God In The Old Testament

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I don't think the JST is infallible. I don't think Joseph's project was to "fix" the violent bits, or "soften" it. I don't even think Joseph had as many problems as I do with the OT. I think he viewed God as more wrathful and angry than I do. Fine. I disagree with his opinions. I'm allowed to.

You're of course correct about Jude's statement not being concerned with the reliability of the OT - that was just a rhetorical flourish on my part because I liked his phrasing. I should have left it out if my usage was unclear - my apologies.

Were I to explain the significance of Mormon theology in this way, I would be beseiged with outrage. As it happens, I agree with your interpretation of the implications of the LDS worldview. The point you make here goes to the heart of why evangelicals commonly claim that the LDS Church really is another religion altogether from what historically is known as Christianity. Historically, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all adhere to theism, and what you are describing is of course not theism.

You misunderstand my argument. I'm not arguing that every tenet of atheism is correct - obviously I believe in God. It is completely theistic, and pretty darn far from atheism - if anything, Mormons are more "theistic" than traditional Christianity, since we believe in more than one God! *grin* Can't fight math, man. Thea Herself could've been real.

What I'm saying is that the naturalistic argument which is often associated with atheism is, in fact, accurate, even though some Mormons get apoplectic whenever someone like me tries in vain to convince them that we have anything in common with philosophical materialism (which unfortunately reveals how deeply they've assimilated post-Apostasy theology from traditional Christianity as if it had anything to do with the Restoration) (And let's be clear: philosophical "materialism" is not equivalent to "consumerism", which is the usual misunderstanding of the term)

The point is that God is another Uncreated Intelligence just like we are at the fundamental level. He is an Agent who, like us, is a part of nature, even if He knows how to do cooler tricks than we can with our current science. Because God is "one of us", though of greater Intelligence, then I have faith that the Meaning which He has planned for His family is not objectively "true", but is nevertheless the best Plan anyone can hope to come up with.

Let me put it this way: Trees and plants don't care if humans die. Those parts of nature, among many others, have no stake in our continued existence. There is no such thing as "objective" morality in this sense, decoupled from our human experience. But I care, and I'm a part of nature too. I think (or at least hope) that humans care when other humans die. Since God is an exalted man, I think He cares what happens to His family.

So what's the difference between God saying "I want to give you all eternal life" and an atheist scientist working to cure all diseases and stop death? They're following the same Plan, they're working towards the same goal. The difference being that God is looking after worlds without number and has to divide His time between them all, whereas the mortal scientist is currently only concerned with this one. Yet, independent of each other, they've come up with the same "meaning" for their lives.

Your comment that Judaism, Islam and Christianity adhere to theism is of course correct, but saying that Mormonism is not theism is simply flat-out wrong. It's just a different kind of theism, one which makes God a part of the physically-real universe. Here, have a YouTube clip:

Mormons are absolutely theists. We absolutely believe in and love God, because He breathed our Uncreated Intelligences into our current bodies, and He is helping us along the path of our eternal progression. He's part of our family. He's our Father in Heaven, working alongside our Mother and Brother and all our other ancestors.

Theism by definition asserts otherwise.

It does not. "By definition", theism merely asserts that there is a God, or Gods. That's it. Period. Nothing whatsoever to do with whether Neoplatonic never-neverlands exist outside of space and time. You're layering traditional Christian interpretations onto "theism" which Mormons have no obligation to accept, and which are actually logically incoherent. We obviously just disagree on what it means to be a "God". Latter-Day Saints are closer to the earliest Greek or Hindu or Oceanic myths, where Gods are embodied in human form. (Of course, traditional Christians are in exactly the same worldwide tradition which got bent by Alexandria, once we recognize that Christ as a "mere" anthropomorphic creature is a God among Gods. But y'all try and twist the implications of this into very strange pretzels and First Cause arguments.)

You may reject it, which of course you do, but if theism is correct then nature is not everything that exists.

This is simply not true. Mormonism merely posits naturalistic deities.

I don't see how one can argue that it is a contradiction in terms to assert that something exists other than nature unless you simply stipulate that the word nature means "everything that exists."

That is what nature means. The word itself is derived from "birth". The physical world. The structure of the universe, from the subatomic particles to the churning movement of the galaxies. We may not understand all of nature, of course. But it is completely incoherent for something to exist without physical form. The traditional "religious" argument that there is something real which is "above" mere matter and time is a logical nightmare. There might be finer matter, there might be matter we can't see without a microscope, there might be matter that we have difficulty working with, but it is all matter. If you say something is not material, what you are saying is that it does not exist. It continually blows my mind that this is even in question, which is part of the reason why I was an atheist for so long.

At this point you are assuming Mormon metaphysics, not showing why it should be regarded as true.

I'm not arguing "Mormon" metaphysics, since I believed in the impossibility of immaterial material long before I even knew what a Mormon was. But nice dodge.

In practical terms you would have to reject the New Testament and the Book of Mormon as well, because both of those canons accept that basic [OT] theological outlook without any qualms.

Absolutely %100 not true. There are plenty of "qualms" expressed in the Book of Mormon. I'm amazed anyone could have read the thing and said that with a straight face. The entire point of the BoM is that the "basic theological outlook" in the Old World was being corrupted. That's why Lehi and Company got the heck outta there. Look at Kevin Christensen's work on the Deuteronomic reforms. The repeated assertions that many plain and precious truths have been lost from the Bible. Many of the historical books in the current canon are rather despicable expressions of a discredited worldview. That's what the Book of Mormon (and the D&C, Pearl of Great Price, and modern revelation) help to fix.

That doesn't mean I hold the OT to be worthless. Its one of the most precious books we have, since it points to the existence of God. It forms the background of our entire theology. I might hate a lot of what goes on in there, but I've built my life around things I've found in the book.

Wade:

I would submit that those who have a problem with the God of the Old Testament are focusing on the physical and temporal, whereas with God all things are spiritual and eternal.

Wrong. I would submit that we have a problem with the blatant genocide of children. The D&C says that insofar as we are not the saviors of men, we are as salt that has lost its savor. One does not save men by annihilating them. There is nothing inevitable or good about death; God transformed some Nephites in the twinkling of an eye, and they did not even taste it.

Edited February 15, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Calm]

There is nothing inevitable or good about death; God transformed some Nephites in the twinkling of an eye, and they did not even taste it.

I think this is at the core of the issue. If with God all things are possible (which I believe), then why does he use deaths that are extremely painful, exceedingly fearful and quite possibly lengthy in happening instead of simply causing their hearts to stop or some form of instant death that causes no experience of fear or pain...at least for the innocents? We know it is possible, people die like this all the time. We know he has interceded to allow some peaceful deaths or no experience of death at all as mentioned above.

In the Book of Mormon, it speaks of God allowing horrific murders/genocide to occur in order that they stand as a witness of the evil of those involved IIRC. We have modern examples of those who died to seal their testimonies with their blood. The approval of God rests on the victims, not the perpetrators of such actions in these cases. While I understand the principle that context means everything and thus somethings can be right when at other times they are wrong, this situation seems to be too extreme to be justifiable in such a fashion.

It is not the issue of death, but the method of dying that calls into question the reliability of the report in my mind. At this point I am undecided but lean toward not of God because I see no opportunity for anyone to learn from the experience, neither those who are killed in such a horrific way nor those who did the killing.

Edited February 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Wrong. I would submit that we have a problem with the blatant genocide of children. The D&C says that insofar as we are not the saviors of men, we are as salt that has lost its savor. One does not save men by annihilating them. There is nothing inevitable or good about death; God transformed some Nephites in the twinkling of an eye, and they did not even taste it.

I am affraid you unwittingly proved my point in the process of denying it. You are speaking here purely of the physical, and give no thought about the spiritual. You are failing to understand God because you are thinking as a man and failing to see things as God sees them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

I am affraid you unwittingly proved my point in the process of denying it. You are speaking here purely of the physical, and give no thought about the spiritual. You are failing to understand God because you are thinking as a man and failing to see things as God sees them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You don't think there is spiritual suffering occurring when people die painful and fearful deaths?

[Nevo]

You are failing to understand God because you are thinking as a man and failing to see things as God sees them.

How would you know, Wade?

[wenglund]

So what's the difference between God saying "I want to give you all eternal life" and an atheist scientist working to cure all diseases and stop death?

Among other things, to some extent the latter may be at cross purposes with the former. Part of the road to eternal life is, as explained in 2 Nephi, to experience pain and suffering so that we may know joy--hense our sojourn in the lone and dreary world.

Another part of the road to eternal life is, as Paul explains in 1 Cor. 15, to die: "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it ^adie: and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, ^ait may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 15, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

You don't think there is spiritual suffering occurring when people die painful and fearful deaths?

There may be. But, this is beside the point I was making.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

How would you know, Wade?

I don't know. I was simply making an inductive observation specific to and based on what he had said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

There may be. But, this is beside the point I was making.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why? If there is spiritual suffering involved then this may have an impact (possibly even negative as occurs in mortality in abusive and traumatic cases where one sees the spirit being crippled) on the individual's spirit and in that case, J OS is hardly just speaking purely of the physical and giving no thought to the spiritual.

[Rob Bowman]

Jeremy,

You wrote:

I don't think the JST is infallible. I don't think Joseph's project was to "fix" the violent bits, or "soften" it. I don't even think Joseph had as many problems as I do with the OT. I think he viewed God as more wrathful and angry than I do. Fine. I disagree with his opinions. I'm allowed to.

I'm sure you're allowed to do all sorts of things, but I'm unclear as to your view of the JST. Do you believe that Joseph Smith revised the JST by the gift and power of God? Was the JST the product of the same gift of translation by which he translated the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham? Here's a sample issue of relevance. When Joseph added a lengthy section of material to the KJV of Genesis 50 in which the patriarch Joseph predicts the coming of Joseph Jr., is this, in your understanding, an inspired restoration of the original text of Genesis? If not, what is it?

You're of course correct about Jude's statement not being concerned with the reliability of the OT - that was just a rhetorical flourish on my part because I liked his phrasing. I should have left it out if my usage was unclear - my apologies.

Thanks for this acknowledgment, and no worries.

You misunderstand my argument. I'm not arguing that every tenet of atheism is correct - obviously I believe in God. It is completely theistic, and pretty darn far from atheism - if anything, Mormons are more "theistic" than traditional Christianity, since we believe in more than one God! *grin* Can't fight math, man. Thea Herself could've been real.

I didn't misunderstand anything, so far as I can tell. I didn't suggest you are an atheist, only that the similarities you yourself noted are indeed there.

Your comment that Judaism, Islam and Christianity adhere to theism is of course correct, but saying that Mormonism is not theism is simply flat-out wrong. It's just a different kind of theism, one which makes God a part of the physically-real universe.

There's some confusion here; let me try to sort it out. The word theism occasionally is used in a looser sense to refer to any and all beliefs that affirm the existence of a god or gods of any sort. However, the standard, primary definition of the term in theology and philosophy is narrower:

"theism, the view that all limited or finite things are dependent in some way on one supreme or ultimate reality of which one may also speak in personal terms. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, this ultimate reality is often called God" (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

I took you to be using the term in this sense and understood you to be rejecting "theism," since you wrote:

Contra the "final thoughts" in this essay, theism is exactly as unequipped to account for ethical "normativity." ...The essayist wonders "how human value and dignity could emerge given naturalism’s valueless, mindless, materialist origins," which, I'm sorry, shows how completely up theism's butt he is.

If you prefer the looser sense of the word theism, then substitute "monotheism" or "classical monotheism" where I referred previously to theism.

You wrote:

We obviously just disagree on what it means to be a "God". Latter-Day Saints are closer to the earliest Greek or Hindu or Oceanic myths, where Gods are embodied in human form.

Agreed.

Regarding the claim that nature means everything that exists, you wrote:

That is what nature means. The word itself is derived from "birth". The physical world. The structure of the universe, from the subatomic particles to the churning movement of the galaxies. We may not understand all of nature, of course. But it is completely incoherent for something to exist without physical form. The traditional "religious" argument that there is something real which is "above" mere matter and time is a logical nightmare. There might be finer matter, there might be matter we can't see without a microscope, there might be matter that we have difficulty working with, but it is all matter. If you say something is not material, what you are saying is that it does not exist. It continually blows my mind that this is even in question, which is part of the reason why I was an atheist for so long.

I'm sorry, but all I see here is assertion. What exactly makes it incoherent to affirm the existence of non-physical entities? What is illogical about this belief? You don't say. You just keep insisting that whatever is not material does not exist. You may be correct, but saying doesn't make it so.

You wrote:

I'm not arguing "Mormon" metaphysics, since I believed in the impossibility of immaterial material long before I even knew what a Mormon was. But nice dodge.

Your autobiographical remarks are very interesting but don't negate my point, since atheists do not acknowledge the existence of spirits even if those spirits are said to be entities composed of "finer" matter. I have never been an atheist, but as I understand them most atheists would find the idea of spirit as a finer form of matter incoherent though perhaps more palatable than the belief that spirit is immaterial.

You wrote:

Absolutely %100 not true. There are plenty of "qualms" expressed in the Book of Mormon. I'm amazed anyone could have read the thing and said that with a straight face. The entire point of the BoM is that the "basic theological outlook" in the Old World was being corrupted. That's why Lehi and Company got the heck outta there. Look at Kevin Christensen's work on the Deuteronomic reforms. The repeated assertions that many plain and precious truths have been lost from the Bible. Many of the historical books in the current canon are rather despicable expressions of a discredited worldview. That's what the Book of Mormon (and the D&C, Pearl of Great Price, and modern revelation) help to fix.

I have read Kevin's work on this subject, and I don't find it persuasive, in part because I don't agree with Margaret Barker's creative theories on which Kevin leans so heavily and in part because I don't see the Book of Mormon as polytheistic. Nothing in the Book of Mormon suggests that Lehi and Company left the Old World because they viewed the Deuteronomic monotheism as a corruption of the true faith. In fact, the Book of Mormon is more explicitly monotheistic than the Old Testament in its supposedly Deuteronomist form. The reference in the Book of Mormon to plain and precious things being lost from the Bible does nothing to help your point here, for two reasons. (1) It refers to omissions, not to things that would be said in the Bible that were wrong. (2) It refers to omissions that would mar the Bible in the future (1 Ne. 13:26-29), omissions that would supposedly be perpetrated by the Gentiles after the Bible had been transmitted to them in purity. The statement does not, then, have anything to do with Deuteronomists supposedly monkeying with Hebrew scriptures centuries before Christ's coming.

[wenglund]

Why? If there is spiritual suffering involved then this may have an impact (possibly even negative as occurs in mortality in abusive and traumatic cases where one sees the spirit being crippled) on the individual's spirit and in that case, J OS is hardly just speaking purely of the physical and giving no thought to the spiritual.

Let me explain my point somewhat differently. As I understand things, the intent of the Old Testament isn't to engender philosophical debates about good God/bad God or the problem of evil and pain. Instead, it is intended to teach us that disobedience to God results in spiritual sickness and death (which, in the eternal scheme of things, may be far more significant and meaningful than physical death), and to encourage us to choose life, and choose it more abundantly and eternally, through obedience to God and our covenants with him, and by way of the redemption of Christ, symbolized in our own sacrifices.

In short, by focuses on OT matters to which the OT may not have been intended, it may not only cause us to miss the intended message of the OT, but also chance leading us away into disbelief and false faiths that might be in controvention to the intended message of the OT.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

In short, by focuses on OT matters to which the OT may not have been intended, it may not only cause us to miss the intended message of the OT, but also chance leading us away into disbelief and false faiths that might be in controvention to the intended message of the OT.

But if something is written in the OT, it was intended to be a message by someone. The important thing in my view is to isolate the messages from God from those who piggybacked their own agendas on to his so we can pay attention to what God wants us to learn.

Or do you believe that pretty much everything in the OT represents God's intent clearly?

spiritual sickness and death

Some people see participating in genocide, etc. as a sign of spiritual sickness or at least contributing to spiritual sickness. I think many of the scriptures and historical accounts where it is the Saints that are the victims being murdered for their faith, etc. support this view. If so, then I think it becomes very important to figure out how to avoid making the same error, including in our hearts and minds as to whether or not we accept such actions as appropriate, to avoid spiritual sickness and death.

Some may see the only necessary approach to protect oneself spiritually is to make sure one is on the side of God. I am not so sure. And it can become particularly problematic if we simply accept someone's statement that they are directed by God and not find out for oneself if this is true, whether it happened in the past or present.

Edited February 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

In fact, the Book of Mormon is more explicitly monotheistic than the Old Testament in its supposedly Deuteronomist form.

Correction: this is not fact, but opinion. And, the Book of Mormon, itself, isn't explicitly monotheistic (the word never appears in the Book of Mormon), though Rob may reasonably interpret it as such, and has his reasons. Other intelligent and studied minds reasonably view it differently, for their own stated reasons.

Rob continues to have a problem, particularly when he ventures beyond group-think and into the pluralistic realm of inter-faith discourse, distinguishing fact from opinion as well as personal interpretation from what a Book may say of itself, and so it proves useful to periodically remind him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade chose not to address his comments to me, so apparently he and I are not having a discussion here. Wade wrote:

Correction: this is not fact, but opinion.

In Wade's world, everything Rob says is merely opinion unless it happens to agree with Wade. It isn't even enough for what Rob says to agree with LDS scripture to make it a fact.

Wade continued:

And, the Book of Mormon, itself, isn't explicitly monotheistic (the word never appears in the Book of Mormon), though Rob may reasonably interpret it as such, and has his reasons. Other intelligent and studied minds reasonably view it differently, for their own stated reasons.

The expression "one God" occurs eleven times in the Book of Mormon. The word monotheism means literally "belief in one God." There are zero references in the Book of Mormon to a plurality of heavenly beings as "gods." The Book of Mormon asserts that the one God made all things in heaven and on earth. It even asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God." By definition, this is monotheism. I grant that anyone can, with enough imagination, find a way around this evidence, as it is possible to circumvent any evidence if one is determined enough. But the burden of proof is on Wade to show that the statements I have cited from the Book of Mormon, which at least appear rather obviously to teach monotheism, do not in fact do so.

Wade wrote:

Rob continues to have a problem, particularly when he ventures beyond group-think and into the pluralistic realm of inter-faith discourse, distinguishing fact from opinion as well as personal interpretation from what a Book may say of itself, and so it proves useful to periodically remind him.

If the posters in this forum limited their assertions to statements that would pass Wade's standard for being facts, it would be deathly quiet here.

[wenglund]

Wade chose not to address his comments to me, so apparently he and I are not having a discussion here.

Evidently, Rob's confusion isn't restricted to the two I pointed out above. He now misassumes that people can't have a discussion unless the comments are addressed specifically to each other. Yet, here, at least, I am having a discussion with Rob without addressing my comments specifically to him.

In Wade's world, everything Rob says is merely opinion unless it happens to agree with Wade.

Still more confusion. Rob is here confusing me with the straw man he has conjured up (sp[eaking of imagination). In my world, I am not the arbitor of what is fact or opinion, though at least I can tell the difference between the two--which has little to do with whether I agree or not.

It isn't even enough for what Rob says to agree with LDS scripture to make it a fact.

This is a repeat of Rob's earlier confusion--i.e. his conflating his interpretation of the LDS scriptures with the LDS scriptures, themselves. It also confuses fact with agreement.

The expression "one God" occurs eleven times in the Book of Mormon. The word monotheism means literally "belief in one God." There are zero references in the Book of Mormon to a plurality of heavenly beings as "gods." The Book of Mormon asserts that the one God made all things in heaven and on earth. It even asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God." By definition, this is monotheism.

It is a fact that the expression "one God" occurs eleven times in the Book of Mormon. What isn't a fact is that this expression means that the Book of Mormon is monotheistic (at least not as the term is generally understood), even given the overly vague definition Rob conveniently trotted out. Otherwise, Rob would be forced, by his own "reasoning" to consider LDS as monotheists, since we fervently believe in those "one God" Book of Mormon passages and believe in "one God."

I grant that anyone can, with enough imagination, find a way around this evidence, as it is possible to circumvent any evidence if one is determined enough. But the burden of proof is on Wade to show that the statements I have cited from the Book of Mormon, which at least appear rather obviously to teach monotheism, do not in fact do so.

Yet more compounded confusion. Since Rob mistakenly assume that his statement is fact, he makes the further mistake of assuming that the burden rest with me to prove otherwise.

If the posters in this forum limited their assertions to statements that would pass Wade's standard for being facts, it would be deathly quiet here.

What better way to end a thoroughly confused post than to post a final point of confusion. My kindly and reasonably pointing out the difference between fact and opinion cannot in any reasonable sense be interpreted as imply that I wish only facts to be stated here. I don't. I welcome statements of opinion, even from Rob. I just object to him stating his opinion as fact, having found his doing so to be an impediment to effective inter-faith communication. It seems silly to me for anyone to have a problem with that. But, that may just be my opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade wrote:

Evidently, Rob's confusion isn't restricted to the two I pointed out above. He now misassumes that people can't have a discussion unless the comments are addressed specifically to each other. Yet, here, at least, I am having a discussion with Rob without addressing my comments specifically to him.

That's some talent.

I will pass over Wade's repetitive claims about fact and opinion, which add nothing new, and get to the point, such as it is, that he attempts to make. Wade wrote:

It is a fact that the expression "one God" occurs eleven times in the Book of Mormon. What isn't a fact is that this expression means that the Book of Mormon is monotheistic (at least not as the term is generally understood), even given the overly vague definition Rob conveniently trotted out. Otherwise, Rob would be forced, by his own "reasoning" to consider LDS as monotheists, since we fervently believe in those "one God" Book of Mormon passages and believe in "one God."

Ah, cognitive dissonance.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, we have eleven explicit affirmations of mono-the-ism (one-God-ism) and zero affirmations of any other the-ism, such as polytheism. Wade missed that second premise of my argument. Given eleven explicit affirmations of one God and zero affirmations of the existence of other gods, I conclude that the Book of Mormon indeed teaches one-God-ism, that is, monotheism.

However, in the case of most Mormons post-1844, committed somehow to believing both the Book of Mormon theological statements and Joseph Smith's later explicit denials of one-God-ism in favor of explicit polytheism, we have a different situation. Given affirmations of "one God" and affirmations of "many Gods" by the same people at the same time, we must look more carefully to see which of these two affirmations, if either, the affirming party seems to regard as primary or controlling and how they interpret these statements.

The first thing that I notice is that whereas most Mormons seem comfortable negating "one God" statements, these same Mormons rarely if ever will negate the "many Gods" statements. That is, they will assert that it is not the case that there is only one God, but they will rarely assert that it is not the case that there are many Gods. This disparity appears to demonstrate that for those Mormons, the "many Gods" statements are primary and controlling.

Second, I observe that what most Mormons do is to shoehorn the "one God" affirmations into a "many Gods" context (and not the other way around). Thus, they offer such explanations as: the many Gods are "one God" in the sense that they are "one in purpose"; the many Gods are "one God" meaning "one Godhead," where "Godhead" means a ruling triumvirate of deities; and so on. (Wade's explanation may be one of these or he may have another explanation he prefers.) What is quite evident, in all such explanations, is that "one God" is not understood to mean "one God," whereas "many Gods" is taken as unproblematically meaning "many Gods." I therefore conclude that Mormons who use such explanations actually believe that there are many Gods and do not really believe that there is just one God, even though they affirm their acceptance of those words in the Book of Mormon (with the stipulated explanation).

For the two reasons explained above, it is my considered opinion that most Mormons, despite their professed acceptance of the "one God" statements in the Book of Mormon, do not actually believe in one God as the object of their faith. They are not monotheists.

Wade wrote:

Yet more compounded confusion. Since Rob mistakenly assume that his statement is fact, he makes the further mistake of assuming that the burden rest with me to prove otherwise.

I have provided textual data from the Book of Mormon supporting my "interpretation" of the Book of Mormon as teaching monotheism. Wade has not provided textual data from the Book of Mormon supporting his claim that the Book of Mormon does not teach monotheism. That is the difference, and that is why the burden of proof, for the time being at least, rests on him.

Wade wrote:

What better way to end a thoroughly confused post than to post a final point of confusion. My kindly and reasonably pointing out the difference between fact and opinion cannot in any reasonable sense be interpreted as imply that I wish only facts to be stated here. I don't. I welcome statements of opinion, even from Rob. I just object to him stating his opinion as fact, having found his doing so to be an impediment to effective inter-faith communication. It seems silly to me for anyone to have a problem with that. But, that may just be my opinion.

Ironically, Wade is here implicitly attributing to me an opinion I did not express. I did not express the opinion that Wade wishes only facts to be stated in this forum. I simply suggested that if all posters limited themselves to making statements that would pass Wade's standards for being facts this would be a very quiet forum. Let me, though, in the interests of clarity amend my statement: If all posters refrained from asserting as fact statements that would not pass Wade's standards for being facts, it is my opinion that very few assertions of fact would ever be made here.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

The expression "one God" occurs eleven times in the Book of Mormon. The word monotheism means literally "belief in one God." There are zero references in the Book of Mormon to a plurality of heavenly beings as "gods." The Book of Mormon asserts that the one God made all things in heaven and on earth. It even asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God." By definition, this is monotheism. I grant that anyone can, with enough imagination, find a way around this evidence, as it is possible to circumvent any evidence if one is determined enough. But the burden of proof is on Wade to show that the statements I have cited from the Book of Mormon, which at least appear rather obviously to teach monotheism, do not in fact do so.

True enough, however, the Book of Mormon also features four references to deity as "the Most High God" (1 Nephi 11:6; Alma 26:14; 3 Nephi 4:32; 11:17), a title which like its biblical counterpart identifies the existence of multiple gods over whom Israel's sovereign deity holds a more exalted position. One cannot possibly have a god who is "the" most high, if in fact there are no other gods for the deity to be higher than.

[zerinus]

Ah, cognitive dissonance.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, we have eleven explicit affirmations of mono-the-ism (one-God-ism) and zero affirmations of any other the-ism, such as polytheism. Wade missed that second premise of my argument. Given eleven explicit affirmations of one God and zero affirmations of the existence of other gods, I conclude that the Book of Mormon indeed teaches one-God-ism, that is, monotheism.

However, in the case of most Mormons post-1844, committed somehow to believing both the Book of Mormon theological statements and Joseph Smith's later explicit denials of one-God-ism in favor of explicit polytheism, we have a different situation. Given affirmations of "one God" and affirmations of "many Gods" by the same people at the same time, we must look more carefully to see which of these two affirmations, if either, the affirming party seems to regard as primary or controlling and how they interpret these statements.

The first thing that I notice is that whereas most Mormons seem comfortable negating "one God" statements, these same Mormons rarely if ever will negate the "many Gods" statements. That is, they will assert that it is not the case that there is only one God, but they will rarely assert that it is not the case that there are many Gods. This disparity appears to demonstrate that for those Mormons, the "many Gods" statements are primary and controlling.

Second, I observe that what most Mormons do is to shoehorn the "one God" affirmations into a "many Gods" context (and not the other way around). Thus, they offer such explanations as: the many Gods are "one God" in the sense that they are "one in purpose"; the many Gods are "one God" meaning "one Godhead," where "Godhead" means a ruling triumvirate of deities; and so on. (Wade's explanation may be one of these or he may have another explanation he prefers.) What is quite evident, in all such explanations, is that "one God" is not understood to mean "one God," whereas "many Gods" is taken as unproblematically meaning "many Gods." I therefore conclude that Mormons who use such explanations actually believe that there are many Gods and do not really believe that there is just one God, even though they affirm their acceptance of those words in the Book of Mormon (with the stipulated explanation).

For the two reasons explained above, it is my considered opinion that most Mormons, despite their professed acceptance of the "one God" statements in the Book of Mormon, do not actually believe in one God as the object of their faith. They are not monotheists.

That is a highly disingenuous comment. What you are turning a blind eye to is that early Christianity (before it apostatized) was as “polytheistic” (by your reckoning) as Mormonism is, of which the following is a small (but representative) sample of quotations:

. . . and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the Saviour. (Clement of Alexandria)

. . . the Word, I say, of God, who became man just that you might learn from a man how it may be that man should become God. (Clement of Alexandria)

The Son in his kindness generously imparted deification to others . . . who are transformed through him into gods, as images of the prototype . . . the Word is the archetype of the many images. (Origen)

For the Word was not degraded by receiving a body, so that he should seek to “receive” God’s gift. Rather he deified what he put on; and, more than that, he bestowed this gift upon the race of men.(Athanasius)

. . . If the works of the Godhead had not taken place by means of the body, man would not have been made divine. (Athanasius)

The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine. (Athanasius)

Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are the sons of the Most High.” . . . For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality. (Irenaeus)

But he himself that justifies also defies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. “For he has given them power to become the sons of God” [John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.” (Augustine)

[altersteve]

I like the discussion so far.

But what about God's "justice system" as presented in Leviticus? A woman who is raped must be killed? Really?

[zerinus]

I like the discussion so far.

But what about God's "justice system" as presented in Leviticus? A woman who is raped must be killed? Really?

Refs please.

[Maidservant]

I appreciated everyone's comments and learned from "all sides", and agree and disagree in the mixture of so many who spoke. Obviously, the OT is a wrestle (a la Jacob's wrestle). I certainly have not learned enough to have conclusions that I trust for myself yet but I will offer a couple of pieces I feel that I have come to.

First . . . the Old Testament is a temple/ascension text ENTIRE. As I have come to see, anyway. This is the case whether it is pure fiction, literal to the bone, or somewhere in between, or something else entirely. Interestingly enough, as an ascension text, the genocide(ish) items fit in, because it represents that bondage or blindness of MEN GENOCIDING THEIR BROTHERS . . . i.e. it is a representation of a portion of the descent of ascension, if that makes sense.

Second . . . at one point when I was trying to understand these things as something God would do (not necessarily tied to that any more, but like I said haven't revisited it since then) . . . I felt that I realized a few things. One was what Lehi said, about the idea that all the people were covenant people. But unlike Lehi, I don't think God destroys people for not going to church, smoking cigarettes, or even divorce, or even being gay (i.e. the accepted Sodom story which I don't think is accurate anyway), for doing anything to break covenants. Breaking covenants is its own problem and results in degeneracy which ultimate degeneracy is such things as genocide. But, I did ask a question . . . IF there was ANYTHING God was going to slaughter/"slaughter" his children over . . . WHAT could that BE? What could a just, loving God step in to kill a person . . . IF that person was doing WHAT?

Can you think of anything?

I can.

Crimes against children.

I don't know about subsequent cultures, but it is my understanding from my study and pondering and asking . . . that the culture that experienced Noah's flood were violating children (sexually) and offering them as sacrifices. This may have continued through other times; it was a likely event in Abraham's time. These were cultures of crime. So if God would destroy these cultures, it could possibly be for the purpose of protecting his children, so that they would not be born into a life like that, where from their infancy they would be subject to danger and violation.

Now this does not explain every thing, and as well, I may be due for a re-visit on the matter. But these were things I learned at one time.

[Rob Bowman]

Cushan,

Hello. That's some name.

You wrote:

True enough, however, the Book of Mormon also features four references to deity as "the Most High God" (1 Nephi 11:6; Alma 26:14; 3 Nephi 4:32; 11:17), a title which like its biblical counterpart identifies the existence of multiple gods over whom Israel's sovereign deity holds a more exalted position. One cannot possibly have a god who is "the" most high, if in fact there are no other gods for the deity to be higher than.

Hey, an argument that actually appeals to the Book of Mormon text. I like it.

In none of the four Book of Mormon passages where this title appears do we find "the Most High God" described as having that position in relation to other supernatural beings. I realize that the language in and of itself might seem to imply "less high gods," but this is an inference from the words that I do not think is correct at all. "Most High" might be a descriptor that simply expresses the fact that God occupies the highest position in all existence. In fact, something like 40 times in the Bible, "the Most High" stands by itself as a title for God (compare 15 times where he is called "God Most High" or "the Most High God"). Thus "the Most High God" actually appears in the Bible to be a compound name or title comparable to "the Almighty God," which is not distinguishing him from "mighty gods" but again combines two titles, "the Almighty" and "God," for the same deity.

If "Most High" ever did function as a qualifier for "God" to distinguish him from lesser gods, this function does not seem to apply to its usage in the Bible, and it is even less likely in the Book of Mormon, which simply uses a variety of biblical titles and other descriptors for God.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

That is a highly disingenuous comment.

I've been hearing that a lot on this forum. Apparently, asserting that someone is disingenuous is acceptable here. And people make this accusation so easily!

Your reply simply ignores everything I said and instead tries to change the subject to the views of the church fathers. If you'll think hard about it, you'll realize that their views, while interesting, are logically irrelevant to the question of whether the Book of Mormon teaches monotheism or polytheism.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Nevo]

But, I did ask a question . . . IF there was ANYTHING God was going to slaughter/"slaughter" his children over . . . WHAT could that BE? What could a just, loving God step in to kill a person . . . IF that person was doing WHAT?

Can you think of anything?

I can.

Crimes against children.

Well Moses seems to have had no such qualms. He was livid when the Israelite armies spared the Midianite women "and all their little ones." His verdict? "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:17-18). Classy.

[Maidservant]

Well Moses seems to have had no such qualms. He was livid when the Israelite armies spared the Midianite women "and all their little ones." His verdict? "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:17-18). Classy.

Right.

As I already mentioned, I have more to learn, and I have no conclusions. I don't have a problem challenging God and I don't have a problem calling religion and texts inventions of men. I simply haven't studied this fully, and just share as far as I had gotten. And thanks for giving me a good place to start, when I do again.

Jeremy said this in an earlier post: "I think it's what the LORD himself says over and over: "How many times would I have gathered you up, but you would not?" We seem to be perpetually taking the LORD's name in vain by using His authority to justify our own freewill-denying practices, when if we were following the true Priesthood of God, we would know that no power can or ought to be maintained by mere authority, but only by kindness and meekness and longsuffering and love unfeigned." I believe this absolutely, and Jeremy stated it nicely.

Oddly enough, in Moses 8:30, God is discussing his choice to bring the floods and to end flesh because his children were already killing and violating each other (see also 7:33). He simply wanted it to stop and for mankind to begin again. (But this does not speak to later situations, such as the one you brought up.)

Also perhaps I should mention that I view the importance of this knowledge not for what happened in the past, but because of what we need to know today to stop the violence. For example, this can be read as violence in our hearts/floods-washing-baptism/new creature. The OT's greatest value is to be read other than literally or as history, whether it can be shown to have been literal or history (I actually don't care that much, in terms of religion; and in terms of history, again, I'm focused on the present.)