James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

[coolrok7]

>> After you answer mine first, I asked first, Jesus was quoting the Schema from the Old testament (the verse in the mazuzahs on the doorposts of Jewish peoples homes as I understand). So who was Jesus referring to?>

The Father; I do not think he was referring to either multiple persons, or the non-personal DIVINE NATURE.

Thanks David. Also:

So David, is the view you just stated, the equivalent of Joseph Smith's "plurality of gods" statement (which is polytheistic in the sense of other gods actually existing not necessarily that they are worshipped, unless they are being worshipped by the people who they are supposedly "gods" of like "Heavenly Father is to Mormons) statement in the King Follet discourse (Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith) during Church conference in 1844?

This is what makes Joseph Smith an heretical false prophet as is Charles Taze Russel as he taught a similar teching to Joseph Smith. In a 1995 Awake! magazine article about the LDS Church, the Society points out that the belief that men can become â??Godsâ? comes from â??Satan the Devilâ?:

â??As God Now is, Man May Becomeâ?

According to this LDS belief of eternal progression, by strict obedience a man may become a god. . .â?God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,â? stated Joseph Smith. â??You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, . . .the same as all Gods have done before you.â?. . . Is such a future presented in the pages of the Bible? The only offer of godhood ever recorded there was the empty promise by Satan the Devil in the Garden of Eden. (Genesis 3:5) (Awake!, November 8, 1995, pp.21-22)

Notice that Russell also taught a similar doctrine using almost the same language (contrasted with a statement from Joseph Smith):

â??YE ARE GODSâ?

â??I have said, Ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princesâ? [literally heads]. Psa. 82:6.

Our high calling is so great, so much above the comprehension of men, that they feel that we are guilty of blasphemy when we speak of being â??new creaturesâ?â??not any longer human, but â??partakers of the â??divine nature.â? When we claim on the scriptural warrant, that we are begotten of a divine nature and that Jehovah is thus our father, it is claiming that we are divine beingsâ??hence all such are Gods. Thus we have a family of God, Jehovah being our father, and all his sons being brethren and joint-heirs; Jesus being the chief, or first-born.

Nor should we wonder that so few discern this grand relationship, into the full membership of which, we so soon hope to come. The apostle tells us that â??the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God . . . .neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned.â? (1 Cor. 2:14). Just so it was, when our great Head and Lord was among men : He, having consecrated the human at 30 years of age was baptized of the spirit, and became a part-taker of the divine nature.

When Jesus said he was a son of God the Jews were about to stone him, reasoning thus, that if a son of God, he was making himself to be also a God, or of the God family. [Just what we claim. â??Beloved, now we are the sons of Godâ?â??â??The God and Father of our Lord Jesus hath begotten us.â?] (1 John 3:2 and 1 Peter 1:3).

Jesus does not deny that when he said he was a son, it implied that he was of the divine nature, but he quotes to them the above passage from the Psalms as being good authority and it seems as though it satisfied them, for they did not stone him. Jesus said, â??Is it not written in your law, I said Ye are Godsâ?? Then he proceeds to show that the â??Godsâ? there mentioned, are the ones who receive obediently his words and example, and concludes his argument by asking whether if God calls such ones as receive his (Jesus) teachings, Gods, whether they think that he the teacher, whom the Father had specially set apart as the head of those Gods could be properly said to blaspheme, when he claimed the same relationship as a son of God. (John 10:35).

These sons of God, like men from whom they heard the word of truth by which they are begotten, are yet in disguise; the world knoweth us not for the same reason that it knew him not. Our Father puts no outward badge or mark of our high relationship, but leaves each to walk by faith and not by sight all through the earthly pilgrimageâ??down into death. His favor and love and the Glory and Honor which belong to our station, we can now see by the eye of faith, but soon it will be realized in fact. Now we appear like men, and all die naturally like men, but in the resurrection we will rise in our true character as Gods.

â??It doth not appear

How great we must be made;

But when we see him as he is,

We shall be like our Head.â?

How forcibly this is expressed by the prophet and how sure it is too, Jesus saysâ??It cannot be broken: â??I have said ye are Gods, all of you sons of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.â? [lit. headsâ??Adam and Jesus are the two heads.]

Then the whole familyâ??head and body are addressed as one, as they will be under Christ their head, sayingâ??â??Arise O God, judge [rule, bless] the earth : for thou shall inherit all nations.â? The Mighty God, and everlasting Father of the nations, is Christ whose members in particular we are. He it is that shall inherit all things and He it is that promised his body that they too should have the power over the nations, and of whom Paul says, â??Know ye not that the saints shall judge the worldâ??

How forcible this scripture in connection with the thought all must die like menâ??like the (last) one of the heads. [see article â??Who Can Hear Itâ?â??November Number, 1881, Z. W. T.] (Zionâ??s Watch Tower, December 1881, p.301)

The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. . . .The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us, and when you take [that] view of the subject it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple naked truth, and the whole truth. Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhowâ??three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. . . .All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big Godâ??he would be a giant or a monster. (History of the Church, Joseph Smith Jr., April 1844)

Heavenly Father in Mormonism is Eloheim, Jehovah is Jesus. I thought He was referring to God (New Testament Father, Son, Holy Spirit). In Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus is a created being, a god, not Almighty God. The Holy Spirit, or holy spirit, is only Jehovah God's active force, not a peronal being as Christianity understands Him to be.

[Cold Steel]

It appears that Billy has been caught in his own snare. The doctrine found in both Old and New Testaments fails to fall into line with his interpretations. In virtually every book in the New Testament, a distinction is made between "God" and the Son. How is this to be explained? Billy offers no clue. Are we to believe that Jesus isn't God in the flesh or are we to believe that He is an individual member of the Godhead, and, as such, is a God?

And in the Old Testament, how does he explain the plural form of God ("let "us" make man in "our" image, after "our" likeness)? What does he do with Psalm 110:1-2, where "the" Lord saith unto "his" Lord, "Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool...."?

And Isaiah 48:12-17: Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. ... Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

In the book of Revelation, Jesus explicitly states that He is the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, yet in the New Testament He is distinguished from "God." Why didn't the writers use the term "Father" instead? If the Father is called "God" without including the Son in the term, then can we not assume that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all Gods, yet united in purpose and function?

Your time is running out, Billy. If you can't come up with anything but dogmatic pontifications, this debate will be ended and the LDS position will be established and shown to be the same as in the New Testament.

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God." (Qur'an 5:73) Clearly the Trinity is made up of three distinct divine beings. Jesus speaks of the love that exists between Him and the Father. As one Muslim blogger stated: "Islam is a monotheistic faith. The trinity is not. Christians THINK that they believe in one God but they really don't."

Latter-day Saints acknowledge the existence of many divine beings throughout the universe, all eternal beings with no beginning and no end. But they are all part of the divine "oneness" that is inclusive of all such beings whose work and whose glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

One Christian blogger described the Trinity thusly: "The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are, therefore we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind."

[Notquitewetyet]

Poor guy must not know any Hindu or Shinto practitioners or hasn't even encountered them through reading. Such a small-minded man should probably be ignored.

I dunno. After talking with a Hare Krishna ISKCON missionary on Xmas eve at the mall and buying a paperback of the Bhagavad-Gita, I came away with the feeling that Hinduism is more monotheistic than I was when I was Catholic.

[Notquitewetyet]

Thanks David. Also:

This is what makes Joseph Smith an heretical false prophet as is Charles Taze Russel as he taught a similar teching to Joseph Smith. In a 1995 Awake! magazine article about the LDS Church, the Society points out that the belief that men can become â??Godsâ? comes from â??Satan the Devilâ?:

Notice that Russell also taught a similar doctrine using almost the same language (contrasted with a statement from Joseph Smith):

Heavenly Father in Mormonism is Eloheim, Jehovah is Jesus. I thought He was referring to God (New Testament Father, Son, Holy Spirit). In Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus is a created being, a god, not Almighty God. The Holy Spirit, or holy spirit, is only Jehovah God's active force, not a peronal being as Christianity understands Him to be.

Don't know why you're attacking JWs on a Mormon board. But I thought Russel's doctrine of deification only applied to the elect 144,000. The rest of us who don't die (which is far more merciful than a vengeful god of xianity torturing the damned for eternity to get his jollies) simply end up on a paradise earth.

[3DOP]

David and Rory, sometimes you seem to be using the word "God" like it was a title or station, or a type of beings. I realize that in giving examples, if carried out further than what the example was supposed to be, it contorts everything. Am I doing this?

Thanks for your answers. They have been very helpful.

Hi Lynn,

I do not think of God as a title or station. I am not sure what "a type of beings" means.

God is He who has revealed Himself in nature and supernatural revelation to be my Creator, Lord, and Savior. It is unreasonable for anyone to resist the will of their Creator, Lord, and Savior. The only reasonable course for a person in my position is to cultivate and express my love for God in acts of obedience, adoration, and penance (for those occasions when I have been unreasonable, which are many). I could not anticipate having such an affectionate, reciprocal relationship with a title or station.Heh...that sounds silly doesn't it? Maybe you meant something else?

I am not sure if this adequately responds to your concern. Perhaps you could be more explicit if I have gone off in the wrong direction? I am always eager to answer questions here for those like you who seem to have a sincere desire to have the best perception of my faith they can as Latter Day Saints. Sadly enough to me, others betray in their questions and comments an animosity that leaves me uninclined to try to communicate.

Yours Truly,

3DOP

[urroner]

Hi Lynn,

I do not think of God as a title or station. I am not sure what "a type of beings" means.

God is He who has revealed Himself in nature and supernatural revelation to be my Creator, Lord, and Savior. It is unreasonable for anyone to resist the will of their Creator, Lord, and Savior. The only reasonable course for a person in my position is to cultivate and express my love for God in acts of obedience, adoration, and penance (for those occasions when I have been unreasonable, which are many). I could not anticipate having such an affectionate, reciprocal relationship with a title or station.Heh...that sounds silly doesn't it? Maybe you meant something else?

I am not sure if this adequately responds to your concern. Perhaps you could be more explicit if I have gone off in the wrong direction? I am always eager to answer questions here for those like you who seem to have a sincere desire to have the best perception of my faith they can as Latter Day Saints. Sadly enough to me, others betray in their questions and comments an animosity that leaves me uninclined to try to communicate.

Yours Truly,

3DOP

Thanks Rory, I appreciate your help.

This is going to sound very Mormonish, but then again, I'm Mormon, but I'm going to try to put it in a Catholic spin.

When I said "type of being," I mean is each member of the Trinity of the same species. I think that the answer would be use, but it's only a species of three since they each are composed of the same substance. I hope I'm saying that right.

I basically mean something very similar when I say title or station, God isn't necessarily a being, rather it's a title, but only three beings have that title, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. There is/are God(s) and then there are other "eloheim" like angels. It's a hierarchical structure.

The reason why I'm asking these questions is because of something David said earlier in another post. He said:

Hi Billy,

You posted:

>> I did not think I was "pleading" in my comments.>>

Me: I was referring to Trinitarians in general.

>>This is what I believe

1. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons (most evident at Christ's baptism)

2. Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God

3. There is only one God>>

Me: The above is a logical contradiction, as is the following --

1. Billy, David, and Lynn are three distinct persons.

2. Billy, is human, David is human, and Lynn is human.

3. There is only one human.

The only way I can make sense of the above is to assume that the members of the Trinity are separate beings and are independent of each other, that there really is no "one God" composed of three God.

I'm just having some trouble understanding what is meant by "one God" when it's used by people. I've been working on trying to understand what it means in the BofM and I'm making good progress, but this is all done in a Mormon paradigm, something which I understand, but when a Catholic or an Evangelical says "one God," I try not to apply Mormonism to it.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. It's been over 12 hours since I took my ADHD medicine and my focus is wandering and it's getting very near bedtime. I have to go to work tomorrow, the first time since Christmas, and I'm not looking too excited about that. I've spent the past week with my two youngest and my oldest sons going fishing and doing guy things. I don't get to see my two youngest very often, only every other weekend, they live with their mom who lives 60 miles from here and my oldest has finally decided to get his act together and try to make something of his life and he's fun to be around when he's not on drugs.

See how I wander.

I'm just trying to understand you or David would reword the part I bolded above to make it reflect more what you believe. That is really what I'm trying to ask. See, give me time and I'll figure that out.

[3DOP]

Thanks Rory, I appreciate your help.

This is going to sound very Mormonish, but then again, I'm Mormon, but I'm going to try to put it in a Catholic spin.

When I said "type of being," I mean is each member of the Trinity of the same species. I think that the answer would be use, but it's only a species of three since they each are composed of the same substance. I hope I'm saying that right.

I basically mean something very similar when I say title or station, God isn't necessarily a being, rather it's a title, but only three beings have that title, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. There is/are God(s) and then there are other "eloheim" like angels. It's a hierarchical structure.

The reason why I'm asking these questions is because of something David said earlier in another post. He said:

The only way I can make sense of the above is to assume that the members of the Trinity are separate beings and are independent of each other, that there really is no "one God" composed of three God.

I'm just having some trouble understanding what is meant by "one God" when it's used by people. I've been working on trying to understand what it means in the BofM and I'm making good progress, but this is all done in a Mormon paradigm, something which I understand, but when a Catholic or an Evangelical says "one God," I try not to apply Mormonism to it.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. It's been over 12 hours since I took my ADHD medicine and my focus is wandering and it's getting very near bedtime. I have to go to work tomorrow, the first time since Christmas, and I'm not looking too excited about that. I've spent the past week with my two youngest and my oldest sons going fishing and doing guy things. I don't get to see my two youngest very often, only every other weekend, they live with their mom who lives 60 miles from here and my oldest has finally decided to get his act together and try to make something of his life and he's fun to be around when he's not on drugs.

See how I wander.

I'm just trying to understand you or David would reword the part I bolded above to make it reflect more what you believe. That is really what I'm trying to ask. See, give me time and I'll figure that out.

Hey Urroner,

I have to be getting toward beddy-bye myself. But I should have an easy day tomorrow and after we both get some sleep, I'll share my thoughts.

God Bless you and yours,

R

[David Waltz]

Hey 3DOP,

You wrote:

>>I do not think of God as a title or station. I am not sure what "a type of beings" means.>>

Me: I think you totally missed my point; Elohim, Theos, God, Allah, are names, titles, and reflect the station of the referent. In no way did I wish to imply that such descriptions exhaust who and what God is.

Grace and peace,

David

[Billy]

Now, a question for you: who does Peter say â??The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathersâ? is? (See Acts 3:13.)

God the Father

As I have noted before this thread is about LDS and polytheism. Whether my belief of One God in three persons is right or wrong and constitutes three separate Gods or just one God, does not change the facts that LDS believe in many Gods, separate from the Godhead.

God the Father is a God

God the Son is a God

God the Holy Spirit is a God

(All three are distinct and separate Gods)

God the Father had a Father who was a God

You can be a god

Can you explain to me how you can call this monotheism?

[jerryp48]

Jerryp48 replies,

No Billy we don't 'believe in' we believe that they exist. Words have meaning.

OK, so you believe that many Gods exist but you "don't believe in them". Let me ask you a question then.

God the Father is a God

God the Son is a God

God the Holy Spirit is a God

These three Gods are 3 separate and distinct Gods (but one in purpose)

Which of the Gods above don't you "believe in"?

Do you only believe in one of the three Gods?

I cannot worship one independent of the other as they are one. Worshiping the Son is worshiping the Father.

[Billy]

It appears that Billy has been caught in his own snare. The doctrine found in both Old and New Testaments fails to fall into line with his interpretations. In virtually every book in the New Testament, a distinction is made between "God" and the Son. How is this to be explained? Billy offers no clue. Are we to believe that Jesus isn't God in the flesh or are we to believe that He is an individual member of the Godhead, and, as such, is a God?

This seems to be your defense. You don't deny that you are a polytheist. Rather you try to prove that I am a polytheist. But this makes no sense to me because by doing so you are still a polytheist.

[Billy]

Isa 43

10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour

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

Using the framework of the LDS Bible Dictionary

LORD=Jesus>>

Me: Within the narrow â??framework of the LDS Bible Dictionaryâ? (and not the broader framework of the entire LDS Quad) the person that is speaking is the Son, but as the Fatherâ??s spokesman/representative (LDS writers prefer to the phrase â??divine investitureâ?. BTW, the phrase â??one Godâ? is not in either passage).

First you are right that the phrase "one God" is not in either passage, but the concept of one God is in both passages. The Bible says states that there is only one God. In these two passages you say that Jesus is speaking for the father that there is only one God and that besides Him there is no other God. Do you believe God when he says "and beside me [there is] no God"? Or do you believe God when He says, "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me"?

[Zakuska]

God the Father

As I have noted before this thread is about LDS and polytheism. Whether my belief of One God in three persons is right or wrong and constitutes three separate Gods or just one God, does not change the facts that LDS believe in many Gods, separate from the Godhead.

God the Father is a God

God the Son is a God

God the Holy Spirit is a God

(All three are distinct and separate Gods)

God the Father had a Father who was a God

You can be a god

Can you explain to me how you can call this monotheism?

You forgot a few...

John 10

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

2 Corinthians 4:4

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

How cany you call this "monotheism"? Inquiring minds want to know...

Your brand of monotheism breaks scripture.

[Brade]

Again, whether Billy's views about the nature of God are monotheistic or polytheistic or whatever has nothing to do with what we believe or do not believe. I happen to believe that Billy's concept of God is a philosophical nightmare (sorry Billy), but that's just beside the point of this thread. The question is, are we, LDS, polytheistic. The answer is quite simply yes. The efforts to spin ourselves as monotheists just look contrived, if I'm being honest. They look like attempts to get our religion to "fit in." I have no interest, whatever, in fitting in. If the truth is different than what the masses believe so much the worse for the masses.

[urroner]

God the Father

As I have noted before this thread is about LDS and polytheism. Whether my belief of One God in three persons is right or wrong and constitutes three separate Gods or just one God, does not change the facts that LDS believe in many Gods, separate from the Godhead.

God the Father is a God

God the Son is a God

God the Holy Spirit is a God

(All three are distinct and separate Gods)

God the Father had a Father who was a God

You can be a god

Can you explain to me how you can call this monotheism?

If Jesus is God and Jesus himself says that he has a God, Billy, does that mean your God has a God?

[urroner]

This seems to be your defense. You don't deny that you are a polytheist. Rather you try to prove that I am a polytheist. But this makes no sense to me because by doing so you are still a polytheist.

No Billy, we are just showing you the weakness of your argument. If we can use your arguments that you use against us against what you believe, then you had best rethink either the use of those arguments or what you really believe.

[urroner]

Again, whether Billy's views about the nature of God are monotheistic or polytheistic or whatever has nothing to do with what we believe or do not believe. I happen to believe that Billy's concept of God is a philosophical nightmare (sorry Billy), but that's just beside the point of this thread. The question is, are we, LDS, polytheistic. The answer is quite simply yes. The efforts to spin ourselves as monotheists just look contrived, if I'm being honest. They look like attempts to get our religion to "fit in." I have no interest, whatever, in fitting in. If the truth is different than what the masses believe so much the worse for the masses.

I don't think anybody is trying to say that Mormons are monotheists, rather the problem is with the definition of the word "polytheist." Billy pulls out a definition of it that fits his agenda and when we point out a problem with the definition, he just blows us off and keeps forging ahead.

[Billy]

No Billy, we are just showing you the weakness of your argument. If we can use your arguments that you use against us against what you believe, then you had best rethink either the use of those arguments or what you really believe.

The problem is that you can't use my argument that I use against you to turn around and use against me, because I don't believe that God the Father had a Father who was a God, nor do I believe that I or you or anyone else can become a God. I prefer to avoid even using the Trinity at all in my argument because I know that it will lead right back were we have gone for the last several pages, namely how is it possible that three persons can be just one God. For me it would be easier to conceptualize the idea of three separate and distinct Gods verses three persons in one God, but then you have to throw out all the verses that clearly state that there is only one God.

But the bottom line is that this is more than just a difference in our beliefs about the Trinity, there are major differences between mainstream Christianity and LDS theology on the nature of Gods (or gods). LDS theology believes in many Gods and that man can become a God. This is in stark contrast to what mainstream Christianity believes, that there in only one God.

[urroner]

For me it would be easier to conceptualize the idea of three separate and distinct Gods verses three persons in one God, but then you have to throw out all the verses that clearly state that there is only one God.

See, that is what happens when early Christian leaders started mixing gospel truths with Greek philosophy, you get stuff that doesn't make sense and isn't gospel truths anymore.

Besides, if Jesus is God and he says he has a God, doesn't that mean that God has a God?

[Billy]

See, that is what happens when early Christian leaders started mixing gospel truths with Greek philosophy, you get stuff that doesn't make sense and isn't gospel truths anymore.

Besides, if Jesus is God and he says he has a God, doesn't that mean that God has a God?

So is this an admission that you are a polytheist?

[urroner]

So is this an admission that you are a polytheist?

But if Jesus is God and he specifically said he has a God, does that mean that God has a God? It's in the Bible, so wouldn't that make you a polytheist?

[Billy]

But if Jesus is God and he specifically said he has a God, does that mean that God has a God?

No. I believe that God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that there is one God. I do not believe that Jesus was a created being but that He was eternally God with the Father as God.

John 1:1 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It's in the Bible, so wouldn't that make you a polytheist?

No, because I believe in one God. If I believed in more than one God that would make me a polytheist.

Now back to the question I asked previously

See, that is what happens when early Christian leaders started mixing gospel truths with Greek philosophy, you get stuff that doesn't make sense and isn't gospel truths anymore.

Besides, if Jesus is God and he says he has a God, doesn't that mean that God has a God?

So is this an admission that you are a polytheist?

[Doctor Steuss]

[Deleted... unnecessary]

[urroner]

No. I believe that God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that there is one God. I do not believe that Jesus was a created being but that He was eternally God with the Father as God.

John 1:1 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

No, because I believe in one God. If I believed in more than one God that would make me a polytheist.

Now back to the question I asked previously

So is this an admission that you are a polytheist?

Does Jesus have a God?

[Sentinus]

A couple more observations:

1) I find interesting that Evangelical Christianity invests and consumes so much in the way of propaganda targeted at other religions. I can't explan the appitite for it.

2) It is difficult to find any comparable sort of countercult industry in Mormonism.

Regards,

Six

How much is the total financial investment paid by the LDS church to place television ads, make DVDs for proselyting, train and develope 50,000+ missionaries, etc. All in an effort to expand the church, and share the truths of the restoration which is that ALL other religions are an abomination and corrupt, whose proffessors (believers) draw near to God with their lips, but whose hearts are far from him. These efforts do not come cheap, and even though many LDS missionaries pay their own way, this should be counted as a financial investment for the church anyway (IMO).

Doesn't seem to different to me.

Regards,

Sentinus