James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

[urroner]

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

One group says "That other group is wrong and this is why they are wrong." The other group says "Our group is right and this is why we are right." Can you see a difference there?

[David Waltz]

Good day Billy,

You posted:

>>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.>>

The sacred Scriptures tell who that one God is: â??there is one God, the Father, of whom are all thingsâ?; and, â??one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in allâ?.

We also read:

"And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he" (Mark 12:32).

Note that the pronouns are SINGULARâ??there is none other but he.

You are quite comfortable in adding two more heâ??s to the â??one Godâ? formula which the NT clearly limits to one he: God the Father.

And one more time: you have yet to address the issue that â??one Godâ? is used in more than one sense.

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hi ba81,

Very interesting post. Billy keeps informing us that he believes in â??one Godâ?, and is quite comfortable in adding two more heâ??s/whoâ??s to the â??one Godâ? formula. Now, this is exactly what the BoM does:

And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (2 Nephi 31:21)

â?¦but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. (Alma 11:44)

And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one. (3 Nephi 11:36)

And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. (Mormon 7:7)

And D&C:

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C 20:28)

So much of what has been said by many in this thread is just not adding upâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

[Sentinus]

One group says "That other group is wrong and this is why they are wrong." The other group says "Our group is right and this is why we are right." Can you see a difference there?

Which group is which, either could be reffering to the other? Does this answer your question?

Regards,

Sentinus

[urroner]

Which group is which, either could be reffering to the other? Does this answer your question?

Regards,

Sentinus

I very seldom hear somebody in church or encouraged by the Chruch say, "They are wrong and this is why they are wrong." Most of the time is "We are right and this is why we are right." I live in the South and when I first moved down here 30 years ago, the Evangelical churches in my area regularly had "Why those Mormons are wrong and going to Hell" meetings.

[Billy]

The sacred Scriptures tell who that one God is: â??there is one God, the Father, of whom are all thingsâ?; and, â??one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in allâ?.

We also read:

"And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he" (Mark 12:32).

It says "one God" because there is only ONE GOD. You are using the specific phrase "one God" and say that in the NT that this is speaking about the Father, that is true, Jesus is often referred to as LORD in the NT. This does not indicate that there is more than one God , only that there is a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The title "God" is used for each of the three in the Trinity. Couple this with the fact that the Bible says that there is only one God.

Your whole point seems to hang on the fact that in the NT the Father is referred to as the "one God". But are there other verses that indicate that Jesus is also the one God?

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).

So you are saying that Jesus/Jehovah is not the real God of the Old Testament, rather He is just a spokesperson?

(Below using LDS Theology)

In Isa 43:10, Jesus (LORD) is speaking saying "before ME there was no God formed, neither shall there be after ME." Who is ME in this sentence?

Notice in Isa 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD (1) the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD (2) of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God"

Who is LORD (1)?

Who is LORD (2) the redeemer?

Beside me there is no God--Who is the ME in this sentence?

[urroner]

It says "one God" because there is only ONE GOD. You are using the specific phrase "one God" and say that in the NT that this is speaking about the Father, that is true, Jesus is often referred to as LORD in the NT. This does not indicate that there is more than one God , only that there is a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The title "God" is used for each of the three in the Trinity. Couple this with the fact that the Bible says that there is only one God.

Your whole point seems to hang on the fact that in the NT the Father is referred to as the "one God". But are there other verses that indicate that Jesus is also the one God?

So you are saying that Jesus/Jehovah is not the real God of the Old Testament, rather He is just a spokesperson?

(Below using LDS Theology)

In Isa 43:10, Jesus (LORD) is speaking saying "before ME there was no God formed, neither shall there be after ME." Who is ME in this sentence?

Notice in Isa 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD (1) the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD (2) of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God"

Who is LORD (1)?

Who is LORD (2) the redeemer?

Beside me there is no God--Who is the ME in this sentence?

Billy, whom was Christ referring to when he said to Mary "To my Father and your Father, to my God and your God?" Was he referring to himself when he said "my God?"

[Billy]

Billy, whom was Christ referring to when he said to Mary "To my Father and your Father, to my God and your God?" Was he referring to himself when he said "my God?"

I think you are referring to this passage in John

John 20:17 (New International Version)

17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

Jesus is speaking about God the Father. Because Jesus calls the Father God does not make three Gods. It only points to the fact the God the Father is God, one of the three persons of the Trinity.

Does God the Father ever call Jesus God? Yes. Does this mean that the Son is God over the Father, absolutely not, only that the Son is also God, one of the three persons of the Trinity.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

[Sentinus]

I very seldom hear somebody in church or encouraged by the Chruch say, "They are wrong and this is why they are wrong." Most of the time is "We are right and this is why we are right." I live in the South and when I first moved down here 30 years ago, the Evangelical churches in my area regularly had "Why those Mormons are wrong and going to Hell" meetings.

Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. However, when the LDS missionaries come to the door of a proffessed "Christian" their message ultimately is to inform them that his/her beliefs are wrong or not complete. A brief lesson from the Elders/Sisters on the Early falling away, followed by the rise of the Catholic church, then a brief bit on Martin Luther, leads them to Joseph Smith learning that the God he visited with in the sacred grove considers their own personal Christian ideas and beliefs Abominable, and corrupt.

What if I showed up to your door one night, and said I had a message of love and forgivness for you. I then proceeded to investigate about your beliefs, only to eventually tell you that your beliefs are Abominable, and corrupt because God came down and told a man I consider a prophet that this was the case. How would you feel? I personally would rather deal with an upfront attack than to deal with the slight of hand approach. The very idea of the need for the "restoration" is an attack on Mainstream Christianity, its beliefs, practices, and history. There really is no other way to look at it IMO.

Don't misunderstand the LDS church IMO has every right to preach the gospel as they see fit, but to claim that they do not attack because their way is better is just plain silly. Joseph says God told him that all religions were corrupt, that is what is taught. If this is true then they should be as aggressive as possible in proclaiming the gospel. If it is false then those that are Christians should do whatever it takes to contend for the faith and display the truth for all to see and hear. One side or the other is right the other is wrong, and in the end both can make very solid defenses for why they are doing as they are.

Regards,

Sentinus

PS I do however reject people who use intentional lies, and deceit to meet their own agenda. (Ed Decker types) People should be Christlike in their defense of their beliefs, and when preaching them to others.

[urroner]

I think you are referring to this passage in John

John 20:17 (New International Version)

17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

Jesus is speaking about God the Father. Because Jesus calls the Father God does not make three Gods. It only points to the fact the God the Father is God, one of the three persons of the Trinity.

Does God the Father ever call Jesus God? Yes. Does this mean that the Son is God over the Father, absolutely not, only that the Son is also God, one of the three persons of the Trinity.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

In the Greek, can the word translated as "God", θεος, also be translated to god?

This would mean that Christ is a god and not the God, as the Most High God.

Now let's look at the next verse,

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, EVEN THY GOD, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Apparently, verse 9 explicitly states that the being being talked about in verse 8 definitely has a God.

[Billy]

In the Greek, can the word translated as "God", θεος, also be translated to god?

This would mean that Christ is a god and not the God, as the Most High God.

Wow, you just gave me a d

[mfbukowski]

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]

Wow, you just gave me a d

[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.

Is it a matter of us admitting that we aren't monotheist or refusing to let Billy define what we are by changing what a definition is?

[jwhitlock]

Is it a matter of us admitting that we aren't monotheist or refusing to let Billy define what we are by changing what a definition is?

I really haven't seen Billy yet fully respond to the fact that the Bible acknowledges that there are other gods that exist. It seems to create a little bit of a quandary on his part; if, by his definition the mere acceptance of the existence of other gods makes one polytheistic, then the Bible is polytheistic in nature. Hence, Billy - since he claims to be proudly monotheistic - is not basing his belief on the Bible, per his definition.

[Billy]

So, only Mormons and JWs try to change the Bible to fit their theologies and not Evangelicals, Catholics, nor anybody else. Honestly Billy, what world do you live in? Who inserted the Johannine Comma into the Bible? Was it us LDSers or them JWs...............wait, it can't be, neither of us were around when it was inserted into the Bible.

1 John 5:7

NIV Bible 7 For there are three that testify:

LDS/KJV 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Actually the Johannine Comma is NOT in my Bible but it is in YOUR LDS Bible.

BTW the JW's also changed Hebrews 1:8, in a different way than you did, but like your change it effectively altered the meaning of the verse.

Billy, I presented an argument, I don't know whether it was strong or weak, but you refused to address the argument. I even pointed out that verse 9 makes all sorts of problems with your paradigm, but you just waved you hands and dismissed it.

I guess that you and revelation share a lot of characteristics. Do you plan on addressing the argument I have presented or are you just going to pretend they aren't there?

I already addressed your point, but you ignored my response. God the Father addresses God the Son as God. God the Son addresses the Father as God. They are both God with a capital G. You wanted to change the verse from what it said to something that it did not say, which I pointed out in my previous post. Verse 9 says states the God (the Father) is God, Thy God. Again the Father is addressed as God, because He is God. This does not make three Gods.

Side Note

You have changed the subject away from the main thrust of this thread, the fact that you believe in MANY Gods, even when you exclude the Trinity, which we also differ on, thus making you a polytheist.

[Billy]

I really haven't seen Billy yet fully respond to the fact that the Bible acknowledges that there are other gods that exist.

Here is one you may have missed

Anyway lets look at it in the ESV

1 Corinthians 8

4Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one."

5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earthâ??as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"â??

6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

If you read this chapter Paul is discussing food sacrificed to idols/false gods or as Paul calls them so-called gods. Verse 4 Paul clearly states that there is one God. Verse 5 he mentions the false Gods, as he calls them " so-called gods in heaven or on earthâ??as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords". But to make it clear that there is only one God in addition to noting it in verse 4, he restates it in verse 6 "yet for us there is one God". But Bill you already knew that, didn't you?

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.

[cksalmon]

To those who insist that the Shema is insurmountable evidence that there is only one God, I have evidence that it isn't what you think it is. I wandered over to Michael Heiser's site and found the following article Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible Note: there are some Hebrew lettering in article and it wasn't showing up very well in my browser, so I just inserted "(Hebrew words)" in place of them.

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.

It's heavy on Hebrew, but the terms are fairly repetitive (so, if you master them at the beginning, you'll be in pretty good shape). Fortunately, he does translate most of the Ugaritic.

Best.

cks

PS. I would note in passing that I don't believe any of Heiser's conclusions (which strike me as cogent and exegetically sound) are incompatible with my own theological convictions. (I would assume that that's a minority view.)

Heiser is a pretty conservative biblical scholar--so much so that somewhere (the location of which presently escapes me) Heiser makes it very clear that he just personally doesn't accept the late dating of some of the biblical texts he cites in the dissertation. Rather, he acquiesced to the later dates at the insistence of his dissertation committee.

[David Waltz]

Hi Lynn,

Was out for the day, and am finally back home. You wrote:

>>In the Greek, can the word translated as "God", θεος, also be translated to god?>>

Me: θεος in Greek is just god; it is English translators that choose to capitalize it, or notâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. When you get a chance, could you explain to this beachbum how one gets Greek and Hebrew fonts to work on this mb?

[cksalmon]

P.S. When you get a chance, could you explain to this beachbum how one gets Greek and Hebrew fonts to work on this mb?

I believe, through some sort of mysterious and arcane magic, one employs unicode (which bedevils me to no end, as I'm much more familiar with TTF bbheb and bbgrk. I have no idea how to consistently accent unicode.

Best.

cks

[David Waltz]

Hi Billy,

Thanks for responding; you wrote:

>>Your whole point seems to hang on the fact that in the NT the Father is referred to as the "one God". But are there other verses that indicate that Jesus is also the one God?>>

Me: No there is not; the phrase/title â??the one Godâ? is given to God the Father alone.

>> So you are saying that Jesus/Jehovah is not the real God of the Old Testament, rather He is just a spokesperson?>>

Me: So you did not read Kirklandâ??s two essays I linked to in a previous post? â??The Godâ? of Israel, Jesusâ?? God; Abraham, Isaac and Jacobâ??s God, is God the Father. 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)

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

[Brade]

Is it a matter of us admitting that we aren't monotheist or refusing to let Billy define what we are by changing what a definition is?

I don't think Billy's changed the definition of polytheism. Besides, Mormons are polytheistic whether polytheism means to simply acknowledge the existence of other gods or to be engaged in active worship of more than one god. I suppose it's worth saying that I'm not so narrow as to suppose that that last bit is not controversial within Mormonism. I've heard a lot of Mormons say that we worship the Father through Christ. The idea is, of course, that Christ is not worshiped at all. But I find that idea quite odd since virtually everything we do in the Church is centered around Christ and it's difficult to see how our attitude toward Christ does not fit the definition of the word worship in strict terms or conceptually.

And again, so what if Billy appears to get caught in his own trap or not. That's just not relevant to the actual question, whatever the intentions of the questioner are or were.

[David Waltz]

Hello again Billy,

Trying to catch up hereâ?¦you said:

>>Wow, you just gave me a d

[urroner]

I don't think Billy's changed the definition of polytheism. Besides, Mormons are polytheistic whether polytheism means to simply acknowledge the existence of other gods or to be engaged in active worship of more than one god. I suppose it's worth saying that I'm not so narrow as to suppose that that last bit is not controversial within Mormonism. I've heard a lot of Mormons say that we worship the Father through Christ. The idea is, of course, that Christ is not worshiped at all. But I find that idea quite odd since virtually everything we do in the Church is centered around Christ and it's difficult to see how our attitude toward Christ does not fit the definition of the word worship in strict terms or conceptually.

And again, so what if Billy appears to get caught in his own trap or not. That's just not relevant to the actual question, whatever the intentions of the questioner are or were.

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.

For example, when my ex and I were getting divorced, her lawyer, in a judge's hearing, was doing everything to get me to answer questions that were so general that they could be interpreted in a lot of different and contradictory ways and I keep asking him to be more specific in his questions. I told him that I didn't know how to answer those question because I could say "yes" and be right and I could say "no" and still be right. It was rather humorous because the judge was smiling the whole time I was irritating my ex's lawyer. I wasn't doing it purposefully, well I was a little bit, but I didn't want to give her lawyer too much of an opportunity to twist my words and I believe this is something that Billy will do.

[David Waltz]

Hey ba81,

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

Grace and peace,

David