500 Years After The Protestant Reformation

[RevTestament]

30 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

Psalm 82:1-2: “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.”**.

 

Psalm 82:6-8: “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 princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.”

 

Here, in this passage, God calls these human judges “gods” because they were making life and death decisions for people, yet in an unjust manner. So, rather than proclaim that they were indeed “gods,” He announces judgment up on them by saying that they would “die” like the men that they were; thus, proving that they were false gods and that He alone is the only true God Who will arise and “judge the earth.” So we see that far from teaching that men can be exalted as “gods,” this passage actually teaches the opposite; that anyone who tries to exalt himself to the position of “god” will perish. Remember how Lucifer perished? He wanted to be “like” God in every way:

 

Isaiah 14:12-14: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

 

Not only did Lucifer fall from glory through this lie, but he used this very same lie of becoming “as gods” to convince Adam and Eve to sin (Genesis 3:5). This resulted in the judgment of death being passed upon all mankind. (Romans 5:12; 6:23).

 

Why did Jesus quote Psalm 82:6 to the Pharisees to support His claims of being God? Was Jesus trying to say that they had no right to judge His claim to Deity because other human judges were also called “gods”? Let’s examine the context:

 

 

John 10:30-39: “I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand.”

 

Was Jesus aligning Himself with the deity claims of these false human judges? No, He was not. His claims to Deity far exceeded the wicked judges who were acting as false “gods.” In mentioning them, Jesus contrasted His Deity as the one true God against them and the Pharisees who were acting JUST like these wicked judges when they were judging the true Son of God of blasphemy. By quoting Psalm 82 where God proclaimed the judgment of “death” upon these wicked false “gods,” Jesus was reminding the Pharisees of the serious consequences of their judgment of Him, stating that what these judges thought they were as gods, He was in reality, the one true God. This is why the Jews responded by trying to stone Him twice for blasphemy according to their law in Leviticus 24:16 that commands the stoning of people who claim the attributes of Deity.

 

 

Both John 10:34 and Psalm 82:6 say: “Ye are gods?” Do you believe you are a “god” right now? If not, how can these verses apply to you? Do you think these wicked Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking were real “gods” at the very moment that he said “Ye are gods?” How could they qualify to be real “gods” when they were trying to kill Jesus for blasphemy? Did you know that Lucifer was kicked out of Heaven for trying “exalt” himself to be “like” God (Isaiah 14:12-14, KJV)?

Since it is obvious by the context that the Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking were not real “gods,” can you see why Christians do not believe that these verses are teaching that men are “gods in embryo”? Rather, these wicked Pharisees were being called “gods” in a mockery way in order to prove that they were false gods who would die like the mere mortal judges of Psalm 82:7!

Scripture is clear that there is only one true God as the following verses proclaim:

 

1 John 5:20: “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”

 

John 17:3: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

 

James Talmage, a Mormon Apostle, said Psalm 82:6 is not about becoming gods.

 "In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called 'gods.'  To this scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon's Porch.  Judges so authorized officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title 'gods.'  Compare the similar appellation applied to Moses (Exo. 4:16; 7:1).  Jesus Christ possessed divine authorization, not through the word of God transmitted to Him by man, but as an inherent attribute.  The inconsistency of calling human judges 'gods,' and of ascribing blasphemy to the Christ who called Himself the Son of God, would have been apparent to the Jews but for their sin-darkened minds."  (James Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 501). -- Mormons often quote Psalm 82:6 which Jesus quoted in John 10:30-34 to show that we can become gods.  Rather than them believing the truth from a Christian, perhaps they will believe it from their own apostle.

... Psalm 82:1, 6, where ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel.

They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah.

Similarly, Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh. (see Exodus 4:16)

Isaiah 44:8: “…Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

 

How many times I have been over this with unbelievers such as yourself. If you wish to understand God try thinking in Hebrew. Gentiles tend to think very linearly about God as did the Greeks.

All the commentators try to dismiss Psalms 82 with the idea that it doesn't really mean "gods." You mean God doesn't know the difference between the Hebrew Elohim, and the Hebrew shoftim? If He had meant judges do you believe He would have said shoftim? This attempt at confabulation is refuted by our Savior Himself who used the passage in John to refute that He was blaspheming by saying He was the Son of God. He pointed out "isn't it written in your law 'I have said ye are elohim?' He continued His emphasis by saying the law cannot be broken. Yet, here you are trying to argue that it should be broken in direct conflict with your Savior. You are trying to take away Yeshua's defense. If Elohim meant judges why would He bring this up? You argue context, but fail to see that if Elohim means judges, you take away Yeshua's defense, and cause him to say as the Son of God He is greater than judges. How does that defend His referring to Himself as the Son of God? The answer is that it doesn't. He wouldn't bring it up in His defense. Further, God said in Deuteronomy that He is a God of Elohim/gods. Do you believe He is a God of idols? or a god of pagan gods? or a god of judges? This is all rubbish used to try to defend trinitarianism. He is what He says - an El of Elohim - the congregation of the mighty - those foreordained to be His prophets and chosen people. 

The problem with the English translations is that the translators did not fully understand the nature of God. All the different titles become "Lord" and "God." Let us examine the Isaiah scripture you reference as saying that there is no other ĕ·lō·w·ah. That means there is no other power of the immovable stone. That He is the stone of salvation. He is the rock of Israel. There is no other rock upon which to build. Now, what did Yeshua say? That He is the chief cornerstone? That he who did not build his house upon His rock would fail? Does that mean there are not other stones? If so, why did He tell Peter that he was the rock upon which He would build His Church? He is essentially outright telling Peter that he was elohim. Yet, you say "not possible" because you do not understand the Hebrew. I am not berating you. I am calling you to begin to study it, because the English translations fail to give an accurate picture of the Godhead. Yet, the Hebew is supposed to be the basis for all Christians believe. I invite you to look closer at it.

[RevTestament]

Let me give you an idea of what I am referring to. 

See Deut 32:15  

e·lō·w·ha אֱל֣וֹהַ God

I would argue no, not "God." It means the power of immovable force - like an immovable rock. Hence, we see that reference:

6213 [e] ‘ā·śā·hū, עָשָׂ֔הוּ [which] made him

way·nab·bêl וַיְנַבֵּ֖ל and lightly esteemed

ṣūr צ֥וּר the Rock

yə·šu·‘ā·ṯōw. יְשֻׁעָתֽוֹ׃ of his salvation

 

We again see it in many of the ancient references using that title. Here is another in 2 Samuel 22:3

’ĕ·lō·hê    אֱלֹהֵ֥י  The God

ṣ ū·rî    צוּרִ֖י  of my rock

This pattern is repeated in most places Eloah and its derivations are used in the OT. Because this is what El was being for His people - their rock or stone - immovable and unchangeable in His resolve and commitment. The translation "god" misses all this. It removes God into some untouchable and unknowable nether-sphere. Yeshua came to remove that blinder and trinitarianism puts it right back on imho. 

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Mormons are not Trinitarians since they teach three separate and distinct persons represent the ONE GOD , While Mormons teach 3 separate persons represent 3 gods. The teaching of 3 gods is contrary to the Book of Mormon which agrees with the Trinity . 

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods," (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370)

 

The Godhead consists of the three distinct personages and three gods.. The Father Son and Holy Spirit. The Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bones, while the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit. Robert Millet A Different Jesus page 198

 

The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).

 

 

 

 

I guess you missed the part where the Christian scholar stated that the BOM definitely can't be described as supporting the doctrine of the Trinity.  There are too many verses that contradict it.

 

[Josh Khinder]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I guess you missed the part where the Christian scholar stated that the BOM definitely can't be described as supporting the doctrine of the Trinity.  There are too many verses that contradict it.

 

Please cite a Christian scholar, could be only because they consider The Book of Mormon faux canon . Because the Book of Mormon completely agrees with the Trinity of within the nature of the ONE GOD there are 3 separate and distinct persons , Yes I did miss the statements from Christian Scholars Links please .

[Thinking]

On 12/29/2017 at 3:12 PM, pogi said:

Right, perhaps the survey was confusing to them.

Too often a survey has too many questions and the questions all begin to sound alike. The linked article lists the number of participants but not the exact wording of the question(s). Some questions are leading while others are confusing.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

Please cite a Christian scholar, could be only because they consider The Book of Mormon faux canon . Because the Book of Mormon completely agrees with the Trinity of within the nature of the ONE GOD there are 3 separate and distinct persons , Yes I did miss the statements from Christian Scholars Links please .

I already did cite him, and I linked to his paper. It was in my second post to you. 

It seemed that you were in such a hurry to respond that you didn’t take any time to engage with or understand what was actually said. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Too often a survey has too many questions and the questions all begin to sound alike. The linked article lists the number of participants but not the exact wording of the question(s). Some questions are leading while others are confusing.

How do you know they are confusing and misleading if the article doesn't give the exact wording of the questions?

[pogi]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Let me give you an idea of what I am referring to. 

This pattern is repeated in most places Eloah and its derivations are used in the OT. Because this is what El was being for His people - their rock or stone - immovable and unchangeable in His resolve and commitment. The translation "god" misses all this. It removes God into some untouchable and unknowable nether-sphere. Yeshua came to remove that blinder and trinitarianism puts it right back on imho. 

In fact, El was symbolized by vertical sone pillars, like the one set up by Jacob (Isra-El) at Beth -El.  Asherah, on the other hand was symbolized by a wood pole, like the one in Solomon's temple. 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Mormons are not Trinitarians since they teach three separate and distinct persons represent the ONE GOD , While Mormons teach 3 separate persons represent 3 gods. The teaching of 3 gods is contrary to the Book of Mormon which agrees with the Trinity . 

 

The idea of three persons in one God is a confusing rhetorical trick meant to make Christians "technically" monotheist while affirming the godhood of Jesus. True monotheists like Jewish and Muslim people tend to see through it.

[Thinking]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

How do you know they are confusing and misleading if the article doesn't give the exact wording of the questions?

I don't. I was actually agreeing with your statement and pointed out some of the problems surveys can have.

[pogi]

Just now, Thinking said:

I don't. I was actually agreeing with your statement and pointed out some of the problems surveys can have.

I see, sorry, I misunderstood.

[Josh Khinder]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

You keep trying to force the LDS use of the term Trinity (or 'one' in the BOM and other sources) into the mainstream Christian definition of the terms.  That's neither valid or reasonable though.  Just like how Mormons and Baptists may both use the word 'salvation', we don't define the term the same way, and the same can be said when it comes to Mormons and the Trinity.  The words might be the same, but that really doesn't mean much when it comes to understanding the doctrine.

I like the words of the mainstream Christian scholar Davis who said this when talking about "the Mormon Trinity" (as he puts it)- 

Let me now turn to the Mormon Trinity. It is clear that Mormons can affirm the seven propositions that make up the classical doctrine of the Trinity.

(1) The Father is God.
(2) The Son is God.
(3) The Holy Spirit is God.
(4) The Father is not the Son.
(5) The Son is not the Holy Spirit. (6) The Holy Spirit is not the Father (7) There is only one God.

This is perhaps the strongest point in favor of mainstream Christians accepting the LDS view of the Trinity as a viable theological option. But does their affirmation of (1) – (7) make Mormons into defenders of a Trinitarianism that ought to be acceptable to mainstream Christians? Unfortunately, I believe the answer is no. The problem, so it seems to me, is that Mormons have to interpret some of these propositions in ways that would not be acceptable to mainstream Christians. Whether Mormon subordinationist Christology amounts to an acceptable interpretation of (2), for example, is a question that I will not discuss here.6 The central problem, so it seems to me, is that Mormons do not affirm (7) in the right way.

I say this for two reasons. First, Mormons certainly do have a theory of the oneness of God; that God is one is clearly affirmed in the Mormon scriptures (e.g., III Nephi 11:27, 36; Mosiah 15:4). But I doubt that many advocates of classical Trinitarianism will judge this fact to be sufficient. This is clear not just from the tritheistic-sounding texts that can also be found in the Mormon scriptures, but from the conviction (as I just argued) that unity of purpose is not enough.

Note that Davis understands that when all of the verses in the BOM on God are taken in context and as a whole, the BOM does not support the mainstream definition of the Trinity.

Just because LDS prophets have used the word Trinity or our scriptures use the word 'one' that does not mean that we believe the doctrine of the Trinity as mainstream Christians believe it.  Different groups of people define terms differently and it seems like you don't realize that (or worse, like you refuse to acknowledge that because it doesn't fit in with your agenda).

Your link does say Trinitarians aren't modalism which teach the Father and Son are same person taught by "Penticostal Church of God, jesus Only " or The Way International .

 

Orthodox Trinitarianism faces theological dangers in either direction. Pushing too hard on the oneness of God can lead to modalism, which is the theory that God is truly one but only seems to us (or appears to us) to be three; as God relates to human beings, God plays three roles. Pushing too hard on the threeness can lead to tritheism, which is the theory that the Trinity is truly three separate Gods who are perhaps unified in some ways. Both modalism and tritheism are considered heretical in Christian history; and thus both are to be avoided.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

Your link does say Trinitarians aren't modalism which teach the Father and Son are same person taught by "Penticostal Church of God, jesus Only " or The Way International .

 

Orthodox Trinitarianism faces theological dangers in either direction. Pushing too hard on the oneness of God can lead to modalism, which is the theory that God is truly one but only seems to us (or appears to us) to be three; as God relates to human beings, God plays three roles. Pushing too hard on the threeness can lead to tritheism, which is the theory that the Trinity is truly three separate Gods who are perhaps unified in some ways. Both modalism and tritheism are considered heretical in Christian history; and thus both are to be avoided.

Yes, I know the link says that.  I know that Trinitarianism isn't the same thing as Modalism.  The link also says that the BOM doesn't support Trinitarianism.  

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The idea of three persons in one God is a confusing rhetorical trick meant to make Christians "technically" monotheist while affirming the godhood of Jesus. True monotheists like Jewish and Muslim people tend to see through it.

Yes, I thought it was interesting that the Christian theologian Stephen Davis declared "Just saying that one is a monotheist does not make it so" when talking about the LDS view of God without acknowledging that Jews and Muslims don't believe that he is a monotheist, despite his claims and arguments that he is.

[Josh Khinder]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I know the link says that.  I know that Trinitarianism isn't the same thing as Modalism.  The link also says that the BOM doesn't support Trinitarianism.  

I disagree other than the modalism text below where it confounds the persons

Luke 10:

23 All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it. JST

 

    Mosiah 15     

3 The Father, ^abecause he was ^bconceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are ^aone God, yea, the very ^bEternal ^cFather of heaven and of earth.

 Mosiah 16:

15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very ^aEternal Father. Amen.

Mosiah 7:27 And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of  God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth—

 Alma 11:38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

 39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and ball things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

 Helaman 14:12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name.

 Ether 3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2017 by Nemesis

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

Both modalism and tritheism are considered heretical in Christian history; and thus both are to be avoided.

There you go relying on the authority of the Catholic church again.  Sola credo! (Latin for creed). 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

In fact, El was symbolized by vertical sone pillars, like the one set up by Jacob (Isra-El) at Beth -El.  Asherah, on the other hand was symbolized by a wood pole, like the one in Solomon's temple. 

Hmm. Interesting. Genesis 35 does say Jacob offered a drink offering to or on the pillar. This is before Moses, so there may not have been any particular taboo about it, so you could be right. Where would I find the reference about the wood pillar? YHWH seems to have spoken harshly about Ashteroth. 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Hmm. Interesting. Genesis 35 does say Jacob offered a drink offering to or on the pillar. This is before Moses, so there may not have been any particular taboo about it, so you could be right. Where would I find the reference about the wood pillar? YHWH seems to have spoken harshly about Ashteroth. 

Also, Genesis 28:22 "And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that you shall give me I will surely give the tenth unto you."

Many scholars believe that Yahweh and El were originally two different Gods, with Yahweh in a subservient status to El.  El was the "most high" in an assembly headed by El.  Asherah was the wife of El (the "Queen of Heaven"), and had the title "Elat" (Goddess; El-at).  Some scholars believe that Yahweh was their son (sounds very Mormon, no?)

By the end of the 8th century BCE, fundamentalist monotheists merged Yahweh with El and they became one God.  Even though they originally had very different characteristics. 

 Exodus 6:3 states
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name the LORD (YHWH) was I not known to them."

The Yahwist author in the Bible was clearly anti-Ashera, even though the Israelites worshipped her up until the Babylonian exile, right after Lehi took off to America.  The YHWH of the bible certainly did speak harshly against Asherah, but historically, the Israelites viewed her as El's wife.  And as El merged with Yahweh, she became Yahweh's wife.  This article explains how the Yahwist  "divorced" Asherah from Yahweh:

 https://mythologymatters.wordpress.com/2014/10/06/yahwehs-divorce-from-the-goddess-asherah-in-the-garden-of-eden/

Some more interesting reads:

https://thequeenofheaven.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/asherah-part-i-the-lost-bride-of-

yahweh/yahweh/https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_jehovah01.htm

https://www.quora.com/Was-Yahweh-originally-the-son-of-El-or-at-least-subordinate-to-El-El-Elyon-in-the-earliest-forms-of-the-Israelite-religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

Edited January 1, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

The idea of three persons in one God is a confusing rhetorical trick meant to make Christians "technically" monotheist while affirming the godhood of Jesus. True monotheists like Jewish and Muslim people tend to see through it.

<<<<<  This guy over here to the left is Polytheist and proud.   The Family God.  Three persons united by love and purpose.   "God is Love"- what do you think that means?  The Unity of the three is literally love therefore the Family of God IS love.  What makes the three one is love and purpose.

It's like saying "The Family is Love" and indeed it is.  One need not to be genetically linked to be part of a family- the bond is love that makes us one in a family.

And we are part of the family of God so we are one with him.

John 17

Quote

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

Edited January 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

<<<<<  This guy over here to the left is Polytheist and proud.   The Family God.  Three persons united by love and purpose.   "God is Love"- what do you think that means?  The Unity of the three is literally love therefore the Family of God IS love.  What makes the three one is love and purpose.

It's like saying "The Family is Love" and indeed it is.  One need not to be genetically linked to be part of a family- the bond is love that makes us one in a family.

And we are part of the family of God so we are one with him.

John 17

I kind of think we are dealing with man's difficulty in characterizing God. I appreciate your sentiments and all, but God says They are one/echad YHWH. That means there is one path - one way. It is not like two different gods giving two different sets of commandments or requiring two different sets of temples or two different sacrifices. To honor Yeshua is to honor the Father. It is a very intimate oneness. Now man may have difficulty with that, and want to call it polytheism, but YHWH doesn't seem to have any difficulty with it as your John 17 quotation illustrates. I am not saying all will be YHWH - but those who believe Him can enter His house and be Elohim with them or in LDS/English parlance - gods. Unlike in polytheism this does not carry the idea that all get to go off and be their own independent El Elyon. It just means they are one in spirit and worship - one mind and one heart in the way. To me that is just not the same as polytheism. It's not really monolatry either which allows belief in other gods just as powerful or even potentially more powerful than the god worshiped. It's just a recognition that God loves us and wants us to be a part of His House. If we have any power or gifts of God such as healing, it is through His power - not ours.  It is a family by adoption. If man insists on that being polytheism then so be it, but God seems to think it is not. There is no worship of other gods. There is only recognition of the one way. One cannot win El Elyon's favor by bypassing Christ His Son. If one doesn't believe Christ, one doesn't believe the Father - because they are One. Christ literally lived it, and yet man still does not get it. We can live it too. We can live the way in our own less perfect way, but in the eyes of our Father, that is us being one in spirit. In my mind that is just not polytheism - it is something else only God has "invented," and man has so imperfectly understood and lived.  

Edited January 1, 2018 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Also, Genesis 28:22 "And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that you shall give me I will surely give the tenth unto you."

Many scholars believe that Yahweh and El were originally two different Gods, with Yahweh in a subservient status to El.  El was the "most high" in an assembly headed by El.  Asherah was the wife of El (the "Queen of Heaven"), and had the title "Elat" (Goddess; El-at).  Some scholars believe that Yahweh was their son (sounds very Mormon, no?)

By the end of the 8th century BCE, fundamentalist monotheists merged Yahweh with El and they became one God.  Even though they originally had very different characteristics. 

 Exodus 6:3 states
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name the LORD (YHWH) was I not known to them."

The Yahwist author in the Bible was clearly anti-Ashera, even though the Israelites worshipped her up until the Babylonian exile, right after Lehi took off to America.  The YHWH of the bible certainly did speak harshly against Asherah, but historically, the Israelites viewed her as El's wife.  And as El merged with Yahweh, she became Yahweh's wife.  

Thank you kindly for the references Pogi. Textual scholars take great pride in believing they have figured out god because they have seen an evolution in His word - like God cannot reveal more about Himself. Revelation says He can and will because the mystery of God will not be finished until the time of the seventh trumpet of the seventh seal. Textual scholars have not even begun to fathom the things of God. Their distinction between Yahowah and El is merely a distinction of dispensations. A new dispensation came and God began to teach more about Himself - another name - and scholars go - hey look - man has invented a new god, and is trying to merge them - like God cannot have more than one name. In actuality a new language(Hebrew) came and God gave them a new name in their new language to prepare them for things to come - to teach them a "new aspect" about Himself.

I do recognize that the Canaanites worshiped Asherah. I also recognize that the early Israelites did as well judging from the many small idols found in ancient Israel. The Bible says as much. God has never told us to worship His "wife." While He may have a wife, He has never commanded any such worship, and while it may be tempting for LDS to believe in His wife, to start adopting other gods to worship is a grave error. We have one Savior who demands our uttermost praise and worship. Mixing in other intercessors such as Mary or a wife is not acceptable to Yeshua nor Heavenly Father.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I kind of think we are dealing with man's difficulty in characterizing God. I appreciate your sentiments and all, but God says They are one/echad YHWH. That means there is one path - one way. It is not like two different gods giving two different sets of commandments or requiring two different sets of temples or two different sacrifices. To honor Yeshua is to honor the Father. It is a very intimate oneness. Now man may have difficulty with that, and want to call it polytheism, but YHWH doesn't seem to have any difficulty with it as your John 17 quotation illustrates. I am not saying all will be YHWH - but who believe Him can enter His house and be Elohim with them or in LDS parlance - gods. Unlike in polytheism this does not carry the idea that all get to go off and be their own independent El Elyon. It just means they are one in spirit and worship - one mind and one heart in the way. To me that is just not the same as polytheism. It's not really monolatry either which allows belief in other gods just as powerful or even potentially more powerful than the god worshiped. It's just a recognition that God loves us and wants us to be a part of His House. If we have any power or gifts of God such as healing, it is through His power - not ours.  It is a family by adoption. If man insists on that being polygamy then so be it, but God seems to think it is not. There is no worship of other gods. There is only recognition of the one way. One cannot win El Elyon's favor by bypassing Christ His Son. If one doesn't believe Christ, one doesn't believe the Father - because they are One. Christ literally lived it, and yet man still does not get it. We can live it too. We can live the way in our own iess perfect way, but in the eyes of our Father, that is us being one in spirit. In my mind that is just not polytheism - it is something else only God has "invented," and man has so imperfectly understood and lived.  

Of course.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Thank you kindly for the references Pogi. Textual scholars take great pride in believing they have figured out god because they have seen an evolution in His word - like God cannot reveal more about Himself. Revelation says He can and will because the mystery of God will not be finished until the time of the seventh trumpet of the seventh seal. Textual scholars have not even begun to fathom the things of God. Their distinction between Yahowah and El is merely a distinction of dispensations. A new dispensation came and God began to teach more about Himself - another name - and scholars go - hey look - man has invented a new god, and is trying to merge them - like God cannot have more than one name. In actuality a new language(Hebrew) came and God gave them a new name in their new language to prepare them for things to come - to teach them a "new aspect" about Himself.

I do recognize that the Canaanites worshiped Asherah. I also recognize that the early Israelites did as well judging from the many small idols found in ancient Israel. The Bible says as much. God has never told us to worship His "wife." While He may have a wife, He has never commanded any such worship, and while it may be tempting for LDS to believe in His wife, to start adopting other gods to worship is a grave error. We have one Savior who demands our uttermost praise and worship. Mixing in other intercessors such as Mary or a wife is not acceptable to Yeshua nor Heavenly Father.

I certainly am not suggesting that we worship God the Mother, but what if the scholars are right?  What if El and Ashera was understood historically to be the plural Elohim?  What if Jehovah is the son of Elohim (sound familiar?)

What if this family of Gods was common knowledge in the beginning, with a proper understanding of their distinct and individual roles?  What if, over time, corruption of worship began to occur with the Canaanites where the people started to worship the Mother?  What if the Yahwist author, in an attempt to purify worship, removed her from divine recognition all together as she became lost in time, only to be revealed again (restored knowledge) in these last days?  What if the authors of the Boble have manipulated the pure and simple truth of a family God right out of the Bible in a misguided attempt to push his version of monarchy?  What if historical research reveals something much more akin to what we believe and teach - that this is ancient knowledge restored to earth?

That is how I like to think of it.  It certainly fits better with temple ritual and the Book of Moses to place El as the Father of Yahweh.

Edited January 1, 2018 by pogi

[RevTestament]

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

I certainly am not suggesting that we worship God the Mother, but what if the scholars are right?  What if El and Ashera was understood historically to be the plural Elohim?  What if Jehovah is the son of Elohim (sound familiar?)

What if this family of Gods was common knowledge in the beginning, with a proper understanding of their distinct and individual roles?  What if, over time, corruption of worship began to occur with the Canaanites where the people started to worship the Mother?  What if the Yahwist author, in an attempt to purify worship, removed her from divine recognition all together as she became lost in time, only to be revealed again (restored knowledge) in these last days?  What if the authors of the Boble have manipulated the pure and simple truth of a family God right out of the Bible in a misguided attempt to push his version of monarchy?  What if historical research reveals something much more akin to what we believe and teach - that this is ancient knowledge restored to earth?

That is how I like to think of it.  It certainly fits better with temple ritual and the Book of Moses to place El as the Father of Yahweh.

I believe there was a Deuteronomy passage which strongly inferred YHWH was one of the sons of Elohim appointed to inherit the nation of Israel by El Elyon, the Most High. I believe it got changed by post-Jesus Jewish Masoretic scribes to hide that original meaning. Another words at one time it suggested YHWH was only one of the sons of Elohim because the sons of Elohim were each appointed an inheritance of the 72 nations by El Elyon. To hide this interpretation the phrasing got changed to sons of Israel. Evidence of the original is found in a Qumran fragment and in the Septuagint. After the advent of Jesus, scribes wouldn't have wanted any inference that El Elyon had a son named YHWH. The thing is the OT is replete with references to the Father as YHWH. I just do not believe the Jews would have made all those changes while leaving evidence of a JHWH who says JHWH and His Spirit sent Him. The law is just not that corrupt. There is too much evidence predating Yeshua to support our current version of the OT - the Qumran scrolls including the Great Isaiah Scroll, the Septuagint, etc. These show our current OT is reasonably preserved. Outside of some scribal errors and loss of some books, the masoretic text we have is reasonably accurate. While I believe Elohim can include daughters of God, I do not have all the answers about the eternal nature of gender, and I have to leave it at that for now.

[FormerLDS]

On 12/29/2017 at 4:12 PM, smac97 said:

As my wife and I talked that night about feelings of inadequacy, I groped for some way to help. I finally remembered something that had happened a couple of months earlier. In our home it is now called the parable of the bicycle.

I was sitting in a chair reading. My daughter, Sarah, who was seven years old at the time, came in and said, “Dad, can I have a bike? I’m the only kid on the block who doesn’t have one.”

Well, I didn’t have the money then for a bike, so I stalled her. I said, “Sure, Sarah.”

She said, “How? When?”

I said, “You save all your pennies, and soon you’ll have enough for a bike.” And she went away.

A couple ofs weeks later I was sitting in the same chair when I heard a “clink, clink” in Sarah’s bedroom. I asked, “Sarah, what are you doing?”

She came to me with a little jar, a slit cut in the lid, and a bunch of pennies in the bottom. She said, “You promised me that if I saved all my pennies, pretty soon I’d have enough for a bike. And, Daddy, I’ve saved every single one of them.”

My heart melted. My daughter was doing everything in her power to follow my instructions. I hadn’t actually lied to her. If she saved all of her pennies, she would eventually have enough for a bike, but by then she would want a car. I said, “Let’s go look at bikes.”

We went to every store in town. Finally we found it—the perfect bicycle. She was thrilled. Then she saw the price tag, and her face fell. She started to cry. “Oh, Dad, I’ll never have enough for a bicycle!”

So I said, “Sarah, how much do you have?”

She answered, “Sixty-one cents.”

“I’ll tell you what. You give me everything you’ve got and a hug and a kiss, and the bike is yours.” Then I drove home very slowly because she insisted on riding the bike home.

As I drove beside her, I thought of the atonement of Christ. We all desperately want the celestial kingdom. We want to be with our Father in Heaven. But no matter how hard we try, we come up short. At some point all of us must realize, “I can’t do this by myself. I need help.” Then it is that the Savior says, in effect, All right, you’re not perfect. But what can you do? Give me all you have, and I’ll do the rest.

Hello friends, I've been thinking quite a bit about Stephen Robinson's "Parable of the Bicycle" over the weekend.  While I believe most would agree the story does a good job of demonstrating the LDS doctrine of "eternal life", it's really very heartbreaking and cruel and doesn't fit into anything a decent parent would do for a child they love.

Observation #1: No loving parent has ever required their child to hand over every dime they've earned in order to get a gift.  You didn't do it this past Christmas.  You don't do that for Birthdays.  YOU DID NOT DO THAT EVER!  Yet somehow your "loving" Heavenly Father does?  

Observation #2: The father promised the little girl that her pennies (works) could one day pay for the bike (eternal life).  The Bible says that ALL of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.  That means that if you could combine each and every righteous act ever performed by a human being, Heavenly Father considers all of them to be nothing more than "filthy rags". 

Observation #3: The father accepted the girls pennies (works), but Heavenly Father considers works "filthy rags".  You wouldn't - don't - accept "filthy rags" for any type of payment and neither does Heavenly Father.

Observation #4: If you are honest, you will admit you are not doing all that you can do.  If doing all that you can really is enough, why are no members actually doing all that they can do?

The good news: There is a loving, honest and accurate version of this story that actually demonstrates the love of a Heavenly Father 

“...I’ll tell you what. You agree to keep everything you’ve got and allow me to pay the price for you and the bike is yours today as a gift from your Father.”