods, but rather the exaltation of man to god through his eternal progression.

Which for us, is entirely biblical. Though I'm sure you have your own interpretation.

== Absolute, ontological monotheism is foundational to Christianity.

Strict monotheism which denies the existence of any deities aside from the One True God, is foundational for modern Christianity, but it wasn't always so. The earliest Christian apologists, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Tatian, believed Christ was a second God in the trinity. When I say trinity, I do not refer to the Nicean Trinity, but a trinity of unity of three different persons, or "deities" who represent one authority, or one Godhead. But even as late as Origen we still find the acceptance of the existence of other deities.

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…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"(Origen, Commentary on John 2:3)

Deification was a very real doctrine in the early Church. Evangelicals have a hard time trying to incorporate this doctrine, because they feel the need to refer to themselves as "historic Christianity."

== To be a Christian, one must believe this about God.

Says who? If the earliest Christians didn't believe it, then by what authority do we make these later innovations the litmus test for who could be legitimately called "Christian"? Most Evangelical scholars will admit, for example, that the Trinity was a development. They may believe it is biblical to one extent or another, but this doesn't change the fact that for centuries, the early "body of believers" had a hard time figuring out what the relationship between the Son and Father was. It wasn't until a Catholic council formulated a creed by which all followers had to abide by, that any formal definition of Christian was put forth. But we must keep in mind that during the reformation, man Catholic authorities consider Protestant reformers of being nothing less than heathens. Heretics. Considered hell-bound for denying the Mother Church. It wasn't until many years later, when Protestantism was growing at a rate rapid enough as to pose a challenge to the Catholic majority, that it was decided that if they couldn't beat them, join them. And then Protestantism can be seen as welcomed into the fold of "Christianity" by the Catholic authorities. But many Catholics today have the same opinion as they did way back then, and they fail to recognize Protestantism as "Historic Christianity." The controversy still rages on in Ireland where Catholics and Protestants go to war in the streets.

I guess my point is that Mormonism is a relatively small portion of Christianity today. In time, if the LDS Church begins to approach World Religion figures, I would guess that history would repeat itself, and a similar process would take place whereby the LDS faith is welcomed as a "Christian faith", in spite of our main differences, such as theology on the nature of God. I know this gap in theology seems to wide to bridge now, but then again, the Catholic doctrine of salvation vs. the Evangelical doctrine of salvation is rather wide as well, but they managed to ignore than for political purpose of uniting the fragmented nature of modern Christianity. It seems to me that if I had to choose between two divergences in doctrines:

1) Salvation by works vs. Salvation by grace alone (Catholicism vs. Most Protestantism)
2) God is a tri-personal transcendent essence vs. God is an anthropomorphic divinity. (Christian Orthodoxy vs. Mormonism)

I would think that the former would carry more weight than the latter. After all, the later is what had the early Church confused for several centuries. 1500 years later, Catholic heretics such as Martin Luther decided to reject historic Christian teachings on salvation (via works), while offering their own interpretation of Pauline passages as a pretext.

== Any deviance from this most basic, biblical truth places one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into heresy.

You can believe it is "biblical truth" if you like, but the only thing for certain is that it is truth of orthodoxy. To extend this to the Bible begs the question. Every faith claims to be biblical.

If you want to argue that Mormonism is not "orthodox" Christian, well you won't get any arguments from us. But if you want to say Mormons are not Christian at all, well the we're going to have a problem. Evangelicals typically try to hijack the term for their own exclusionary purposes, and this is why tension between the two groups result.

If there was every a spokesperson for Evangelical Christianity, it would probably be someone like Billy Graham. He teaches that one only needs four things,

1. Christ died for my sins.
2. I am a sinner.
3. I accept Christ as my Savior.
4. acknowledge Christ as Lord.

And wallah, you're saved! This is generally the format found in many pamphlets hanging out in restaurant bathrooms or end up on under your windshield wiper. So according to this format, LDS are saved. It should be safe to assume, therefore, that a saved person is a "Christian."

But generally when approaching LDS, many "qualifiers" and "special conditions" are having to be enforced, because this simple formula immediately becomes a double-edged sword. As it turns out, the simple formula isn't so simple after all. It is argued that Mormons don't accept Christ because they believe in a "different Jesus." One must drop the idea that God is entirely personal in the complete anthropomorphic sense, and adopt the transcendent view as did the Hellenized Church. One must abide by the creedal doctrine of the Trinity, which in reality, makes little sense to anyone who wants to understand what god is, and who isn't satisfied with the explanation that it doesn't have to make sense because we are incapable of understanding His nature. One must drop the idea that God created from preexistent matter and adopt the doctrine of ex nihilo, even though scholars have concluded that this doctrine cannot be deduced from the Bible alone(just ask Mr. Holding). One must drop the idea that God can share new information with us that isn't in a Bible, which the Catholic Church canonized for us. One must adopt sola scriptura, even though these prerequisite doctrines did not come sola scriptura. Once the Mormon accepts these things, including the four main points as outlined by Billy Graham, then he can be considered a true Christian.

But these requirements beg the question obviously. Every Bible believing Church reads the Bible as though it describes their own faith as that which would follow Christ. This is only natural, but it still begs the question: Was Paul warning about Mormons 2000 years down the road, or was he actually describing false teachers that existed in his day, and who could possibly lead the Church astray in his lifetime. I think the LDS have a better case to argue, if there really is to be such a distinction between "your Jesus" and "our Jesus", (silly in my opinion) then we are on pretty solid ground so far as the Bible is concerned. We would also be begging the question if that were our position, but the truth is, LDS do not use this scripture as a pretext for excluding other faiths from the title "Christian."

The word Christian reflects not only theology, but a way of life. Theology is a debatable issue that will never reach agreement, but a persons actions means alot, and for this reason many people consider Mormons Christian, or at least heaven-bound, because of their Christ-like acts in this life. Christ said "By their fruits you shall know them." Does this mean "by their theological persuasion you shall know them" or does it mean by what they actually do? At this point the argument assumes the Mormon is just trying to work his way to heaven, but one can only assume this if he or she wishes to engage in reading another person's heart. Obedience to Christ can be easily seen as an act of natural love, and not necessarily an attempt to earn brownie points with him, implying that the acts were done for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, many Evangelicals believe this. They need to believe this, but it begs the question as well.

I look forward to your comments.

[Bloodnut]

After skimmin through more of the exchange, I decided to add a few more comments:

== Judaism is monotheistic (and always has been).

No it hasn't. Scholarship is pretty much united on this conclusion, although it is obvious why Evangelical scholars don't like it.


== If you presented your views of "god" and "heaven" and the afterlife to any Jew, from any jewish sect, they wouldn't call you a heretic, they'd call you a polytheist.

Yeah, you mean like they call Christians polytheistic for accepting the Trinity?

== And if you did it today, in some neighborhoods of Jerusalem, you'd be stoned for your pagan ideas.

Makes you wonder how there could ever be a BYU Jerusalem center.

== Unlike your views, Christians were at first considered another Jewish sect, and often worshipped in the temple or synogagues with Jews.

Yeah, at first. When Paul was encouraging the apostles to preach to Gentiles as if they were Gentiles themselves. Paul would go around and make himself appear as one of the group before preaching. It is little wonder there were Jews that took Christianity to heart, at first. But the council at Jamnia at the turn of the century, shattered any doubt that Judaism saw Christianity as anything less than an organized blasphemy.

But all this talk seems pretty silly to me. Does it really matter if Jews think were are polytheistic? Let us take a look at what a couple of well respected Jews have to say about LDS thought. Speaking on the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, Jacob Neusner’s response deserves special attention:

I should have found a remarkable reversion to teachings of the oral Torah, the documents written down in the early centuries of the Common Era out of the unwritten tradition of Sinai. So anthropomorphism in the teaching of Joseph Smith would have represented to a learned Talmudist from Poland a conception not to be dismissed, but to be carefully considered...

The conception of God as a human being in the history of the Judaisms of antiquity is standard and conventional. The representation of God incarnate will not have surprised the authors of a variety of Judaic documents, beginning with the compilers of the Pentateuch. Some speaking explicitly, others in subtle allusions, prophets and apocalyptic writers, exegetes and sages, mystics and lawyers, all maintained that notion.

The fourth century marks the first point at which we may posit response on the part of our sages of blessed memory to the claim of Christianity to a share in the blessing of God to Israel. It was with the triumph of Christianity in Constantine’s conversion that sages formulated doctrines remarkably suited to the coming struggle with Christianity; prior to that time, Christianity received little attention from them. But the corporeal God, whom we may know and love—the God represented as walking and talking with Abraham in the ruins of the Temple, the God at the Sea and at Sinai, the God in whose image and after whose likeness we are made—comes to us through both the written Torah ("Old Testament") and the oral Torah as well…

Jewish literary critic Harold Bloom had this to say of Smith’s understanding of God's anthropomorphic form and nature,

Smith's insight could have come only from a remarkably apt reading of the Bible, and there I would locate the secret of his religious genius...So strong was [Smith's] act of reading that it broke through all the orthodoxies—Protestant, Catholic, Judaic—and found its way back to elements that Smith rightly intuited had been censored out of the stories of the archaic Jewish religion. Smith's radical sense of theomorphic patriarchs and anthropomorphic gods is an authentic return ... [to] the Bible's first author.

It seems to me that Mormon thought isn't as rejected by all Jews, as you would prefer. It is interesting to point out that Harold Bloom, in that very same volume, lambasted the Protestant faith for hypocrisy and for believing some of the craziest things like biblical inerrancy.

== Many, if not most Mormons will say they are Christian.

What is with the speculation, as if? Of course all of them do.

== This puts them in an untenable position. To say "We are just like you with only a few minor differences" on one hand, and then assert that Christianity is apostate is in effect relegating themselves to apostasy as well - if they want to say they believe the same things Christians believe.

The fallacy of your argument is highlighted by the fact that you equivocate "Christian" with being "just like you." We don't. There are way too many form of Christianity today, and quite frankly, the Evangelical format is not attractive to us. It isn't even the majority form.

== However, if you press the leaders and the apologists, they will admit that they are not Christian nor do they want to be because Christian "sects" are apostate.

Yes, but apostate from what? CHRISTIANITY! Therefore, Christianity is what the LDS faith has claimed to have restored. Your argument makes no sense.

== Now they will not say this to the press. The Church has been very careful to present itself as "christian" to the media for obvious reasons.

Come on now. Do we really need to go that route with the silly conspiracy theories? Isn't it just conceivable that LDS have referred to themselves as Christians because that is genuinely what they believe? Why does anything we say have to be scrutinized, even to the point where we stripped of our right to label ourselves as we choose, and define our faith as we so choose? This smacks of arrogance when you say, "That isn't what you believe, THIS is what you believe, therefore you really aren't what you say you are!"

Again, even if your theory were true, how do you reconcile the fact that Paul did essentially teh same thing. He didn't wear his Christian pin on his shoulder when entering non-Christian areas. He blended in first and then gradually chared the word with them.

Until Evangelicals can offer us a definition for "Christian," outside of their own Evangelical theological dictionaries, their arguments will continue to be circular.
== If the Mormon prophet can use the Bible, then other Mormons should be confident in using it as well.

Absolutely! And we most certainly are.

== The assertion that Hebrew manuscripts (the OT) teach polytheism is akin to a KKK tome calling for racial justice and cannot be supported by any serious or respected scholarship outside of Mormonism.

I beg to difer. While you may feel comfortable throwing away reputable scholars into the "liberal bin" (or whatever) because it is easier to do so than to actually deal with their arguments, it is still an indisputable fact that the earliest Israelite religion believed in the existence of other deities. They didn't worship them mind you, but they acknowledged their existence.

== If Mormons are uncomfortable with that label, which they are, perhaps they should re-examine what their beliefs are concerning God.

No, we are uncomfortable with the way people use it for polemical purposes. For instance, to put it mildly, you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about if you think scholars are not accepting the fact that Israel created teh concept of monotheism through various reforms, particularly the reform of Josiah. Many scholars are uncomfortable with the word "polytheism" because it is interpreted differently by many people. Does it mean the WORSHIP of many gods? If so, Mormons do not qualify. But WORSHIPPING many gods is the popular understanding, and this is why Evangelical prefer it. Because it obviously puts Mormonism in an unfavorable light, despite teh fact that it doesn't accurately describe our beliefs.

As far as your take on the plurality of Gen 1:26, scholars are united on the fact that it refers to the heavenly host, i.e., deities. Evangelical scholar Gordon J. Wenham has this to say:

From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have generally held that the plural is used because God is addressing his heavenly court... I do not find the difficulties raised against (this position) compelling.

...Christians have traditionally seen this verse as adumbrating the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not the plural meant to the original author. --Wenham, World Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15, p.27-28

[Bloodnut]

== The New American Heritage defines "christian" as - One who professes belief in Christianity.

This is circular reasoning. The definition serves the Evangelical usage because it relies on Evangelical sources. Where does the Bible define Christian? Quite simply, it doesn't.

== Since Christianity teaches that Jesus is indeed part of the triune Godhead, this definition supports my statement.

But we also teach that Jesus is divine and part of the Godhead. And "Christianity" teaches many different things by the way. You'd be surprised how many Christians are actually modalists, for example. I grew up Southern Baptist and I know this was the common understanding of the Trinity among the other kids. When questions were raised how they could be one yet separate, we were usually told it was a paradox or a mystery our puny minds couldn't understand. The entire explanation rested on the assumption of paradox. Using this for of explanation one can pretty much invent whatever argument he wants, and when he is called to justify its nature, he just calls it a paradox and assume the matter closed. This is the most wrongheaded way to make a convincing argument. If you want to believe in a paradox, well knock yourselves out. But don't get on everyone else's case because they don't. Don't use your paradox as a standard to judge the Christianity of everyone else. This is the sort of thing that gives fundamentalist Christians a bad name.

Anyway, I always wondered if these kids knew at that time, they weren't really "Christians" at according to people like RR? They didn't understand the Trinity properly at all, and those who claim to understand it usually admit it is just a paradox.

JM: Later Jewish monotheists may have adulterated their ancient texts
RR: Do you have ANY support for this?

I do. It is the scholarly majority that believes this to be the case. Are you truly unaware of this?

== You have consistently ignored in this discussion the fact that in the Hebrew language Elohim is translated in the singular.

So what? If JM meant to say that the Genesis text supports the idea that multiple Gods created the World, then this is incorrect. But the "let us" still represents a plurality. The "us" represents teh heavenly host, which of course, constitutes divine beings. Hence, polytheism as you would describe it, is still manifest. I agree with Evangelical scholar, Gordon J. Wenham who said this verse "should therefore be regarded as a divine announcement to the heavenly court, drawing the angelic host's attention to the master stroke of creation, man. As Job 38:4,7 puts it: 'When I laid the foundation of the earth...all the sons of God shouted for joy'".

The "sons of God" in the OT were the divine elohim. And for this reason the later monotheistic redactors tweaked the scriptures to hide the older tradition. A tradition that you woudl call polytheistic, even though they still only worshipped one God, Yahweh, while acknowledging the existence of other gods.

Today, more and more scholars are coming to the conclusion that Israel's earliest religion was not monotheistic. On top of that, they have discovered a variant of Deuteronomy 32:8 from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and many scholars have concluded that Yahweh (Jesus) was actually a Son of the Most High God, Elyon. This one little scribal change, completely hid two huge doctrines that conform very well with LDS theology. Not only does it demonstrate polytheism, as many other OT scriptures do also, but it also distinguishes Yahweh from the Most High God, El; a doctrine completely unique to LDS Christians.
With this discovery at the Dead Sea, the conclusions drawn can be defended quite easily. So we must first ask ourselves how was it that the OT was changed. Was this really possible? Christians typically assume the text was uncorrupted because God wouldn't let anything happen to it. This assumption is now demonstrated to be myth. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, professor emeritus of New Testament at The Catholic University of America, said the DSS version,

"...revealed a different story about the copying and transmission of Old Testament writings. In some cases, especially 1-2 Samuel, Jeremiah, and Exodus, the fragments brought to light forms or recensions of biblical books that differed from the medieval Masoretic tradition. For instance, one text turned out to be a shorter Hebrew form of Jeremiah, previously known only in its Greek version in the Septuagint. It now seems that the fuller form of Masoretic tradition represents a Palestinian rewording of the book." (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: After Forty Years, America, October 31, 1987, p. 302)

It should also be noted that the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew text from which our KJV derives) includes huge chunks of Jeremiah that are not found in the LXX: Jer 10.6-8; 27:19-22; 33:14-26; 39:3-14; 48:45-47. Almost a thousand words were added! One must wonder why these scribes didn't delete Jeremiah 8:8 while they were at it: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie."

However, for our present purposes we will not delve too deeply in the added portions from the Book of Jeremiah. We will stop here since the point has been made: the Hebrew Bible is not without variation and it has undergone major textual changes since its conception. This further damages the common Biblicist argument that Jewish scribes were meticulous and would never dare change anything. The significance of the differences between the two versions were given proper attention when the Dead Sea Scrolls provided us with manuscripts dating back a thousand years earlier than the MT, and which also agreed with the LXX.

That the New Testament authors found it necessary to follow the LXX over the Hebrew Old Testament, is no secret. Says Richard F. Smith, "at times the LXX is cited [in the New Testament] in support of Christian doctrines precisely because the Hebrew text does not support the doctrines in question ."(Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Roland Murphy, editors. The Jerome Bible Commentary. Two Volumes. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 2:511)

Case example, Deut 32:8-9:
In the Masoretic Text (MT), as it is translated in the KJV, the passage reads as follows:

"When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD's [Yahweh's] portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

However, it has long been known from the Septuagint, and more recently from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the phrase "according to the number of the children of Israel" used to read "according to the number of the sons of God." In the RSV, which takes into account the confirming evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the passage reads like this:

"When the Most High [El Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For the LORD's [Yahweh's] portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance."

The Interpreters Bible tells us that,"The LXX reading adopted by the RSV almost certainly reflects the original Hebrew text." The significance of this variation is that in ancient times the term "sons of God" frequently referred to members of a divine assembly of gods. The ancient Hebrews believed in a divine council of deities headed by the supreme father-god El (also called Elohim or El Elyon), and they often referred to the members of this council as "the sons of God." There is considerable disagreement among scholars over the council's composition, but there is no serious question that a belief in a divine assembly of heavenly deities was an important doctrine in ancient Hebrew theology. By changing "the sons of God" to "the children of Israel," someone was deliberately trying to eliminate the reference to the "divine council": a concept that is vital to the LDS interpretation of Ps 82:6. Ignoring the existence of the divine council makes it easier to dodge monotheistic/polytheistic controversies.

The LXX and Dead Sea Scroll versions of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 clearly portray Yahweh as separate from El and as a member of the divine assembly subordinate to Him. As Lemche says, "the Greek version apparently ranges Yahweh among the sons of the Most High, that is, treats him as a member of the pantheon of gods who are subordinate to the supreme God, El Elyon.” Margaret Barker calls Yahweh the "Son of Elohim," for this same reason, and according to Harvard University's Paul Hanson, "This verse no doubt preserves early Israel's view of her place within the family of nations. The high god 'Elyon' originally apportioned the nations to the members of the divine assembly...Israel was allotted to Yahweh." As the RSV puts it, Israel was Yahweh's "allotted inheritance," given to Him by His Father, El. Hebrew scholar Hershel Shanks, who is the founder and editor of the Biblical Archeology Review and the Bible Review, agrees when he says "sons of God" makes more sense, but that it "smacks of polytheism." He elaborates that: "Each of the world's peoples is allotted to a divine son -- Chemosh gets the moabites, Qos gets the Edomites, Milkom gets the Ammonites, Ba'al gets the canaanites, and so forth, while Yahweh (Jehovah) takes care of the Israelites, his chosen people."

Kyle McCarter also points out that Yahweh may be a son of God, and that the division was, according to the text, done by the Most High God (Elyon) Himself. He also believes that, "The original can be taken to mean that Yahweh was one of the sons of God to whom Elyon parceled out peoples. The alteration suppressed this interpretation." Shanks asks whether the "Hebrew text changed sometime between its composition and the earliest surviving texts from the tenth and eleventh centuries a.d., presumably to remove the embarrassing reference to 'sons of God?'"; or "is the pristine Hebrew text to be preferred over a Greek translation?"(Shanks, 151) Ronald S. Hendel answers the first question in the affirmative when he says: "Somewhere along the line in the transmission of the standard rabbinic Bible someone felt the need to clean up the text by literally rewriting it and substituting 'sons of Israel' for the original 'Sons of God' in Deuteronomy 32:8."

Dr. George Adam Smith said that ancient Judaism, "which was not a monotheism, but a polytheism with an opportunity for monotheism at the heart of it, each tribe being attached to one god, as to their particular Lord and Father." Those who subsequently tampered with the Hebrew text were probably Yahweh-only editors who wanted to erase the original distinction between El and Yahweh and to depict Yahweh as the one and only God. Clearly, as any Latter-day Saint should recognize, this matter poses a clear advantage for the LDS doctrine that Yahweh (Jesus Christ) and Elohim (Heavenly father) are different individuals. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, such a position was difficult to substantiate since very few lay members of Christianity have familiarity with the LXX. The facts which vindicate the "sons of God" and the "divine council" doctrines, have further strengthened the LDS doctrine of human deification as it pertains to Ps 82:6 and John 10:34.

Peter Hayman also discusses how Monotheism was not original Judaism, but rather a much later innovation: "In the academic world of twenty or thirty years ago it was conventional to hold that the story of Judaism was one of a gradual, but inexorable, evolution from a Canaanite/Israelite pagan and mythological environment into the pure light of an unsullied monotheism." Hayman tells us that "Judaism after the exile represents a startling new development in the history of religion, and that it is the Jewish monotheistic conception of God that makes this religion stand out from all others," and that "..it is hardly ever appropriate to use the term monotheism to describe the Jewish idea of God, that no progress beyond the simple formulas of the Book of Deuteronomy can be discerned in Judaism before the philosophers of the Middle Ages, and that Judaism never escapes from the legacy of the battles for supremacy between Yahweh, Ba'al and El from which it emerged." He goes so far as to say that Yahweh was not only separate from these other deities, but that He is "not different from them in kind." (Hayman, Peter; Presidential address to the British Association for Jewish Studies, Edinburgh, 21 August 1990, published as Monotheism - A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?, Journal of Jewish Studies 42 .1991)

Adela Yarbro Collins, who is currently Buckingham Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, at Yale University, while critiquing Richard Baukham's book, says that, "The issue of monotheism for second temple Jews was one of loyalty rather than a metaphysical or philosophical issue, so divine hypostases and personifications (such as the Logos, Philo's "second god") are not simply identical with God, but are subordinate and generated entities God uses to interact with creation. They are acceptable because they are not identified with the pagan gods." She also comments on the significance, which Bauckham underestimates, of 4Q491 frag. 11, regarding the "divine throne." She states that , "[the]Qumran community entertained the idea of the enthronement, exaltation, and even divinization of a human being. Likewise, the enthroned Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch 'participates in God's unique sovereignty' rather than sharing in God's 'identity.' He, like Jesus, is worshiped as God's agent, not God per se." Other scholars who would agree with the above analysis are Julio Trebolle Barrera, Eissfeldt, Bob Becking, Dr. L.M. Barré and Mark S. Smith. And none of them are LDS.

Now one can ad hominem these scholars until they're blue in the face if they so choose, but it cannot be stated that scholars do not hold the position above. I woudl argue that Evangelicals would rather attack the messengers instead of dealing with the message, for if you can label a scholar "liberal" or whatever, it is easier to reject what they say. Problem is, however, the liberals are not the ones with an agenda here. They are simply accepting the evidence discovered at the Dead Sea, while the Evangelicals are trying desperately to salvage their theology by downplaying the significance of this evidence. For them, their minds are made up already, so who needs to analyze any more evidence? If it is shown that the earliest Israelites were not the strict monotheists Evangelicals presume, then this this throws their theology into a whirlwind of a dliemma since they are so adamant about making "monotheism" a strict prerequisite for salvation.

[Bill the Cat]

Bloodnut, back to back posts are not permitted. I will let these stand because you are new, but please familiarize yourself with the forum rules

[Bloodnut]

Where are the rules? I found one link but it took me here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/decorum/ and that is a broken link.

And down at the bottom of this page it says:

Rules:
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

So I'm lost.

[Bill the Cat]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/view.php?pg=decorum is the new link for forum rules where it spells out

Multiple posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation

[T.J. Maxx]

"Multiple posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed."

Unless you are Red Rooster. Then it is alright. Or unless you happen to not be a Mormon, or atheist, or non-Evangelical.

Come on. Well all know why the crack down is happening here. You're censoring his responses for obvious reasons. For the same reason this post will be deleted. RR responded twice in a row just like the bloody nut did. Sure, RR addressed the "general audience," but this is a technicality to say his is ok because he wasn't responding to a particular poster. Of course he was, albeit indirectly. If Bloodnut had responded to the "general audience" back to back, would it have been acceptable?

If so, then there is your loophole Bloodnut. If not, then there should be know doubt what is really going on here.

[dizzle]

Take it to the Locker Room. There is already a rant thread on this issue.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Oh my, here's a post I never replied to.

RED ROOSTER (RR):
Hello John Mormon,
I hope all is well with you and yours.

JOHN MORMON (JM):
We should translate into our language what the original writer meant by his words, not what people way down the road decided he should have meant.

RR:
I couldn't agree more. The question is, do you really believe you have shown conclusively that the OT books were authored by polytheists and thus point to a plurality of gods in the face of the overwhelming evidence of monotheism throught the OT and the monotheism of Jews themselves who regard the OT as sacred scripture?


JM:
Mormons are persuaded by the evidence in the O.T., so it's conclusive for them.

JM:
Later Jewish monotheists may have adulterated their ancient texts.

RR:
Do you have ANY support for this?


JM:
Well sure, there are books referred to in the O.T. that aren't there. There are errors and inconsistencies in the Bible. God doesn't make mistakes like that. People do. If apostate Jews sought to abolish the true polytheism of the O.T., they would have been tempted to change the O.T.

JM:
The word "Elohim" is plural for God. "Us" is also plural. Poetic license allows one to alter the these basic meanings, but the writer should be clear when doing so, and presumably, have a good reason for playing games with the language. Moses did not seem to satisfy his readers with this important information so we should assume that elohim means "gods" and "us" means more than one god. Later monotheists apparently decided on their own that Moses meant something different.

RR:
You have consistently ignored in this discussion the fact that in the Hebrew language Elohim is translated in the singular.


JM:
That may be how moderns translate it, but how did the ancients understand it? Didn't the ancients know that adding "im" at the end of word meant more than one?

RR:
You can't get around how Hebrews write and speak their own language.


JM:
How they do TODAY. How did they do it anciently?

RR:
We do not have to make this erroneous assumption because we have been told by those who speak the language how it is to be translated properly, not because they are monotheists, but because of the grammatical rules of the language they speak. Again, you have absolutely no basis for your assertions.


POWELL:
According to Strong's Concordance, Hebrew 0430 "elohiym" is the PLURAL of Hebrew 0433 "elowahh" which means "God" which is "probably prolonged (emphat.) from 0410" which is "el" meaning "god."

So, you appear to be mistaken, unless your sources are more authoritative than Strong's.

Let's test your sources on another example. What do they think the "urim" is? Do they think it's one ur-thing or more than one?

JM:
Do you agree that two divine persons distinct from Jesus, namely the Holy Spirit and the Most High, were at the conception of Jesus or do you believe there was only one divine person there?

RR:
After re-reading the passage I think the "power of the Most High" probably refers also to the Holy Spirit, so the phrases "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" and "the power of the Most High will overshadow you" form a couplet emphasizing that the conception is a supernatural event.


POWELL:
Ok, so God, the Father wasn't even there. Consequently, how is it proper to say Jesus is the Son of the Father when it appears He was the Son of the Holy Spirit?

JM:
You surely don't believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same person do you, just the same divine thing? Well, Mormons sort of agree, but they think that the "same divine thing" is the Godhead.

RR:
No I don't believe that. That is Modalism. They are three distinct persons yet one God - I hold to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Mormons believe they are distinct persons BECAUSE they are distinct gods. Thay believe the Godhead consists of three separate gods. So for Mormons, the use of the word Godhead is nonsensical. They should say "Godshead" I suppose.


POWELL:
Does that mean you think the term "presiden-cy" is nonsensical if it consists of three presidents, that it should say "presidents-cy"?

JM:
Well, have you seriously considered that Thomas was a polytheist in that he believed that the father of Jesus was God, but that Jesus was also God but they weren't the same person?

RR:
Of course not. To do so would require I ignore the context of the passage, the Greek text and the historical setting. This is what Mormons ( and all cultists for that matter) do to make the biblical texts fit their theology. But it is futile.


JM:
If Thomas believed in the Father of Jesus as God and in Jesus, a person distinct from the Father, as God then that suggests he believed in two Gods, no? That makes Thomas a polytheist, no?

JM:
Remember, that Jesus also spoke of "your God and my God". Surely Jesus is not his own God, right?

RR:
This underscores the subject/object relationship between the Father and the Son and models for us divine authority. Just as Jesus was under the authority of the Father, Christians are under the authority of Jesus.


POWELL:
Since you believe there is only one God and Jesus is it, then the God of Jesus must be the God that Jesus is, no? Also, how can Jesus be subservient to the God that is Himself?

RR:
The Bible teaches very clearly the interrelationships within the Godhead.


JM:
Absurd. If that were true then we wouldn't be having this discussion, we'd all be trinitarians or polytheists or something like that. Somebody has probably been messing around with the Bible to cause this confusion.

JM:
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense why the Israelites had so much trouble following other gods knowing from God Himself that there were other gods, but just not in charge? It would to me.

RR:
This is nonsense John. In light of the many passages I posted earlier from just Isaiah alone where God declares EXPLICITLY that HE IS IT, as well as the consistent witness of the Bible as a whole, you want to argue that God told his covenant people the exact opposite?


JM:
Sure. How do you explain the ease with which they accepted other Gods if the one God made it crystal clear that He was all there was? If God had revealed that there were more Gods than just Himself then it makes more sense why the Jews would be so easily deceived into following other gods.

RR:
How can you explain the many passages where God uses sarcasm to deride the Israelites for worshipping idols - literally "nothings".


JM:
The prophet is sarcastic because idols are mere works of men.

RR:
God was incredulous because no other gods exist.


JM:
The prophet was incredulous because God is not made of wood or stone.

RR:
The idolatry of Israel (and our own) is folly. What about Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal beacause they were trying in vain to summon a god who didn't exist?


JM:
Because Baal didn't exist. That does not mean that Gods besides Heavenly Father didn't exist. It just means Baal wasn't one of them.

RR:
Can you give me one passage that indicates God knew there were other gods around beside Him and then reconcile it with the all the texts that prove otherwise?


JM:
I already did. Elohim means plural "Gods." There was a council of Gods in the beginning. Elohim said "let us" speaking to others who would help create the Earth. When God emphasized that He was all there was it was in terms of the Godhead for this Earth. He was emphasizing that Baal and all those others weren't Gods. He was not necessarily speaking about all of the universe or all planes of existence throughout all time.

RR:
I have offered ample BIBLICAL support for the One, True God who is revealed in three persons.


JM:
What do you mean One God in three persons? Jesus was in the water, the Father was speaking from the clouds and the Holy Ghost was in the sign of the dove. That's three separate individuals. That's not one individual. That's 3 Gods, not one.

Jesus prayed to the Father. Jesus wasn't praying to the one God that is Jesus. Jesus was speaking to the God who is His Father.

I'm not asking to which person, but to which GOD did Jesus pray, RR, to the God that is Jesus or to some other God?

Jesus prayed that the disciples would be one like He and the Father were one. He wasn't praying that they be one substance, but one in purpose. That's the oneness that Jesus and the Father have: oneness of purpose.

RR:
You, on the other hand have not supported in any substantial way your contention for Mormon polytheism from the Bible. You have offered only weak speculation about imagined polytheistic ancients who wrote to a polytheistic culture that you contend is a more accurate historical assessment of ancient Judaism. You have given no scriptural or scholarly support for these claims.


JM:
Well, now I used Strong's. Is that acceptable?

RR:
So let me ask you to defend this as well:
You stated:

JM:
With few exceptions, the God of the OT was Jesus speaking on behalf of the Godhead.

RR:
Mormons assert that Jehovah in the OT is actually Jesus while Elohim is "Heavenly Father". There is no basis for making this distinction because the two words are used together in numerous places to refer to the one God ( "Lord God"). "Jehovah" is nothing more than a poor pronunciation/translation of "Yahweh" that has stuck out of tradition and usage. So "Lord" is translated properly as Yahweh. As you stated above, Mormons believe when we read Jehovah (Yahweh) , it is Jesus speaking. Consider the following passage:

Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavans by myself and spreading out the earth all alone. (Isa. 44.24)

But how could Jesus be alone? Where is "Heavenly Father and Mother". Where are all the spirit brothers and sisters?


JM:
Jehovah is emphasizing that none of the idols, the false gods, helped Him out. The one Godhead of which He is a part did it without their help.

RR:
I quote James White:

WHITE:
This passage presents numerous difficulties for the LDS viewpoint. Yahweh speaks. He claims to be the Maker, the one who formed man. Indeed, He claims to be the Maker of ALL things. But the final two phrase are simply beyond explanation for the Mormon Church. Yahweh (remember, this is the Son, a second and less exalted God than Elohim in modern LDS theology) says that he stretches the heavens "by Myself" and the earth "all alone." Remember the scene we recounted from the CURRENT LDS Temple ceremonies in which Elohim directs Jehovah AND MICHAEL to go down and "organize" the earth? This passage is directly contradictory to the assertions found in the Endowment ceremony, which as we saw, is considered to have been given BY REVELATION. Yahweh did not stretch out the heavens under the orders of some greater god and in company with Michael. He ALONE is Creator.

From Is the Mormon My Brother , pg 148.


JM:
James White seems to be ignoring that this is NOT saying:

"I am the only God there is. Elohim is not God. The Holy Spirit is not God. Heavenly Mother is not God. Only I, Jehovah, am God and I created everything without any of their help."

What the passage seems to be saying is:

"I, Jehovah (speaking for the 3 Gods of the Godhead), created the Earth without the help of the false gods made of wood and stone."

These false gods are referred to beginning in Isa 44:9.

RR:
After your response John, I'd like to step back and move over to Apologetics for some questions I have of Atheists and their worldview. I'll be addressing anyone who cares to respond but I certainly value your thoughts there as I have in this forum. When we get back to our discussion here I would like to move on to the Mormon doctrine of the corporeality of God. I see you are engaged elswhere as well and I look forward to peeking in on that debate, so if time becomes an issue, I understand.

His Peace


JM:
Ask and you shall receive (although sometimes I forget for a while).

John Powell