Individual v.s. Office

[Josh516]

Alright, I've seen quite a host of YouTube videos where some helpless Mormon gets cornered by a scholarly individual who knows how to argue against Mormonism clear and through. One thing that anti-Mormons seem to always bring up is the notion of there being multiple Gods in our belief system. They inevitably point to biblical scripture with statements such as, "Ye 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," (Isaiah 43:10).  In Mormon Fundamentalism, the rebuttal is quite simple. To us, the individual and the office are not the same thing. In other words, in the given scripture, there is only one God, because there is only one office of God. But there are a never ending number of people who fill the office of God and have throughout the eternities. My question is this: Doesn't the LDS Church believe this as well? If they do not separate the office from the individual, then how do Mormons reconcile these sorts of scripture with their current beliefs?

[Glenn101]

40 minutes ago, Josh516 said:

Alright, I've seen quite a host of YouTube videos where some helpless Mormon gets cornered by a scholarly individual who knows how to argue against Mormonism clear and through. One thing that anti-Mormons seem to always bring up is the notion of there being multiple Gods in our belief system. They inevitably point to biblical scripture with statements such as, "Ye 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," (Isaiah 43:10).  In Mormon Fundamentalism, the rebuttal is quite simple. To us, the individual and the office are not the same thing. In other words, in the given scripture, there is only one God, because there is only one office of God. But there are a never ending number of people who fill the office of God and have throughout the eternities. My question is this: Doesn't the LDS Church believe this as well? If they do not separate the office from the individual, then how do Mormons reconcile these sorts of scripture with their current beliefs?

I gather that you have never heard of the Deuteronomists?

Glenn

[The Nehor]

I can make a YouTube video where a Flat Earther schools those who believe the Earth is round as long as I can write the script.

Also, calling people who rhetorically ambush others with awkward questions with no preparation in order to video them in an attempt to humiliate them “scholarly” is probably an undeserved compliment. 

Edited August 14, 2018 by The Nehor

[SouthernMo]

57 minutes ago, Josh516 said:

Alright, I've seen quite a host of YouTube videos where some helpless Mormon gets cornered by a scholarly individual who knows how to argue against Mormonism clear and through. One thing that anti-Mormons seem to always bring up is the notion of there being multiple Gods in our belief system. They inevitably point to biblical scripture with statements such as, "Ye 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," (Isaiah 43:10).  In Mormon Fundamentalism, the rebuttal is quite simple. To us, the individual and the office are not the same thing. In other words, in the given scripture, there is only one God, because there is only one office of God. But there are a never ending number of people who fill the office of God and have throughout the eternities. My question is this: Doesn't the LDS Church believe this as well? If they do not separate the office from the individual, then how do Mormons reconcile these sorts of scripture with their current beliefs?

Good thoughts. This is something that is unclear in LDS theology (from what I understand).  On the one hand, we consider ourselves monotheistic as other Christian faiths. On the other hand, we acknowledge a godhead, and acknowledge Christ and the Father as Gods. Additionally, we acknowledge that we are all gods in embryo.  Lastly, LDS call God the Father “Elohim.”  Elohim is plural, so even god the father is named a plural name.

Its a complicated issue that I’ve found most don’t think or know much about.

[Josh516]

22 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I gather that you have never heard of the Deuteronomists?

Glenn

I actually have. I took a college course on Hebrew Texts and I remember hearing that theory. Please refresh my mind

[Josh516]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I can make a YouTube video where a Flat Earther schools those who believe the Earth is round as long as I can write the script.

Also, calling people who rhetorically ambush others with awkward questions with no preparation in order to video them in an attempt to humiliate them “scholarly” is probably an undeserved compliment. 

I couldn't agree more that the guy who does the ambush and is prepared will almost indefinitely win. Though I would still say there's a lot of scholarly argumentation. The guy who really stands out to me is Pastor Jeff Durbin. He's very intelligent and knows how to argue effectively from what I observe. But yes, I agree most people won't stand chance in those circumstances. But I still have yet to hear a good rebuttal from main stream Mormons.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Josh516 said:

I couldn't agree more that the guy who does the ambush and is prepared will almost indefinitely win. Though I would still say there's a lot of scholarly argumentation. The guy who really stands out to me is Pastor Jeff Durbin. He's very intelligent and knows how to argue effectively from what I observe. But yes, I agree most people won't stand chance in those circumstances. But I still have yet to hear a good rebuttal from main stream Mormons.

If it were my rebuttal would be similar to yours and include the heinous doctrine that a God is actually a couple united in exaltation. I am not sure if I would share that with a heckler though. Pearls and swine and all that.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Josh516 said:

Alright, I've seen quite a host of YouTube videos where some helpless Mormon gets cornered by a scholarly individual who knows how to argue against Mormonism clear and through. One thing that anti-Mormons seem to always bring up is the notion of there being multiple Gods in our belief system. They inevitably point to biblical scripture with statements such as, "Ye 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," (Isaiah 43:10).  In Mormon Fundamentalism, the rebuttal is quite simple. To us, the individual and the office are not the same thing. In other words, in the given scripture, there is only one God, because there is only one office of God. But there are a never ending number of people who fill the office of God and have throughout the eternities. My question is this: Doesn't the LDS Church believe this as well? If they do not separate the office from the individual, then how do Mormons reconcile these sorts of scripture with their current beliefs?

Are you saying that only one Being holds the office of God at a time and that is how there is only one God?

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that only one Being holds the office of God at a time and that is how there is only one God?

That's how Brigham Young explained it.  Gods above, Gods below.  Our God is the one we pray to.   But Christ is also our God because he inherits/inherited us as his children and kingdom.  The Holy Ghost is a God, but is he really our God if he actually doesn't have a body yet.  Joseph taught those with bodies always have power over those without  (spirits).

[JAHS]

I have always understood it that there have been many Gods and will be many more in the eternities past and future over their own universes.
But as far as we are concerned  in this universe there is only one God that is the father of our spirits and whom we worship and are obedient to.
Pretty much what you said. But of course since this is based on latter-day revelation and not just the Bible other Christians are not going to accept it.

[Maidservant]

There is one God because God is one.

God is the union of all those beings who are in a God-state--that is, a state where they have overcome all things, meaning they have overcome themselves, really.  God is love.

God is really inexpressible, but there are those in the universe (eternity) who have come to abide in it, so they know it even if it is hard to describe in words.

There is one God because there is one love, one freedom, one dignity, one kindness, one peace, one service, one justice, one long-suffering, et cetera.  That which fights against this zion cannot be God.  Also there is the perspective that 'it is all God', so there IS nothing else but the one God--and we are the children of it/him/her.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Maidservant

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That's how Brigham Young explained it.  Gods above, Gods below.  Our God is the one we pray to.   But Christ is also our God because he inherits/inherited us as his children and kingdom.  The Holy Ghost is a God, but is he really our God if he actually doesn't have a body yet.  Joseph taught those with bodies always have power over those without  (spirits).

So in this belief system God our Father ceases to be God when Jesus inherits all He has?

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Josh516 said:

Alright, I've seen quite a host of YouTube videos where some helpless Mormon gets cornered by a scholarly individual who knows how to argue against Mormonism clear and through. One thing that anti-Mormons seem to always bring up is the notion of there being multiple Gods in our belief system. They inevitably point to biblical scripture with statements such as, "Ye 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," (Isaiah 43:10).  In Mormon Fundamentalism, the rebuttal is quite simple. To us, the individual and the office are not the same thing. In other words, in the given scripture, there is only one God, because there is only one office of God. But there are a never ending number of people who fill the office of God and have throughout the eternities. My question is this: Doesn't the LDS Church believe this as well? If they do not separate the office from the individual, then how do Mormons reconcile these sorts of scripture with their current beliefs?

I suggest to really understand this issue you need to understand Hebrew. The English words used for God are basically confused and incorrect. 

This verse can be translated as "Ye are my witnesses, saith YHWH, 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 El/Power formed, neither shall there be after me."

So is Yeshua His own Power? I propose, no, He is not. Nor will he become a new power formed, but will inherit the power of the Father. Arguing about this with the English word God, just misses all these nuances. 

The title Father is actually an office as is the title of begotten Son. The Son has a calling, much like members of our Church hold callings and priesthood offices. 

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

The Son will forevermore be YHWH Elohim with the Father, but the time will come, when He will no longer be the Son, but the Father. That is a change of office and power rather than a change of person.

[JLHPROF]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So in this belief system God our Father ceases to be God when Jesus inherits all He has?

Of course not.  But do we really need to go down that road again?  My unorthodox beliefs differ from the standard Church line on those issues.  We all know that.

God retains his kingdom that has increased in us, Christ begins his through his inheritance of us.

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, Josh516 said:

I actually have. I took a college course on Hebrew Texts and I remember hearing that theory. Please refresh my mind

Am not an expert on the subject, but as I understand it there were a group of scribes that after the exile assiduously scrubbed the texts of references to multiple Gods becuase wordhip of false gods and idols was one of the reasons for the exile. In the process they also erased a lot of the Christianity of the Old Testamnet. I am not a Hebrew scholar and probably garbled the actual message.

Glenn

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course not.  But do we really need to go down that road again?  My unorthodox beliefs differ from the standard Church line on those issues.  We all know that.

God retains his kingdom that has increased in us, Christ begins his through his inheritance of us.

I wasn’t actually asking about your beliefs, sorry for the confusion. I’ve been trying to understand what the OP is saying.   I thought your last post to me was an attempt to answer my first question as it pertained to Josh’s explaination of his beliefs.  I didn't realize that you were speaking about a separate belief system than the OP sounds like it is explaining.

I don’t remember what your beliefs are on this topic. 

Edited August 14, 2018 by bluebell

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, Josh516 said:

Alright, I've seen quite a host of YouTube videos where some helpless Mormon gets cornered by a scholarly individual who knows how to argue against Mormonism clear and through.

Well, if the "scholarly individual" were to get trounced by an average Mormon walking down the street, do you think they would post that video?

 

Quote

One thing that anti-Mormons seem to always bring up is the notion of there being multiple Gods in our belief system. They inevitably point to biblical scripture with statements such as, "Ye 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," (Isaiah 43:10).

If they are asking something like, "How is Mormon belief compatible Isaiah's statement that beside the Lord 'there is no God?'" I would probably go with something like this: link. 

 

Quote

In Mormon Fundamentalism, the rebuttal is quite simple. To us, the individual and the office are not the same thing. In other words, in the given scripture, there is only one God, because there is only one office of God. But there are a never ending number of people who fill the office of God and have throughout the eternities.

I've had lots of these conversations with my Protestant friends over the years. Your individual / office distinction won't get you off the hook with them. If you claim the being who is God was, at some point in time, not God, well...that isn't going to fly with them. 

 

[SouthernMo]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's how Brigham Young explained it.  Gods above, Gods below.  Our God is the one we pray to.   But Christ is also our God because he inherits/inherited us as his children and kingdom.  The Holy Ghost is a God, but is he really our God if he actually doesn't have a body yet.  Joseph taught those with bodies always have power over those without  (spirits).

This is cool!  Can you share the source for this?

[rongo]

13 hours ago, Josh516 said:

I couldn't agree more that the guy who does the ambush and is prepared will almost indefinitely win. Though I would still say there's a lot of scholarly argumentation. The guy who really stands out to me is Pastor Jeff Durbin. He's very intelligent and knows how to argue effectively from what I observe. But yes, I agree most people won't stand chance in those circumstances. But I still have yet to hear a good rebuttal from main stream Mormons.

Jeff Durbin . . . a blast from the past!

Years ago, my ward (really, me, my clerk, and primary president) put on a series of stake community firesides (with stake presidency approval, of course). They dealt with "high interest" topics, were advertised and promoted, and had "anything goes" Q&A afterwards (these went l-o-n-g; we told people that they were welcome to stay, but that no one would be offended if they left. I always took work off the next day to recover). Topics were "Are Mormons Christian?," "Book of Mormon: Fact or Fiction?," and "Can Mormon Prophets Stand up to Scrutiny?" Over 130 non-members attended, including Jeff and his Apologia Ministries. Jeff announced publicly after that a Mormon bishop had agreed to debate him publicly for YouTube, and I got that sorted out (I hadn't, and hadn't given him anything he could have taken to be agreement). He wasn't interested in a long, slow, paper-trailed debate; he wanted something he could sound bite and post edited clips of. Still, he was and is a basically nice guy who means well. I was invited to do three radio shows in Phoenix from this, one of which was critiquing Jeff on Mormonism on the same show. My clerk (now in a stake presidency in Phoenix) had Luke Pierson and his family over for dinner (Luke was Jeff's wingman in the ministry; his wife taught kindergarten in our town). Also a really nice bear of a guy! The radio show was a great experience, and the two hosts (a Presbyterian minister, and a hip-hop artist turned minister) were very good to work with. I haven't kept up with him; is he still trying to engage Mormonism? I thought he had switched over to mostly street ministry (as in, ministering to the down-and-out in inner cities).

Regarding Isaiah on no other gods besides Jehovah: I encourage everyone to actually read Isaiah through as a book. Most people (including Latter-day Saints) won't and don't; they are exposed to mere excerpts only, and have never read it for themselves. When you do, you will find that from the chapters in the late 30s up into the late 40s (whoever one thinks Isaiah really was), Isaiah is railing against the gods of the heathen nations that surrounded Israel. He mocks them as being built of wood, metal, and stone, and being dumb, lifeless, and unable to do anything. All of his "no other gods, I know not any," type statements are made in this context. What I ask people trying to leverage them against Mormonism, is: was Isaiah actually referring to the Mormon heresy that would arise 2700 years later? Did he really have in mind the Mormon Godhead, and God having a father, etc.? Was this even what he was referring to? It is very clear that, no, he is polemicizing against the heathen gods and creeping syncretism of his time. They'll even admit that if you pin them down on it. 

As far as Brigham Young and Orson Pratt (Pratt had more detailed talks on this --- my class starts in minutes, so I'll have to be brief), they taught directly that we worship God's attributes, not the particles of his person. The fact that there is an eternal succession of Gods doesn't inform our worship. We worship the God with whom we have to do. It's like a Marine in boot camp knowing of the concept of 4 star generals, but for all intents and purposes, none of that matters to him. His drill sergeant is the only one who does!  

Gotta go!

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

As far as Brigham Young and Orson Pratt (Pratt had more detailed talks on this --- my class starts in minutes, so I'll have to be brief), they taught directly that we worship God's attributes, not the particles of his person.

Actually I think Pratt and Young disagreed on the attributes issue (and other things).

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Am not an expert on the subject, but as I understand it there were a group of scribes that after the exile assiduously scrubbed the texts of references to multiple Gods becuase wordhip of false gods and idols was one of the reasons for the exile. In the process they also erased a lot of the Christianity of the Old Testamnet. I am not a Hebrew scholar and probably garbled the actual message.

Glenn

That does not seem to be true. 

Here are some of the references to "God" in the OT:

Singular                                       Plural

El                                                  Elim

Eloah                                           Elohim

Essentially all four get translated as "God" singular in the English OT except when Elohim is referring to men or false stone idols, gods is used. Elim is not used much in the OT, and is never translated as Gods. Instead palms are referenced or the KJV uses "the mighty" which completely obfuscates the plain translation. 

To understand why different titles exist, it is important to understand that they reflected what God was being to the people. El is an ancient Semitic word which we see used in Canaanite such as Ba el or Baal. I believe it means essentially "the Power." So "God" was their Power that they recognized. Elim is of course the Powers. The OT refers to El Elyon or the Most High Power numerous times. Luke calls Yeshua the Son of the Highest. The OT also uses El Gibbor, which I believe means the Mighty Power - a title which Isaiah 9:6 says the Son will be called - so is a title He inherits. I believe Yeshua is referred to as El Shaddai in the OT. The Septuagint translates this as God the Almighty, and it is used in reference to the Father in the creeds(I believe in error). I believe this title means something like the Power which weans us from the breast, but admittedly the meaning is debated. Nevertheless, I believe it is simply a composite form of usage by scribes as they copied from older manuscripts of two separate words: shad(breast) and dai(enough). I believe there is textual support for this meaning as well. 

Eloah fell somewhat out of use, but was oft times used to refer to El as being the stone of Israel or the rock of our salvation. Elohim, its plural, is one of the most common usages in the OT. I believe it essentially means the family of immovable force. It appears in Genesis 3 where it is used in the plural sense with plural verbs such as 

Gen 3:22 And the Lord/YHWH God/Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

The Lord your God becomes YHWH/the life/the word of your family of immovable force, which of course incorporates a pluralness referring to the House of Elohim. The Son taught us in the Father's house are many rooms. I go and prepare a place for you. See how simple that is? How it all fits together once you begin to understand the Hebrew just a little... This has all been obscured in the English KJV, but it is readily discernible in the Masoretic/Hebrew OT. It has not been scrubbed out. Even Mormon tradition can be blamed by referring to the Father as Elohim and the son as YHWH. The Father and Son are both. They are YHWH Elohim throughout the OT. To deny this is to deny a large part of the Hebrew text. As I said even men are referred to as Elohim in the Hebrew text ie Psalm 82 in which YHWH says "Ye are elohim, and all of you are children of El Elyon" - a verse referred to by Yeshua as well.

The singularization of God cannot be blamed on ancient scribes, but perhaps can be laid fairly squarely at the feet of post-exilic Jews and modern English translators.

Edited August 14, 2018 by RevTestament

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

So in this belief system God our Father ceases to be God when Jesus inherits all He has?

I think of it being more like there being one bishop.

There are over 30,000 bishops worldwide, but I only have one. Only one bishop has stewardship over me and I only answer to one bishop, though he is accountable for his stewardship to a higher authority or council.

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, Josh516 said:

Alright, I've seen quite a host of YouTube videos where some helpless Mormon gets cornered by a scholarly individual who knows how to argue against Mormonism clear and through.

LOL. I'd love someone to turn the tables and get a Biblical historian to confront them on their issues. "Quick, outside of late texts from after the 2cd century what's the evidence for Moses or even David?"

Those sorts of things are so stupid as they establish nothing except to give people a feeling of power over someone else. In fact that's also why verbal debates are usually pointless. You get far more truth and less heat by letting people look things up - otherwise it's just a trump by who can memorize the most.

Quote

One thing that anti-Mormons seem to always bring up is the notion of there being multiple Gods in our belief system. They inevitably point to biblical scripture with statements such as, "Ye 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," (Isaiah 43:10).  In Mormon Fundamentalism, the rebuttal is quite simple. To us, the individual and the office are not the same thing. In other words, in the given scripture, there is only one God, because there is only one office of God. But there are a never ending number of people who fill the office of God and have throughout the eternities. My question is this: Doesn't the LDS Church believe this as well? If they do not separate the office from the individual, then how do Mormons reconcile these sorts of scripture with their current beliefs?

There's different approaches although distinguishing office from person is a common one in Mormonism. Typically Christian fundamentalists who raise this are also ignorant of the ancient near east beliefs. A notion of Trinity didn't arise until hundreds of years after the New Testament. In Merkabah texts loosely contemporary with the NT you have individuals like Enoch who ascend to heaven and receive the name YHWH. And nearly all scholars now agree that monotheism was a late development after the exile and that before then Israel had a more polytheistic religion. (Monotheism developed across the mideast in many religions around that time - perhaps partially in response to the rise in Greek philosophy that allegorized their own Gods into the One and perhaps the demiurge)

So Christian fundamentalists really have no historic leg to stand upon. They use a sneaky rhetorical trick of only allowing their texts quoted as they understand it to establish anything. But it's not hard to see how circular and question begging that is.

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually I think Pratt and Young disagreed on the attributes issue (and other things).

Yup while I understand why Brigham accused Pratt of that, it's really not fair. Pratt thought we worship the Father. But the Father was one with all other divine beings by way of a spiritual fluid - the aether. It really was Pratt trying to inject into Mormonism a more materialist conception of the Trinity he picked up by reading about Tertullian's Stoicism.

[Jane_Doe]

16 hours ago, Josh516 said:

Alright, I've seen quite a host of YouTube videos where some helpless Mormon gets cornered by a scholarly individual who knows how to argue against Mormonism clear and through.

I've seen hundreds of YouTube videos about LDS vs other faiths discussion and ... frankly nearly all the time that "scholarly" individual is using logical fallacies and/or straw man arguments (via misconstruing LDS beliefs).  Such "scholarly" individuals are not people to be admired.

16 hours ago, Josh516 said:

 One thing that anti-Mormons seem to always bring up is the notion of there being multiple Gods in our belief system. They inevitably point to biblical scripture with statements such as, "Ye 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," (Isaiah 43:10). 

How to counter this critique: 

"I believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons, in ONE God.  Athanasian Christians (also known as 'trinitarians') believe this as well.  The difference between my beliefs and the Athanasian Creed is that I believe the three persons are ONE God via unity, versus the Athanasian Creed which states that it is via consubstantiation."

That shuts people up really quickly, as you've highlighted 1) clarified the common core, 2) supplied the citation of the consubstantiation doctrine.   They then either have to misrepresent your beliefs or try to argue that the Athanasian Creed is authoritative interpretation of the Bible.  Vast majority of Christians in the pews have never even read the Athanasian Creed.

16 hours ago, Josh516 said:

 In Mormon Fundamentalism, the rebuttal is quite simple. To us, the individual and the office are not the same thing. In other words, in the given scripture, there is only one God, because there is only one office of God. But there are a never ending number of people who fill the office of God and have throughout the eternities. My question is this: Doesn't the LDS Church believe this as well? If they do not separate the office from the individual, then how do Mormons reconcile these sorts of scripture with their current beliefs?

That's one way of putting it.  Not the best for conveying when discussing with Athanasian believers though.