James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

[cksalmon]

Hey ba81,

Still waiting for a response to my 12:24 PM post (#203).

Grace and peace,

David

Hi David--

If ba81 believes that BoM and D&C 20 (April 1830) are harmonious with, say, Abraham 4 and KFD (which I would assume he does), I don't think he'll have any problem continuing to affirm LDS polytheism in a way that is not isomorphic with traditional trinitarianism.

Best.

cks

[David Waltz]

Hi Billy,

Overcame my temporary lazinessâ?¦

For numerous â??a godâ? translations of John 1:1c see this site:

http://web.archive.org/web/20041010061949/....com/wisdom.htm

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hi CK,

You wrote:

>> If ba81 believes that BoM and D&C 20 (April 1830) are harmonious with, say, Abraham 4 and KFD (which I would assume he does), I don't think he'll have any problem continuing to affirm LDS polytheism in a way that is not isomorphic with traditional trinitarianism.>>

Me: While we wait for ba81, could you define what you mean by â??traditional trinitarianismâ?, and give its first clear, unequivocal proponent?

Grace and peace,

David

[Billy]

However, it was Godâ??s Son who acted in His behalf throughout the OT. John explains the why:

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:18 â?? NAS)

Isa 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

You say that this is easy stuff, and you seem to think that the LDS position is straight forward, but I think that the LDS position is just as difficult as the mainstream position. I know that I keep bringing up these verses, but I don't believe that you have answered my question.

So in Isa 44:6 your view is that

When it says "beside me [there is] no God, you say that this is God the Father. Do you believe this statement that there in no other God. How about the Son, or the Holy Ghost, or about You someday? Clearly the LDS Bible dictionary says that Jesus/Jehovah is a God as noted below.

The LDS Bible dictionary states this about Jehovah

BIBLE DICTIONARY

JEHOVAH

"The covenant or proper name of the God of Israel. It denotes the â??Unchangeable One,â? â??the eternal I AMâ?. . .Jehovah is the premortal Jesus Christ. . ."

GOD

"When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as LORD (in capital letters), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God. "

John 1:18 (ESV) 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Fatherâ??s side, he has made him known.

Do not wish to sound cavalier, but this is pretty simple stuff, very straightforward: it was the â??the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Fatherâ? who was seen in the OT, and revealed â??the Godâ? (i.e. the Father) that no man had seen at any time.

Grace and peace,

David

The pretty simple stuff is that Jesus revealed God to man because of your proof text in John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God", yet you turn around and accept Joseph Smith's story that he has seen the Father.

[cksalmon]

Hi CK,

You wrote:

>> If ba81 believes that BoM and D&C 20 (April 1830) are harmonious with, say, Abraham 4 and KFD (which I would assume he does), I don't think he'll have any problem continuing to affirm LDS polytheism in a way that is not isomorphic with traditional trinitarianism.>>

Me: While we wait for ba81, could you define what you mean by "traditional trinitarianism", and give its first clear, unequivocal proponent?

Grace and peace,

David

Hi David--

"Unequivocal?" Highly doubtful, friend!

I personally don't find the Athanasian Creed particularly problematic (though I do recognize its late date as well as its apparently 'pseudepigraphical' nature).

My point is merely that I don't think ba81 would parse the texts referenced in #203 in a way that supports an ambiguous collapsing of the views of Quicumque vult and Abraham 4 into a fuzzy and, worst case, even feigned theological d

[Billy]

I believe that Billy equates "believe in" with "worship of" and this is the problem I have and besides, polytheism covers a wide range of beliefs and Billy will not use the one that describe those he opposes, he will simply use the one that best fits his agenda.

In multiple dictionaries the definition (which I provided in a prior post) does not require worship to be considered a polytheist, only "belief in".

Maybe you could give us a definition of polytheist, and give us the source for your definition (i.e. one that you did not make up)

[David Waltz]

Hello Billy,

You said:

>>You say that this is easy stuff, and you seem to think that the LDS position is straight forward, but I think that the LDS position is just as difficult as the mainstream position.>>

Me: I donâ??t think the LDS positions (note the plural) is either easy stuff or straightforward, nor are the numerous â??mainstreamâ? (whatever that means) positions (note the plural). What I do believe is easy stuff and straightforward is that it was the Son of God who revealed and spoke for God the Father in the OT.

>>I know that I keep bringing up these verses, but I don't believe that you have answered my question.

So in Isa 44:6 your view is that

When it says "beside me [there is] no God, you say that this is God the Father. Do you believe this statement that there in no other God. How about the Son, or the Holy Ghost, or about You someday? Clearly the LDS Bible dictionary says that Jesus/Jehovah is a God as noted below.>>

Me: I believe that there is only one Father God; one source/font of divinityâ??as such I believe that passages such as Isaiah 44:6 are speaking about that one Person. Though other persons share in the divinity of that one Person, they are not the one source/font of divinity. (There is only one Person, one God who begat the only-begotten Son/God.)

>>The pretty simple stuff is that Jesus revealed God to man because of your proof text in John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God", yet you turn around and accept Joseph Smith's story that he has seen the Father.>>

Me: Two important pointsâ??first, since I am not Mormon (nor have I ever been), I have not accepted Josephâ??s First Vision; and second, if I do come to accept the First Vision, it occurred centuries after the writing of John 1:18.

Grace and peace,

David

[Billy]

Me: Two important pointsâ??first, since I am not Mormon (nor have I ever been), I have not accepted Josephâ??s First Vision; and second, if I do come to accept the First Vision, it occurred centuries after the writing of John 1:18.

Grace and peace,

David

Sorry, I incorrectly assumed that you were LDS.

[urroner]

In multiple dictionaries the definition (which I provided in a prior post) does not require worship to be considered a polytheist, only "belief in".

Maybe you could give us a definition of polytheist, and give us the source for your definition (i.e. one that you did not make up)

I agree, personally, with the definition, but, like I have said several times already, too many people, including the majority of Evangelical, equate "belief in" to "worship of." Do you disagree Billy?

[urroner]

Sorry, I incorrectly assumed that you were LDS.

David is very much an RCCer and one that I wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley when it comes to trying to prove him wrong. He wears a blue suit with a red "S" on his chest.

[urroner]

Isa 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

Michael Heiser, as I posted earlier, an Evangelical top notch scholar explained this very well. I posted some of his comments here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208570480

[jwhitlock]

Also Satan is addressed as the "god of this age". Which I hope you will agree is not a true God.

2 Corinthians 4

4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Agreeing would require that I deny what the scripture says - and the scripture characterizes Satan as a "god".

Of course, the other thing besides "worship" that you want to dismiss is what the term "god" really entails. To you, in your attempt to label us polytheists, a Mormon god is a god is a god. No further qualifications need apply, as long as you can get the label of polytheism to stick.

The scripture acknowledges others who are titled "gods". Christ himself declared to the Jews that their scriptures called them "gods". The book of Revelation talks about God and His Father.

If you are so determined to characterize polytheism in the broadest way possible, with the broadest definition of what gods are in Mormon theology, you can't turn around and try to dismiss Biblical references to other gods of various shapes and sizes as "not being true gods". You can't have it both ways.

So, Billy. Since the Bible is clearly polytheistic - according to your broad definition - how come you stick to an non-Biblical, monotheistic position?

[Billy]

David is very much an RCCer and one that I wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley when it comes to trying to prove him wrong. He wears a blue suit with a red "S" on his chest.

Because I thought he was LDS, some of his answers were throwing me off a little bit, I thought that he was an LDS 'going rogue'.

[jwhitlock]

Sorry, I incorrectly assumed that you were LDS.

Does this make any difference?

[cksalmon]

Because I thought he was LDS, some of his answers were throwing me off a little bit, I thought that he was an LDS 'going rogue'.

Hey Billy--

Hah! I think he's more like an RCC'er going rogue. (But's he's been "rogue" for several years now. He's even referenced [negatively] in one of Abanes's books.)

cks

[cksalmon]

So, Billy. Since the Bible is clearly polytheistic - according to your broad definition - how come you stick to an non-Biblical, monotheistic position?

Hi j--

Not to speak for Billy, but Heiser, for example, argues from the biblical data that Yahweh is an elohim, but that no other elohim is Yahweh (by which he means that the other elohim are beings created by Yahweh). Again, I'd recommend his dissertation. I think his pioneering work (which was begun without any reference to Mormonism) will become increasingly important over time for EV OT exegetes.

I don't think most are ready for it yet, but that may change.

Best.

cks

[urroner]

urroner--

If you're interested in following up on Heiser's views, I'd highly recommend downloading his dissertation (available for digital download on one of his websites) The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature for around $20.

Well, food out of the mouth of my children, but it's worth it. They can starve a little.

[Billy]

Agreeing would require that I deny what the scripture says - and the scripture characterizes Satan as a "god".

Of course, the other thing besides "worship" that you want to dismiss is what the term "god" really entails. To you, in your attempt to label us polytheists, a Mormon god is a god is a god. No further qualifications need apply, as long as you can get the label of polytheism to stick.

The scripture acknowledges others who are titled "gods". Christ himself declared to the Jews that their scriptures called them "gods". The book of Revelation talks about God and His Father.

If you are so determined to characterize polytheism in the broadest way possible, with the broadest definition of what gods are in Mormon theology, you can't turn around and try to dismiss Biblical references to other gods of various shapes and sizes as "not being true gods". You can't have it both ways.

So, Billy. Since the Bible is clearly polytheistic - according to your broad definition - how come you stick to an non-Biblical, monotheistic position?

This is what I don't quite understand, on the one hand you say "the Bible is clearly polytheistic", yet on the other hand you vehemently object to being called a polytheist.

Let me briefly address a couple of the examples that you noted above.

1. You state that Christ himself declared to the Jews that their scriptures called them "gods". This is a quote from Psalm 82-- These are judges. See Jesus the Christ by Talmage page 501, who agrees with this assessment.

2. Satan is called god. Despite the label, I do not think anyone would call him a god.

3. Paul speaks of food sacrificed to idol/false gods, but then affirms just one God in the verse before and after the many gods statement.

4. You state, "The book of Revelation talks about God and His Father." I think you are referring to Rev 1:6. Notice that there is a difference between the two versions. My bet is that the NASB is the more accurate of the two.

Rev 1:6

KJV 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

NASB 6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

[jwhitlock]

Hi j--

Not to speak for Billy, but Heiser, for example, argues from the biblical data that Yahweh is an elohim, but that no other elohim is Yahweh (by which he means that the other elohim are beings created by Yahweh). Again, I'd recommend his dissertation. I think his pioneering work (which was begun without any reference to Mormonism) will become increasingly important over time for EV OT exegetes.

I don't think most are ready for it yet, but that may change.

Actually, all I've been trying to do is nail Billy with the broad brush that he's been using to define polytheism.

The concept of "gods", and "Gods" in the Bible of various types and levels is one that cannot be easily dismissed by using a catch-all idol worship argument; you're correct in that the subject is far more complex than that.

This thread has been going at two levels; a deeper and more meaningful one to look for understanding, and a shallower level to try and demonstrate why the label of polytheism doesn't stick well. That I have participated more in the shallow end of the pool is, perhaps, instructive in its own right.

[3DOP]

Wow...A lot of catching up to do.

Urroner,

I had almost completed a post when the power went out this morning. Maybe tomorrow...I didn't have that much to say anyway...but I had said I would share some thoughts and wanted you to know I hadn't forgotten.

Later,

[jwhitlock]

This is what I don't quite understand, on the one hand you say "the Bible is clearly polytheistic", yet on the other hand you vehemently object to being called a polytheist.

The Bible is clearly polytheistic according to your broad definition. That's what I'm demonstrating. The only point is that if you want to paint Mormonism as polytheistic, the Bible - by your same definition - is polytheistic in the same way. I make no other claim at the current time concerning my own viewpoint on the subject, other than to opine that "polytheism" doesn't accurately describe LDS theology.

1. You state that Christ himself declared to the Jews that their scriptures called them "gods". This is a quote from Psalm 82-- These are judges. See Jesus the Christ by Talmage page 501, who agrees with this assessment.

Still within the category of "gods", according to the scripture and the usage. While correct about them being judges, they are still equated with being gods, and I suspect there was a reason for the wording.

2. Satan is called god. Despite the label, I do not think anyone would call him a god.

I is called the god of this world in 2 Cor 4 (IIRC). Again, the broad definition of polytheism you use does not leave room for arbitrary distinctions concerning "types" of gods, just like you indicated the "worship" of gods was irrelevant.

3. Paul speaks of food sacrificed to idol/false gods, but then affirms just one God in the verse before and after the many gods statement.

And yet it would be a mistake to chalk the entire reference up to "just" referring to idols. Paul, if nothing else, was familiar with the Jewish art of dualism.

4. You state, "The book of Revelation talks about God and His Father." I think you are referring to Rev 1:6. Notice that there is a difference between the two versions. My bet is that the NASB is the more accurate of the two.

Probably only because the NASB is closer to supporting your viewpoint. The wording of the verse - just like John 1:1 - is not so easily nailed down.

[urroner]

1. You state that Christ himself declared to the Jews that their scriptures called them "gods". This is a quote from Psalm 82-- These are judges. See Jesus the Christ by Talmage page 501, who agrees with this assessment.

Talmadge was wrong. Michael Heiser even says that there is no way the "eloheim" in Psalm 82 can be mortals.

Divine Council 101: Lesson 2: The elohim of Psalm 82 â?? gods or men?

verse 6 and 7(New King James Version)

6. I said, â??You are gods,

And all of you are children of the Most High.

7 But you shall die like men,

And fall like one of the princes.â?

Verse 7 is very interesting because those being addressed are told that as a punishment, they will die like men. If they were mortals, that would be like telling a dog "since you were bad, I will make you bark like a dog?" Okay, that's not much of a punishment.

The Lord: Urroner, you are a bad boy and as a bad boy, the consequences of you action will be you will die.

Urroner: Okay, aren't I going to die any way?

The Lord: Yes.

Does this makes any sense?

Now if I was immortal, that would be some pretty bad consequences.

[cksalmon]

Talmadge was wrong. Michael Heiser even says that there is no way the "eloheim" in Psalm 82 can be mortals.

Divine Council 101: Lesson 2: The elohim of Psalm 82 â?? gods or men?

verse 6 and 7(New King James Version)

6. I said, "You are gods,

And all of you are children of the Most High.

7 But you shall die like men,

And fall like one of the princes."

Verse 7 is very interesting because those being addressed are told that as a punishment, they will die like men. If they were mortals, that would be like telling a dog "since you were bad, I will make you bark like a dog?" Okay, that's not much of a punishment.

The Lord: Urroner, you are a bad boy and as a bad boy, the consequences of you action will be you will die.

Urroner: Okay, aren't I going to die any way?

The Lord: Yes.

Does this makes any sense?

Now if I was immortal, that would be some pretty bad consequences.

You've encapsulated Heiser's cogent point re: Psalm 82 quite well here, urroner.

I find Heiser convincing at this point.

Best.

cks

[urroner]

You've encapsulated Heiser's cogent point re: Psalm 82 quite well here, urroner.

I find Heiser convincing at this point.

Best.

cks

Thanks for the compliment ck, I really feel honored.

[cksalmon]

Thanks for the compliment ck, I really feel honored.

(Shhh...)

(I have an anti-Mormon rep to maintain, u.)