Bruce Milne says in Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief:

Christian writers use the word ‘God’ in two ways; sometimes they mean the Father in particular, at other times, the entire Godhead…. Man sects miss this important distinction and so fall into difficulties with biblical teaching concerning the full Godhead of the Son and Spirit.

As quoted in How Wide the Divide? by Craig Blomberg, p. 212 in footnote 14. So here we have an open admission that all Christians religions must accept multiple defintions of the word ‘God.’

Ignore the discussions of lying and misrepresenting. Interpretations aside, if I can show you even as low as 10-12 references IN THE BIBLE where it says that we are to become like God, will you accept that the Bible says this? Again, we can interprest these verses and passages differently, but will you adnmit that it is a “Biblical” teaching?

If so, I will pursue this. If not, I am done.

Joe P says:

Ray. Am I really misrepresenting what mormons believe? Or are you?

Joe P says:

Ray can believe whatever he wants. I agree with him on the concept of three persons in one God. However, to say that this is what the LDS faith teaches is totally false. [Note: Joe later admits that the Book of Mormon teaches monotheism. Was Joe here discounting the Book of Mormon as being part of Mormon theology? Or was Joe intentionally misrepresenting Mormonism by taking only part of our teachings?] This conversation appears to be a twist on the LDS belief to say, “Oh yeah… We believe in the trinity, just like the other Christians.” This is not what LDS doctorine teaches.

Joe P says:

“However, Mormons do not believe that there is only one God. Any explanation saying Mormons believe there is only one God is a complete misrepresenation of the LDS faith. [note: This said right after demonstrating the Book of Mormon teaches of one God and Joe admitting this was true. Does Joe not see his own inconsistency here? Does Joe think it's okay to try to hold us to only certain of our beliefs?] Mormons are polytheists. Not monotheists. [note: I have never in my life heard any Mormon refer to themselves as a polytheist. But apparently Joe thinks if we don't call ourselves that, we are lying.]“

And yet here are two Mormons (myself and Ray) claiming that Mormons are monotheists and that we believe in (as you do) in multiple persons that make up that one God each of which is fully God also. If this makes us polytheists, it logically makes you one too. This is basic logic, Joe. Asking for you to be consistent is not asking much of you.

Joe P says:

Am I refusing to let you define your beliefs? No. I’m asking you to explain the contradictions in your belief structure. [Note: ah, now we have an open admission from Joe that Mormons DO believe in monotheism and that we (in his view) have contradictory beliefs to that. But that is a world apart from the quotes above where he was claiming it was "totally false" that we teach monotheism. So which is it, Joe, it it totally false that we teach monotheism, or do we teach contradictory doctrines -- half of which are monotheism? Either way now, you logically have to admit to a lie or a misrepresentation.]

We definitely understand that multiple persons in God differently than you do. (See my article here for further explanation.) But you don’t get to decide that just because you disagree with our explanation that this means we’re the same as polytheists. Period. (Any more than Muslims get to decide the same for you. Do Muslims properly represent you when they call you, as a creedal Christian, a polytheist? I’m only asking you to be consistent, Joe.)

You are either going to agree with us that — from our point of view — we are monotheists and that we are properly representing our theology as we understand it, or you are going to continue to claim we are lying or misrepresenting. Since we aren’t lying or misrepresenting and have proved this to you now, there is now a question of whether or not you are lying and no longer just unintentionally misrepresenting.

Asking you to stop calling us liars and let us speak for ourselves is proper for any conversation. Not discussing it with you further if can’t be matured about it is also proper. It’s like the little kid that calls all the other kids names and keeps hitting them. You eventually have to just not play with him lest you devolve to his level.

And now I really am done, Joe, until you take back that we are misrepresenting our beliefs and allow us to speak for ourselves.

I don’t know how to make it more clear than I already have. You personally believe you can someday become a God. I say the trinity is limited to three persons in one God. This is a drastic difference in theology.

This is the only reference in the bible I’m aware of that speaks of man becoming a God:

Genesis 3
1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Even if we assume Mormons entirely disbelieve the Bible (your assumption, not mine) you are still lying if you claim Mormons believe something that Mormons say they don’t believe. This is what you are doing! That is immoral and, if done knowingly (which you now are) it’s a lie.

Whether or not Mormons believe in the Bible is another matter altogether and irrelevant to the discussion you’ve held so far. You are changing subjects now from being a discuss about “what Mormons believe” to whether or not those beliefs can be found in the Bible — without settling the first question.

But you have yet to allow me to self-define my beliefs as I am allowing you to do — thus I see no reason to continue any conversations with you. In fact, I doubt anyone will have dialog with you until you stop being intolerant towards others. It’s clear you are just here to misrepresent and lie about us. Until you can at least accept that you don’t get to decide “what Mormons believe” and it is the Mormons that get to decide that, you are not even beginning to have dialog with us.

I have shown here that using your own questionable tactics, I can just as easily show you are a polytheist. I have shown here that your argument that multiple persons can be in one God means you must logically accept Mormons as monotheists (for that is what we believe too, that there are multiple persons in one God, each fully God) or you are being inconsistent. Please note that neither of these arguments that you made — and that I put down logically — has anything to do with the Bible. Your arguments were purely philosophical and logic based.

Before I’d even consider changing subjects to discuss whether or not the Bible allows for the idea that God will make us like Him you’d have to at least acknowledge to me what my real beliefs are, and admit that you misunderstood my beliefs up to this point. You haven’t done this, so I believe this conversation is over.

To be honest, I think your approach and attitude speaks for itself and is nicely captured here now.

Let me rephrase that:

Every Christian I have ever met believes that the Bible says it when you point out the verses that say it; they just don’t believe it actually can happen. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had this conversation, pointed out dozens of verses and passages that CLEARLY state that becoming like God is the entire purpose of life, and had them say, “That’s figurative. We can’t REALLY become like God.” (You know, the whole “form of godliness, but deny the power thereof” concept.)

Remove the concept of becoming like God, and you might as well throw the entire tome in the trash. At this point, I’ve almost given up on people who are so convinced by the post-Biblical scholars (the “Christian fathers”) that they rationalize away the Bible they claim to believe.

“read the bible with an open mind, avoiding the negative influence of the LDS false teachings.” I think this is a completely subjective view. Who can tell someone else that they have the correct interpretation of Biblical teachings? Only God, right? I suppose that is a topic for another thread as well, lol.

I mentioned the bible in practically all of my posts… Then you act surprised that I lead back to it.

You have the audacity to say I’m “bearing false witness”, I’m immoral, and a lier. Of the two of us who is acting most Christ like? Ye shall know them by their fruits…..

Its no wonder I left the LDS faith.

I hope someday you’ll actually read the bible with an open mind, avoiding the negative influence of the LDS false teachings.

God bless.

Actually you already admited that in a sense you believe in three Gods in the way I’m using the term: “Okay if you insist on defining the Trinity as polytheistic I don’t mind. Call it whatever you want.” So that’s what I’m doing. You see, I believe in both 1 God and 3 Gods — in different senses of the word as I use it. According to my senses of the word, so do you.

That’s the whole issue here, Joe P. You are taking word-offense. You are saying that you don’t believe in multiple Gods but Mormons do. But if we uniformly apply your defintion of “God” Mormons don’t either. And likewise, if we uniformly apply the Mormon definitions of “God” you believe in multiple Gods too. It’s that simple.

>>> Because the bible tells me so.

Ah, well, now we’ve reached the real truth. (As I knew it would eventually come out.)

After who knows how many words of you arguing that Mormons don’t believe in monotheism, that they are lying if they say otherwise, and that they believe contradictions (once the first two assertions were proven wrong)… it turns out that what you ACTUALLY meant from the very beginning is that you read and interpret the Bible differently then Mormons do so you think 3 Persons that are 1 God is okay, but 1,000,000,000 Persons that are 1 God isn’t. Very well. But apparently you’ve been misrepresenting up to this point. And apparently there was never anything contradictory about Mormon beliefs — as per your own arguments.

Why didn’t you just start this whole discussion with “I read the Bible to mean there are only 3 persons in one God and that will never change, and if Mormons believe in more than 3 persons in that one God then I disagree with them!”?

Now that would have been an accurate and tolerant (i.e. non-misrepresenting/lying) way to discuss our beliefs and differences. And we’d actually be having a discussion by now where we learn from each other.

But unfortunatly you opted for bearing false witness instead. Leaving me the perfect opportunity to show everyone what I was talking about when I said

And then I believe there is a moral issue here too. The moral demands of self definition are very different than the moral demands of how we define others.

The truth is that I’ve know from the beginning that this was actually just a difference in the number of persons we feel “God” can be made up of. (And also how we explain that paradox: you through substance theology, Mormons through moral will theology.) I simply kept this up this long because I was waiting for you to finally admit it was really just about how you interpret the Bible and the rest of what you were arguing was slandering Mormons and their beliefs.

At this point, I think there is nothing else for me to say. You’ve proven my point so well and so much better than my own words did.

Because the bible tells me so. I’m not wishy washy in what I believe. I don’t need a church to interpret the bible for me with modern revelations. My personal faith is in Christ and his Word.

I have a pop-quiz question for you. Where did the concept of becoming a God originate? Where is it spoken of in the bible, and who spoke it?

No, actually, you are defining my beliefs for me by putting words into my mouth.

If you were asking for me to explain my contradictions you’d approach it very differently than you currently are. For starters you’d recognize that though you may disagree with my individual beliefs (detailed in full in the post), they are certainly not contradictory.

But now that we are on the subject of contradictory beliefs, are yours contradictory? Please explain this seeming contradiction to me within your belief structure: “Okay if you insist on defining the Trinity as polytheistic I don’t mind. Call it whatever you want. Giving you the full benefit of the doubt you are limited to three Gods.”

So please explain why if you believe in three Gods (in a numerical sense at least) why there would be a limit at three? Why not 4? Why not 5? Why not 1,000,000,000?

Do you not think an all powerful God that can speak all creation into existance could also exist in 1,000,0000,000 different entities (all 100% at the same time)?

And that, my friend, IS the explanation of the very question you asked (”Why did you avoid answering my question on how you can simultaneously believe in one God, and that man can become God”) and why Mormons are monotheists as much as you are.

While you may not personally believe it could be more than 3, there is certainly no logical contradiction in Mormons believing otherwise — as per your own arguments. If you are going to claim there can be three persons that are one God, the Mormon belief that humans can become additional persons in that one God (via the Grace of God alone) should cause you no logical issues at all — lest you apply a double standard (which is what you are doing.)

Why did you avoid answering my question on how you can simultaneously believe in one God, and that man can become God (just like the Father and Christ)?

Bruce said: Your refusal to let Mormons define their own beliefs — for that is what you are doing — is intolerant and is leading you to immoral behavior.

Am I refusing to let you define your beliefs? No. I’m asking you to explain the contradictions in your belief structure. I’m also standing up and saying your original post is a complete falsehood. Jesus Christ is my best friend. If you saw someone totally misrepresenting your best friend wouldn’t you say something?

Joe, you aren’t getting this. Even if I assume you are right (which I do not believe you are) that Joseph Smith taught contradictory things over time, you are still lying and misrepresenting *modern day Mormons* if you insist they don’t believe in monotheism — since they do indeed believe in the monotheism of the Book of Mormon.

Clearly, from your point of view (which you explained adequetly), Mormons are both monotheist and polytheist and they have a contradiction on their hands (as do you with your beliefs in God as a Trinity.) But that would no more make Mormons polytheists then it makes you one.

>>> Yes that is exactly what I’m saying. Do you not think an all powerful God that can speak all creation into existance could also live in three different entities (all 100% at the same time)?

Sure I do. But I also recognize that logically that means you, in a numerical sense, believe in three gods since there are three entities that all separate from each other but also each fully God. And thus you are a polytheist in the same sense that you are accusing Mormons of being. (For, as per my post, that is exactly what I said: Mormons believe in both one God in one sense of the word and three Gods in a different sense of the word.)

I am not asking for you to accept the label “polytheist.” I am only expecting you to apply your standards to which you hold yourself to Mormons as well and to stop lying/misrepresenting by claiming Mormons are lying/misrepresenting.

Your refusal to let Mormons define their own beliefs — for that is what you are doing — is intolerant and is leading you to immoral behavior.

It’s also time for someone living a glass house, as you are, to stop throwing stones at Mormons. For you said: “In explaining the Trinity I’ll be the first to admit it is a complex subject hard to understand. Looking at God from our human persepective is very difficult. You can’t drag God down to the human level of understanding and explain him at human terms.”

And yet, isn’t that what you are doing with the Mormon understanding of God? Yes, it is. You are taking a “complex subject hard to understand” in Mormon beliefs about God and dragging it down to your level and then spouting it back out in an unrecognizable form. Your judgments are the standard by which you should judge others. For what measure you mete…

How can you possibly say that the LDS faith teaches both monotheism and the fact that man can become a God. This makes absolutely no sense. You can not deny that the LDS faith teaches that you can receive Godhood (equally with the Father and the Son). The official LDS website states the following:

Blessings of Exaltation
Our Heavenly Father is perfect. However, he is not jealous of his wisdom and perfection. He glories in the fact that it is possible for his children to become like him. He has said, “This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).

2. They will become gods.

3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

4. They will receive a fulness of joy.

5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).

Here is a link to the website.

So man can become a God. Having all the all the power, glory, dominion, and knowledge of the Father and Jesus Christ. They can have spirit children with the same relationship that we have to to the Father… This sounds like multiple Gods under the same definition of “God” that is given to the Father. This is a complete abomonation of the Gospel. Man can not become God, and never will be God.

In explaining the Trinity I’ll be the first to admit it is a complex subject hard to understand. Looking at God from our human persepective is very difficult. You can’t drag God down to the human level of understanding and explain him at human terms.

Now that you admit I’m not ignorant on the LDS faith perhaps you should study the concept of the Trinity? From reading your responses it appears you are ignorant on this particular subject.

Bruce said: Hmm… so let me do a little bit of math… Jesus is fully God by Himself. The Father is fully God by Himself. The Holy Ghost is fully God by Himself. 1+1+1 = ?

Yes that is exactly what I’m saying. Do you not think an all powerful God that can speak all creation into existance could also live in three different entities (all 100% at the same time)?

Joe P also says: “Any explanation saying Mormons believe there is only one God is a complete misrepresenation of the LDS faith.”

Joe, please reconcile those two statements for me. Your second statement required that Mormons had a consistent teaching of polytheism to be true. Now you are admiting that actually Mormon scripture and theology does teach monotheism (at least part of the time.) So I no longer understand how you can justify your statement that Mormons consistently teach polytheism and that they are lying if they say otherwise. Don’t we at least get to pick which part of our (you claim) inconsistent teachings we feel best represents us?

And since you’ve now proven you aren’t ignorant, please explain how you justify bearing false witness of LDS people like you are doing. This isn’t a small issue, Joe P. What you are now doing is immoral.

Joe P says: “The answer your 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 question is simple. Jesus is both fully God and fully man”

Hmm… so let me do a little bit of math… Jesus is fully God by Himself. The Father is fully God by Himself. The Holy Ghost is fully God by Himself.

1+1+1 = ?

The “Testimony of the Three Witnesses” that appears in the Preface to the Book of Mormon supports such a monotheistic interpretation. It concludes with the statement, “And honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”

John 1:1-2 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. Christ is the Word of God Clearly this section of the LDS scripture is saying that Christ was God.

Additional statements in LDS Scripture saying that Christ was God are in the LDS Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 1:6: And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of my Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all. Moses 2:1: I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

From the Bible: Isaiah 44:6,8,: Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer, the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

According the LDS Scripture Jesus Christ is also the father: Mosiah 15:1-3: And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son — The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son.

From above it can easily be shown that the LDS Scriptures claim the existence of a single God, named Jesus Christ… Monotheism… However the LDS church teaches today that Mormon men can become Gods through exaltation. This greatly devalues the power, infinite presence, and nature of God.

A major contradiction to monotheism is found in the Book of Abraham, Chapter 4…. The Gods plan the creation of the earth and all life thereon—Their plans for the six days of creation are set forth. And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth…

Joseph Smith said (in the King Follett Discourse) to attain eternal life you must know the “true” character of God: “If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being he is,—if he will search diligently his own heart—if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle….” Further… “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me.”

So Joseph Smith says we must know the true nature of God. Which is it? One God or many Gods? The only God that the bible speaks of is a monotheistic, everlasting, all knowing, omnipresent, God. Whose God do you trust? The God of the bible, or the Gods of Joseph Smith?

Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. He died on the cross for you. Your sins were washed away on the cross. Good works, temple marriage, baptism, mission work, and faith in the LDS church cannot get you to heaven. Neither can the teachings of Joseph Smith. Galatians 1:6-10 says: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Here is how a Mormon can obtain eternal life. It is so simple. I pray that at least a single person will read this letter and say the sinner’s pray with all of his (or her) heart: Lord Jesus: I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my heart that Jesus is your Son, Jesus is God in the flesh, and Jesus died on the cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you all the day’s of my Life. Because your word is truth, I confess with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed by the Blood of Jesus. In Jesus Name, Amen.

The answer your 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 question is simple. Jesus is both fully God and fully man.

Do you mean that they are each 1/3 of God?

Do you mean that Jesus is only 1/3 divine?

If you mean Jesus is fully God, then please explain how Jesus — being fully “God” by Himself — and the Father — being also fully “God” by Himself — are not the same person.

But if Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are all separate persons, but also all fully God by themselves, then please explain in what sense you don’t believe in three Gods? (because it sure sounds to me like that formula would numerically be three Gods.)

I’ve already explained that the word “God,” for me, has more than one meaning. This easily solves the questions I just asked you because I use different senses of the word. (I, in fact, already answered them in my post above, indirectly.)

You are the one claiming that the word “God” has only one meaning for you. So those questions are logically valid for you and you should be able to explain them to me without having to have multiple definitions of the word “God.” So please, go ahead and explain.

Joe, here is what Mormons teach from the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 15:1-4
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, abecause he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

2 Ne. 26: 12
12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

It would appear that you are either misinformed or lying. Please enlighten us which it is.

Oh, and from this moment forward, you are no longer misinformed. So if you continue to speak as you do and put words and beliefs into the mouths Mormons you are now lying. Thank you for your time.

And thank you for the wonderful example of what this post was about.

I agree that Mormons believe that Christ is “a” God. However, Mormons do not believe that there is only one God. Any explanation saying Mormons believe there is only one God is a complete misrepresenation of the LDS faith.

Mormons are polytheists. Not monotheists.

The bible says there is one God. I’ll stick with that.

The post and my comments were NOT addressing the concept of “One God”. I was addressing your statement that Mormons are lying when we say we believe that Jesus is God. I won’t keep addressing a shifting target. I’m not interested in those games. We disagree, but I am not lying or misrepresenting Mormon belief. Let’s leave it at that.

First, the base - Orthodox Christianity does NOT agree on how best to explain what it means to be “God” - not does it agree on how to describe God. *Anyone*, regardless of denomination, who has studied the words of the Christian fathers understands that.

Since there is no agreement **even in orthodoxy**, it is far-fetched to claim that what is considered heterodoxy must “agree with the orthodox belief”. That simply is an impossible standard - a moving target.

MANY Christians express their belief in “the Trinity” as three Gods in one God; Mormon phrase it as three Gods in one Godhead - united completely in purpose and intent. Jesus prayed that His disciples could be one with Him and His Father as they are one with each other. That more than implies that “oneness” is NOT a matter of integrated physicality (however that is interpreted), but rather a matter of the type of unity expressed in the command for two to leave all others and “become one” in marriage. In fact, a marriage is the symbolism that Jesus used for his directive to be united with Him. A marriage can be termed “two parents in one parenthood”, just as orthodox Christianity has termed the phrase “three Gods in one God”. (BTW, Joe, you wrote “two Gods in one God”. In all my studies among a wide variety of Christians, I have never heard that common phrase used to exclude the Holy Ghost from the person of God.)

So, you can argue lucidly that the Mormon conception of God is different than yours - and I wouldn’t argue at all. To claim that Mormons don’t believe that Jesus is God, however, is simplistic and ignorant - or calculated and uncaring. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute it simply to being ignorant.

This conversation appears to be a twist on the LDS belief to say, “Oh yeah… We believe in the trinity, just like the other Christians.” This is not what LDS doctorine teaches.

You are twisting the LDS doctorine to make it look like you believe in one God. This is a lie. There is one God. Period.

You are mispresresenting, Joe. You’re also doing a darn good job of demonstrating the kind of behavior I was writing about.

If Ray, as a Mormon, says he believes that “God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three persons in one God” you’ll have to forgive me, but I think your insisting he is lying is rather rude and speaks much about your real intent and sincerity to have a dialog with him about his Mormon beliefs.

“I will preach on the plurality of Gods…. I wish to declare that I have always and in all congregations when I preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God [the Father] to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Spirit was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! We have three Gods, anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?” (Joseph F. Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370)

“How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it will be to all eternity.” (Brigham Young, in Discourses of Brigham Young arranged by John A. Widtsoe, pp.22-23)

Again, the answer to the question of the post (both in the post and from the vast majority of the commenters) is, “YES, Jesus is God.”

If God and Jesus were both “with” each other in the “beginning” before ANYTHING was made… What is the difference? God and Jesus are two persons in one God.

To say that Christ is the literal Son, a spirit child, of God is not biblical.

Read the entire passage. How can you honestly say that Jesus isn’t God. How can you honestly say he was born later, when he was there in the BEGINNING OF EVERYTHING?

I would suggest that you don’t twist the scriptures to what the LDS faith believes. Read it for yourself and decide, study the original Greek, etc…

Why do you disect John 1:1 to match the teachings of the LDS faith… Why not simply read it for what it is?

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word [Christ], and the Word [Christ] was with God, and the Word [Christ] was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

“All my life I have heard leaders of the church try to teach that we know more about the nature of God because of the first vision and how great it is to have this knowledge.” All they refer to is the fact that God looks like us and is a separate person from Jesus. You obviously don’t believe, but for those who do, that is a substantial piece of information about the nature of God.

“I’ve noticed that when a challenge to mormonism is made, you revert to this “I’ve-had-intense-spiritual-experiences-in-my-life” type of argument.”

I “reverted” to that “type of argument” specifically because your comment turned the conversation to that type of experience. I spoke of my experiences because YOU mocked the way Joseph described his. If you go back and read what I have written on this blog and others, I RARELY talk of my intense spiritual experiences - and I do so only when they are relevant to the conversation. This is one such case; discussions of the priesthood ban is another. In context, my mention of them in this thread was appropriate and on tangent to what YOU said. Iow, I didn’t “revert” to that “type of argument”; you turned it in that direction.

“I’m not going to discount your spiritual experiences, but I wonder how the spiritual experiences of the Muslim, Jew, or Buddhist measure up to yours?”

I have said over and over and over again that others can have spiritual experiences just as I do. I have NEVER ONCE said otherwise.

“Just because a person wants to believe in something, doesn’t mean that something is True.”

I have NEVER ONCE made that claim. (Btw, you once accused me of not having my experiences because I used the phrase “even if I am wrong”. You can’t have it both ways - criticizing me when I say I believe something, then criticizing me when I say there is a chance I am wrong.)

I don’t like being asked to answer what I haven’t said. It’s easy to skim what others write and assume it must say what you have heard others say. It’s just not considerate, and I try very hard only to address what someone else actually says. I try to give you that consideration; all I ask is that you do the same for me.

“Having said that, defenders of mormonism like to point out that JS was this simple farm boy with little to no formal education. Seems to me that someone so simple would be straight forward in his manner of describing SIGNIFICANT events from his life rather than some nuanced, round about way of speaking.

We know JS is capable of referring directly to Jesus and God, The Father from other visions JS supposedly had. Why is this one any different?”

Again, you are putting your expectations on others, when there are perfectly good responses to your question. I already gave one - essentially, that Joseph tried to write an official version that reflected his actual experience at the time. When they first appeared to him, he could not have known who they were. At that moment, all he could know was that they were “personages”, so he used that word to describe them in the official account. That word fits the actual experience perfectly - again, even if you don’t believe the experience was real.

**Even if you don’t believe the account, I just don’t understand how in the world such an easily explainable thing - with no mental gymnastics required at all - can be such an issue for you.** I understand other concerns and “faith-testers”, but I simply don’t get that one. It’s just too easy to explain.

Now I really am done. As I said, we each know where the other stands. I’m really not interested in discussing such a minor point any further, since I think both of us have made our beliefs known about it - and neither one of us is going to change the other’s mind. Feel free to have the last word, if you want.

(Btw, this is a threadjack since the First Vision doesn’t address the actual thread in any way, shape or form. Not every conversation about the Church is relevant to each and every thread posted on a Mormon-themed blog.)

Threadjack? Are you serious? The first vision is right at the heart of mormonism and whether JS was a true prophet of God or a fraud.

All my life I have heard leaders of the church try to teach that we know more about the nature of God because of the first vision and how great it is to have this knowledge. Since JS is unable to keep his own story straight or offer up a definitive description of the events by using terms that are unequivocal, we are left to spend all this time and energy debating over an event that never occurred (except in JS’s imagination.)

I’ve noticed that when a challenge to mormonism is made, you revert to this “I’ve-had-intense-spiritual-experiences-in-my-life” type of argument. I’m not going to discount your spiritual experiences, but I wonder how the spiritual experiences of the Muslim, Jew, or Buddhist measure up to yours? Just because a person wants to believe in something, doesn’t mean that something is True.

Having said that, defenders of mormonism like to point out that JS was this simple farm boy with little to no formal education. Seems to me that someone so simple would be straight forward in his manner of describing SIGNIFICANT events from his life rather than some nuanced, round about way of speaking.

We know JS is capable of referring directly to Jesus and God, The Father from other visions JS supposedly had. Why is this one any different?

I guess the bottom line is this: NO ONE can prove the first vision actual happened and NO ONE can prove that it didn’t happen. However, the evidence and JS’s own contradictory accounts give rise to the likelihood that if SOMETHING happened among the trees of Upstate NY, the 1838 account is probably not even close to an accurate account and most likely a lie.

*Sigh* Did you even read the entire comment?

I’m done with this topic. It’s not going anywhere, and it won’t no matter how hard any of us try. We simply see things differently.

And after 18 years JS was still reeling from the experience to the point he couldn’t write the account using more direct verbiage? Give me a break.

Given JS’s account of 1832, I would say that the first vision account was a “work (of fiction) in progress”. Had JS immediately made some notes in 1820 and simply “rounded out” the story as time went by, we might not be having this discussion.

Well said.

I think we have some good examples right here on this forum of the very things I wrote about in this post.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who have never seen or spoken with God feel qualified to critique how someone else chooses to describe their experiences with God. Whether Joseph’s First Vision was real or imagined or completely fictitious is not my fundamental concern in this comment; the method of and justification for denial of it is.

I have had some extremely powerful spiritual experiences in my life, and I share them rarely and with hesitancy specifically because of how I have seen people respond to others who share extremely personal, spiritual experiences. I have seen the way people nit-pick and obsess over the tiniest, most irrelevant aspects and reject entire experiences for what amounts to nothing of significance.

How do I say I have seen God weep for the sins of His children, without making it seem like I am claiming to have had a vision? How do I encapsulate a conversion story from my mission into a concise narrative without making it seem shallow and formulaic - like I simply copied details and descriptions from other stories? How do I describe a deeply, intensely spiritual experience in such a way that someone who has never had such an experience will “get it” - and how in the world do I share it in a short enough narrative that readers don’t lose interest as the story drags on and on and on? Finally, how do I summarize an experience with the Holy Ghost in such a way that someone who knows nothing of the Holy Ghost will understand what I mean?

Take my struggles and multiply them exponentially to encompass a visit from deity. The account Joseph wrote wasn’t for the Christian world. It was for humanity at large. It was told in a tone of awe and astonishment - in a way that describes inexpressible wonder. “I saw two personages” is a PERFECT description of what initially must have hit Joseph’s brain - BEFORE he had any idea of who the personages were. There is NO indication anywhere that Joseph expected to see God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ, when he entered the woods. There is NO reason to think that, upon seeing them, he immediately thought, “Cool, this is the Father and the Son.” Again, “personages” describes perfectly what he must have seen and thought as they appeared. It only was AFTER “the first spoke, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other, ‘This is my Beloved Son. Here Him,’” that Joseph must have begun to comprehend what was happening to him. Given my own experiences with overpowering spiritual experiences, I’m fairly certain he walked out of that grove with his head spinning - literally reeling from what had happened.

Therefore, Stu, my response is very simple. Stating your disbelief in Joseph’s account is one thing; ridiculing his choice of words to describe it is quite another. It is juvenile and immature. Your response literally made Joseph an offender for a word, and it did so by focusing on a word that was perhaps the most appropriate word he possibly could have chosen. His account, for the purpose it served then and now, is MUCH more appropriate and powerful and comprehensive and “inspired” than yours - and it’s not even close.

As you know from a previous thread, I have looked closely (minutely, with dictionary in hand) at JSH 1:19 to try to understand what it actually says, and I can say with confidence that I have never read a more concise yet comprehensive description of the apostasy and its practical effects than that verse. Contrary to what many have claimed, both inside and outside the Church, it is quite measured and focused - and brilliantly precise. I have read lengthy treatises on the topic, by Mormons scholars and by Protestant theologians (though the Protestant theologians obviously didn’t use the word “apostasy”), and in all their writings I have not once read as powerful and comprehensive a treatise as I see in that one small verse. He who wrote it was an uneducated farmer, so I choose to believe he was summarizing deity.

Everyone knows we disagree on this central belief. I accept it; you do not. That is clear. I will never ask you to change your belief simply because it is different than mine. Never. I will ask you, however, in a forum like this, with people of many different perspectives, that you abstain from patently offensive and simplistic attacks. “I’d say exposing JS for the fraud that he was helps all who seek the truth about mormonism” is exactly that type of comment on this type of blog. You know it is highly offensive to many who blog here; you know we have considered and reconciled things that are MUCH more complex and nuanced than Joseph’s use of the word “personage”; you know that such a statement won’t do anything whatsoever to contribute to shared understanding or insight; it is gratuitous bile in the truest sense of the word.

I have no authority on this blog, and I would NOT encourage anyone who does to do anything “official” in such instances. First, it’s not my right, and, second, I wouldn’t want it anyway. My request is nothing more than a personal one that you are free to ignore with impunity and with no concern for “punishment” of any kind. I will not ridicule your lack of belief; please do not ridicule my belief. Critique it in context of each thread if you must; just don’t deign to dictate how I and others decide to express our experiences with divinity.