GOD-MEN AND SPIRITUAL VEGETABLES: The Occult Worldview of Mormonism

The Cabala is a body of occult doctrine, originally Jewish, which has been adopted with enthusiasm by non-Jewish occultists since the fifteenth century.... Modern occultists are attracted to the Cabala because of its age and its mystery, and because they can draw from it the great magical principles that the universe is a unity, that it has an underlying pattern connected with numbers and planets, that man is God and the universe in miniature, and that man can develop the divine spark within him until he masters the entire universe and himself becomes God.(1)

The underlying worldview of the occult religions is monism. This philosophy states that there is only one ultimate reality or state of being, which is known to Hindus as Brahma, or the "God-source." Since everything is an emanation or part of this reality, all things, whether animate or inanimate, are of their very essence divine, and are to be distinguished from one another only in that each reflects a different stage of transmigrational development, or evolution. Simply stated, a rock is believed to be "God" just as is a cow, a bird, a human being, and so forth. A direct result of this worldview is what is known as animism — the belief that all things possess a soul or spirit, and are thus alive in some sense.

According to occultist and Thirty-Third Degree Mason Manly P. Hall, the occult initiate knows that the essence of divinity — the "Life Principle" or "Spark of God" — is found in every "plant, animal, mineral, and man," and therefore "recognizes the oneness of life manifesting through the diversity of form."(2) Albert Pike, another Masonic authority, cited the Indian Vedas as proof of the universal antiquity of this teaching:

One great and incomprehensible Being has alone existed from all Eternity. Everything we behold and we ourselves are portions of Him. The soul, mind or intellect, of gods and men, and of all sentient creatures, are detached portions of the Universal Soul, to which at stated periods they are destined to return. But the mind of infinite beings is impressed by one uninterrupted series of illusions, which they consider as real, until again united to the great fountain of truth. Of these illusions, the first and most essential is individuality. By its influence, when detached from its source, the soul becomes ignorant of its own nature, origin, and destiny. It considers itself as a separate existence, and no longer a spark of the Divinity....

The dissolution of the world... consists in the destruction of the visible forms and qualities of things; but their material essence remains, and from it new worlds are formed by the creative energy of God; and thus the Universe is dissolved and renewed in endless succession....

Thus, the soul of everything that breathes being a fraction of the universal soul, none perishes; but each soul merely changes its mould and form, by passing successively into different bodies. Of all forms, that which most pleases the Divine Being is Man, as nearest approaching His own perfections. When a man, absolutely disengaging himself from his senses, absorbs himself in self-contemplation, he comes to discern the Divinity, and becomes part of Him.(3)

Here are two related concepts that have gained wide acceptance in modern society via the New Age Movement and other esoteric systems: spiritual reincarnation and biological evolution. Just as reincarnation teaches that souls are evolving toward spiritual perfection with each lifetime, evolution is based on the idea that biological perfection is attainable via the passage of eons of time. Evolution, in some form or another, has always been the underlying theme of occultism, as the ancient pagans sought to work their way "up from the beasts and on their way to the gods."(4) In the words of spirit medium Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, "[Evolution] is 'Satanic'... for it is owing to the prototype of that which became in time the Christian Devil — to the Radiant Archangel who wanted Man to become his own creator and an immortal god — that men can reach Nirvana and the haven of heavenly divine Peace.... The Kabalistic axiom, 'A stone becomes a plant; a plant a beast; a beast a man; a man a God,' holds good throughout the ages...."(5)

In Blavatsky's worldview, the universe is a living organism — a macrocosm which contains within itself a microcosm of evolving spiritual hierarchies. Energy is constantly progressing through each hierarchy on its way upwards toward absorption into the Absolute (Brahma). This evolutionary process began in the distant past when the "Planetary Spirit" of this world incarnated itself into the material sphere, and thus found itself "finally imprisoned within a physical skin."(6) The earth is itself a macrocosm of still more individual "entities," which appeared initially as simple-celled creatures and then progressed on to somewhat more complex organisms. As the planet moved through each of its seven stages of development, these "sparks of spirit" likewise evolved through a continuous cycle of death and subsequent rebirth until they had passed through a corresponding seven levels of their own. These ranged from the plant kingdom to the animal kingdom. Finally, advancement into the human kingdom was made possible eighteen million years ago when the earth entered its fourth (Atlantean) age. It was then, under the guidance of Lucifer, that "angelic monads from higher spheres had incarnated in, and endowed [man] with understanding,"(7) thereby placing mankind on the path of evolution to godhood.

One does not have to look very far to find basically the same occult teachings in the writings of early Mormon leaders. Orson Pratt, for example, wrote:

The Gods are one in qualities and attributes. Truth is not a plurality of truths, because it dwells in a plurality of persons, but it is one truth, indivisible, though it dwells in millions of persons. Each person is called God, not because of his substance, neither because of the shape and size of the substance, but because of the qualities which dwell in the substance. Persons are only tabernacles or temples, and TRUTH is the God, that dwells in them. If the fulness of truth dwells in numberless millions of persons, then the same one indivisible God dwells in them all. As truth can dwell in all worlds at the same instant; therefore, God who is truth can be in all worlds at the same instant....

When we worship the Father, we do not merely worship His person, but we worship the truth which dwells in His person. When we worship the Son, we do not merely worship His body, but we worship truth which resides in Him. So, likewise, when we worship the Holy Ghost, it is not the substance which we alone worship, but truth which dwells in that substance. Take away truth from either of these beings, and their persons or substance would not be the object of worship. It is truth, light, and love that we worship and adore; these are the same in all worlds; and as these constitute God, He is the same in all worlds; and hence, the inhabitants of all worlds are required to worship and adore the same God.(8)

Not only are we told by Pratt that this spirit essence of "truth" dwells in "numberless millions of persons," but apparently the same particles of spirit, which Manly P. Hall referred to as the "Life Principle" or the "Spark of God," and the late Mormon historian B.H. Roberts identified as the "spark of Deity" or "manifestations of the Divine,"(9) are also inherent in both animal and plant life as well.(10) Joseph Smith taught that this spirit essence, also known as "intelligence" or the "light of truth,"(11) has eternally co-existed with God, and is, in fact, the very substance of which he (or it) is composed:

Element had an existence from the time [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end....

We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles?...

Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end.... There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in heaven....

...God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.(12)

Furthermore, early Mormon apostles taught that, due to the essential equality of all "intelligence," even vegetables could eventually attain a "celetialized" state of godhood through a process that is suspiciously similar to the transmigration of souls in Hinduism, as summarized above by Albert Pike. Even much the same terminology, such as "disorganization" and "reorganization" of spirit, for instance, is present in the following excerpt of the writings of Orson Pratt:

That vegetables as well as animals have spirits, is clearly shown from the fact that they have capacity for joy and rejoicing.... We are compelled to believe that every vegetable, whether small or great, has a living intelligent spirit capable of feeling, knowing, and rejoicing in its sphere....

This is the origin of spiritual vegetables in Heaven. These spiritual vegetables are sent from Heaven to the terrestrial worlds, where, like animals, they take natural tabernacles, which become food for the sustenance of the natural tabernacles of the animal creation. Thus the spirits of both vegetables and animals are the offspring of male and female parents which have been raised from the dead, or redeemed from a fallen condition....

If [these particles of spirit] were once organized in the vegetable kingdom, and then disorganized by becoming food of celestial animals, and then again reorganized in the form of the spirits of animals which is a higher sphere of being, then, is it unreasonable to suppose that the same particles have, from all eternity, been passing through an endless chain of unions and disunions, organizations and disorganizations, until at length they are permitted to enter into the highest and most exalted sphere of organization in the image and likeness of God?

...[H]ere, then, is apparently a transmigration of the same particles of spirit from an inferior to a superior organization, wherein their condition is improved, and their sphere of action enlarged. Who shall set any bounds to this upward tendency of spirit? Who shall prescribe limits to its progression? If it abide the laws and conditions of its several states of existence, who shall say that it will not progress until it shall gain the very summit of perfection, and exist in all the glorious beauty of the image of God?(13)

Other early Mormon leaders, such as Brigham Young, who, like Joseph Smith, was himself a Mason, also taught that "the Earth is a living creature," and that the tides are actually caused by the planet's breathing.(14) According to Heber C. Kimball, also a Mason, the earth is the offspring of "parent earths" and is itself undergoing an evolutionary "salvation" as is the rest of creation.(15) Orson Pratt explained in The Seer that once resurrected from the dead and thus redeemed, the earth will become a "celestialized" being, or a great sun, as its parents had done before it.(16) Joseph Smith also taught that the earth, in its "sanctified and immortal state," will be transformed into "a globe like a sea of glass and fire."(17)

In the occult, Satan (or Lucifer) has traditionally been associated with the sun, the harbinger of spiritual light. Esoteric philosophy teaches that it is this "great being," not the God of the Old Testament, that was the true redeemer and benefactor of mankind in the Garden of Eden and who later possessed the body of Jesus of Nazareth to rescue the Jews from their idolatrous worship of Ilda-Baoth (Jehovah), and to instruct them in the truth of man's inherent or potential divinity. For example, occult medium Helena P. Blavatsky wrote in her book, The Secret Doctrine:

Once the key to Genesis is in our hands, it is the scientific and symbolic Kabbala which unveils the secret. The Great Serpent of the Garden of Eden and the "Lord God" are identical....(18)

Stand in awe of him, and sin not; speak his name with trembling.... It is Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god....

When the Church, therefore, curses Satan, it curses the cosmic reflection of God....

In this case it is but natural... to view Satan, the Serpent of Genesis as the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind. For it is he who was the "Harbinger of Light," bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of the automaton [Adam] created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was the first to whisper, "In the day ye eat thereof, ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil" — can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An "adversary" to Jehovah... he still remains in Esoteric Truth the ever loving "Messenger"... who conferred on us spiritual instead of physical immortality....

Satan, or Lucifer, represents the active... "Centrifugal Energy of the Universe" in a cosmic sense.... Fitly is he... and his adherents... consigned to the "sea of fire," because it is the Sun... the fount of life in our system, where they are purified... and churned up to re-arrange them for another life; that Sun which, as the origin of the active principle of our Earth, is at once the Home and the Source of the Mundane Satan....(19)

To prevent the light from escaping at once, the Demons forbade Adam to eat the fruit of "knowledge of good and evil," by which he would have known the Empire of Light and that of Darkness. He obeyed; an Angel of Light induced him to transgress, and gave him the means of victory; but the Demons created Eve, who seduced him into an act of Sensualism, that enfeebled him, and bound him anew in the bonds of matter....

To deliver the soul, captive in darkness, the Principle of Light, or Genius of the Sun, charged to redeem the Intellectual World... came to manifest Himself among men.... It but put on the appearance of a human body, and took the name of Christ in the Messiah, only to accommodate itself to the language of the Jews. The Light did its work, turning the Jews from the adoration of the Evil Principle, and the Pagans from the worship of Demons. But the Chief of the Empire of Darkness caused Him to be crucified by the Jews (emphasis in original).(20)

According to Pike, it was the demons, not God, that barred Adam from the Tree of Knowledge, thereby perpetuating his spiritual ignorance (compare to Genesis 2:15-17). However, an "Angel of Light" persuaded him to rebel against the "demonic" command (compare to Genesis 3:1-4), and, as a result, Adam was "enlightened" and initiated into the "true religion," which, of course, is supposedly that of Freemasonry. This "Angel of Light" later assumed the appearance of a man (compare to John 1:1, 14) in order to act as redeemer of mankind, turning the world from its worship of the Edenic "demons." Elsewhere in the same volume, Pike wrote, "Lucifer, the light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the spirit of darkness! Lucifer, Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual or selfish souls? Doubt it not!" (emphasis in original).(21) According to the Apostle Paul, this angel is none other than Satan himself.

Consistent with this occult reversal of God and Satan, and the accompanying belief that Adam's "fall" was actually an inititation into the "mysteries," it is interesting to find the same doctrine in Mormon theology. Brigham Young stated, "The devil told the truth.... I do not blame Mother Eve. I would not have her miss eating the forbidden fruit for anything in the world...."(22) Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth LDS president, went even further: "The fall of man came as a blessing in disguise.... I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, for do I accuse Adam of a sin. We can hardly speak of anything resulting in such benefits as being a sin...."(23) More recently, Sterling W. Sill commented, "Adam fell, but he fell in the right direction... toward the goal.... He fell upward."(24) Directly contradicting Romans 5:12-20, Adam's fall in Mormonism is seen as a "blessing in disguise" because "the devil told the truth" in the Garden of Eden. Mormons have accepted the same lie that is the foundation of all pagan religion — that man may attain godhood through initiation into the "mysteries." More will be discussed on this subject later.

We can also find traces of this occult reversal in Joseph Smith's purported translation of the Bible. For example, in his version of Matthew 4:1, we read, "Then Jesus was led up of the Spirit, into the wilderness, to be with God." Compare this with what Matthew 4:1 really says: "Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil." Much the same confusion exists in Matthew 4:5, in which it is the Holy Spirit, not the devil, who sets Christ on the pinnacle of the temple, as well as verse 8 of the same chapter, in which it is again the Spirit, not Satan, who takes Him onto a high mountain and shows Him the kingdoms of the world (see also Luke 4:5 and 4:9 in the Inspired Version).

Furthermore, in light of the occult belief that Satan, the ancient god of the pagan sun-worshippers, dwells in a "sea of fire," as taught by Blavatsky, it is interesting to note that Joseph Smith taught that the Mormon god also dwells in "everlasting burnings," as will all faithful Mormon males who eventually ascend into the Celestial Kingdom.(25) In the Temple Endowment ceremony, which is believed to be a necessary stepping stone for exaltation, patrons are instructed at one point to don embroidered fig-leaf aprons which are earlier associated with the "power and priesthood" of Lucifer.(26) Furthermore, when later offering a prayer to God, Adam is answered by Lucifer, who then identifies himself as "the god of this world."(27) In the henotheism of Mormonism, there are an infinite number of "Holy Personages," and yet LDS worship is reserved for "Elohim," the "god of this world," whom both 2 Corinthians 4:4 and the Endowment ceremony identify as the devil. This corresponds to Brigham Young's statement that the God of Christendom is the Mormon devil.(28) The following words of Joseph Smith are a fitting conclusion to this discussion: "Hell is by no means the place this world of fools suppose it to be, but on the contrary, it is quite an agreeable place...."(29)

The ancient worship of the heavenly bodies eventually evolved into the occult science of astrology and the belief that the sun, moon, and stars influenced earthly events and human personality. This is the doctrine of "as above, so below." There is strong evidence to suggest that the Tower of Babel was built specifically for astrological purposes, in that it provided the necessary elevation above the dusty atmosphere of the Babylonian desert to permit a clear view of the stars and to thus enable the builders to chart their progress across the heavens. Occult expert Richard Cavendish wrote, "Astrological considerations have always been extremely important in magic. Magicians link the planets with the great forces which move the universe, as in the Cabala, because the ancients identified the planets with the gods. To control the planetary influences is to control the driving impulses beneath the surface of things."(30)

It has been documented that the Smith family was heavily involved in witchcraft and necromancy, and that they possessed numerous occult parchments and talismans.(31) One of these was the magical "Jupiter talisman" which was discovered on Joseph's body after he fell to his death from the second story of the Carthage jailhouse.(32) This medallion indicated a belief in the occult art of astrology, since Jupiter was the "ruling planet" of his birthdate. Several of the magical parchments, amulets, and other paraphernalia owned by the Smith family, which are still in the possession of the LDS church today, were also replete with astrologial symbolism.(33) According to Brigham Young, Joseph Smith had even made an attempt, probably during the Nauvoo period, to establish astrology as an official institution of the Mormon church.(34)

Necromancy, or communication with the dead, has also played an important role in Mormon history, beginning with Smith's earliest "visions." Mormon leaders have traditionally taught that he was actually a spirit medium. For example, in an 1853 sermon, LDS elder Parley P. Pratt revealed that Mormonism is founded entirely on the practice of necromancy, and that the spiritualist movement of the Nineteenth Century, which had begun only five years earlier, actually aided the cause of the LDS church:

Who communicated with our great Prophet, and revealed through him as a medium, the ancient history of a hemisphere, and the records of the ancient dead? Moroni, who had lived upon the earth 1400 years before....

Who revealed to him the plan of redemption, and of exaltation for the dead who had died without the Gospel and the keys and preparations necessary for holy and perpetual converse with Jesus Christ, and with the spirits of just men made perfect?... Those from the dead!...

Shall we, then, deny the principle, the philosophy, the fact of communication between worlds? No! verily no!

Editors, statesmen, philosophers, priests, and lawyers, as well as the common people, began to advocate the principle of converse with the dead, by visions, divination, clairvoyance, knocking, and writing mediums, etc., etc. This spiritual philosophy of converse with the dead, once established by the labors, toils, sufferings, and martyrdom of its modern founders, and now embraced by a large portion of the learned world, show a triumph more rapid and complete — a victory more extensive, than has ever been achieved in the same length of time in our world.

An important point is gained, a victory won, and a countless host of opposing powers vanquished, on one of the leading or fundamental truths of "Mormon" philosophy, viz. — "that the living may hear from the dead."(35)

According to Ezra Taft Benson, the spirit world "is very close," and the veil between it and the physical realm "can be very thin."(36) Other LDS sources indicate that spirits often make contact with the living to give counsel, offer comfort, obtain or give information, or to prepare men for death.(37) Others appear to faithful Mormons to testify that they have converted to Mormonism "on the other side," and to request baptism by proxy so they can advance to godhood. Mormonism also places great emphasis on baptism for the dead, and spiritual visitations are said to be commonplace with the Temples: "The living are thus authorized, under prescribed conditions, to act for the dead, and the fathers and spirit world look to the children in the flesh to perform for them the works which they were unable to attend to while in the body.... This glorious doctrine... regulates the communion of the living with the dead.... The temple where the ordinances can be administered for the dead, is the place to hear from the dead."(38)

Other evidence of the occult foundation of the Mormon church is the involvement of its early leaders in crystal-gazing,(39) astral projection,(40) automatic writing,(41) the usage of divining rods,(42) and ritual magic.(43) Ironically, Bruce R. McConkie admitted that necromancy is practiced by "apostate people," and is therefore "an abomination."(44) A recently published doctrinal manual of the LDS church likewise stated, "Mediums, astrologers, fortune tellers, and sorcerers are inspired by Satan even if they claim to follow God. Their works are abominable to the Lord.... We should avoid all associations with the powers of Satan."(45)

The records of early Mormonism are replete with accounts of activity from the spirit world. According to John Whitmer, who was the official Church Historian in Joseph Smith's time, some converts to the new religion would "act like an Indian in the act of scalping," or would "slide or scoot on the floor with the rapidity of a serpent...."(46) During the ordination ceremony of Harvey Whitlock as a high priest in 1831, he was seen to have "turned as black as Lyman was white," his fingers "were set like claws," and, unable to speak, he went about the room with eyes "as the shape of oval Os...."(47) On another occasion, one man, who weighed over 200 pounds, was thrown through the air by an unseen force, and another "began screaming like a panther...."(48)

Temple dedications were often the scenes of such mysterious occurrences. Joseph Smith wrote of "many strange visions" that were seen when the first temple was dedicated at Kirkland, Ohio on 27 March 1836. It was noted that men would run about "under the influence," while others would "speak in a muttering, unnatural voice and their bodies [would] be distorted...."(49) Mormon writer Joseph Hienerman likewise described such things as personages of light, auras of light around some of the speakers, strange music, and other manifestations during the dedication of the Mormon temple in Manti, Utah.(50)

So frequent were these supernatural occurrences that Heber C. Kimball suggested the following as a means of protection against harrassment by evil spirits:

Now I will tell you, I have about a hundred shots on hand all the time — three or four fifteen-shooters, and three or four revolvers, right in the room where I sleep; and the Devil does not like to sleep there, for he is afraid they will go off half-cocked.

If you will lay a bowie knife or a loaded revolver under your pillow every night, you will not have many unpleasant dreams, nor be troubled with the nightmare, for there is nothing that the Devil is so afraid of as a weapon of death.(51)

Not all of the spirit manifestations in early Mormonism, however, were seen as works of the Devil. Just as in Masonic lore, Mormon literature is filled with references to "angels of light." The foremost of these is Moroni, the golden figure which may be seen atop every Mormon temple today. The visitation of Moroni to Joseph Smith on 21-22 September 1823 bears undeniable similarities to magical incantations and conjuring of spirits in the occult arts.

In astrology, certain days correspond to the ruling planet of the occult practitioner: Sunday is ruled by the sun, Monday by the moom, Tuesday by Mars, Wednesday by Mercury, Thursday by Jupiter, Friday by Venus, and Saturday by Saturn. Furthermore, the successive hours of both day and night are also ruled by the various planets according to the following: The ruling planet of the particular day would also rule the first hour after sunrise, each hour thereafter being ruled by every other planet in a reversal of the above sequence. The first hour after sunset is ruled by the planet which is fifth in order from the ruling planet of the day. For example, a magician whose ruling planet is Jupiter would begin to cast a spell or conjure up a spirit sometime between Sunday night, beginning one hour after sunset, and Monday morning, two hours after sunrise. A full moon is also believed to increase the effectiveness of the incantation, which is to be repeated three times.(52)

It is therefore no coincidence that Joseph Smith, whose ruling planet was Jupiter, chose Sunday, 21 September 1823 — the autumn equinox when the moon had reached it maximum fullness — to contact the spirit of Moroni. Martin Harris noted that Smith had spent the earlier part of the evening in an unsuccessful dig for buried treasure near his home.(53) According to Oliver Cowdery, Smith began praying about eleven or twelve "to commune with some kind of messenger."(54) So precise was he in following the instructions for conjuration, that he "had full confidence in obtaining a divine manifestation...."(55) His ritual was indeed successful. The "angel" Moroni appeared to him three times during the night and told him the location of the golden plates on which the Book of Mormon text was allegedly inscribed, giving him instructions regarding their retrieval, and a fourth time early the next morning to repeat his message.(56)

...I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor. He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen.... Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person.(57)

This description is nearly identical to those given by New Agers and other occultists of similar encounters with spiritual entities.(58) Whether Smith really did experience the manifestation of such an entity is open to question. However, that it could not have been an angel of God is evident from the fact that the visitation was the result of an attempt to conjure up the dead according to occult formulae. This practice is forbidden in Scripture (Deuteronomy 18:9-12; Isaiah 8:19).

It is also interesting to note that this entity was originally identified in the earliest accounts of the visitation as "Nephi."(59) This name and its derivatives have played an important role in the occult arts. For instance, "Nephiomaoth" was one of the magical names of God used by the "Christian" Gnostics of the First Century.(60) According to the Jewish Kabbalah and other occult texts, "Nephes," "Neph," or "Nephum" was used to signify "that which is called out by Magicians and Necromancers" (emphasis in original).(61) "Moroni" itself also was associated with the occult.(62)

It is this spirit who, via the Book of Mormon, has instructed millions of Mormons and prospective converts to the LDS church to do the following: "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye should ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."(63) This "manifestation" of the "power of the Holy Ghost" is further described in Doctrine and Covenants: "...[B]ehold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it be right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong...."(64)

Mormons rely upon this promised "burning of the bosom" experience as a testimony of the truthfulness of their church and its prophet. However, the folly of obeying the instructions of an entity, that, if indeed real, was actually a demonic spirit conjured up by a modern sorceror should go without saying.

In light of the preceding information, it is obvious that the philosophical and theological foundations of Mormonism are far removed from the biblical worldview of a personal Creator-God who is transcendent and therefore separate from the creation. Instead, Joseph Smith and the other LDS leaders of the early 1830s were heavily influenced by the very same philosophies which have undergirded the pagan religions throughout human history.

The doctrine which we will now examine is the Mormon belief that matter, or "element," is eternal and therefore uncreated. According to Smith, "Element had an existence from the time [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end...."(65) Citing what he referred to as the "Eternal Duration of Matter,"(66) Smith insisted that "no part or particle of the great universe could become annihilated or destroyed."(67) On this subject, Parly P. Pratt wrote:

Second. Intermingled with this space there exists all the varieties of the elements, properties, or things of which intelligence takes cognizance; which elements or things taken altogether compose what is called the Universe.

Third. The elements of all these properties or things are eternal, uncreated, self-existing. Not one particle can be added to them by creative power. Neither can one particle be diminished or annihilated.(68)

Charles W. Penrose agreed: "...[T]he elements... never had a beginning — the primal particles never had a beginning. They have been organized in different shapes; the organism had a beginning, but the elements... of which it is composed never had."(69)

According to second LDS prophet Brigham Young, matter "can be organized and brought forth into intelligence, and to possess more intelligence, and to continue to increase in that intelligence."(70) As we have seen, such a concept is strikingly similar to the worldview found in various forms of the occult, specifically Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Kabalism, Hinduism, etc. The belief that the universe is eternal and its components are constantly progressing to higher levels of existence is also very much in line with the theory of evolution that is propagated in the public schools today.

Of course, since modern Mormonism attempts to portray itself as just another Christian denomination, it has become customary for LDS apologists to downplay the blatantly occultic teachings of their early leaders and to attempt to rid their religion of any connection with evolutionary concepts. Hence, since the mid-Twentieth Century, Mormon literature has been increasingly devoted to attacking Darwinian evolution and contrasting it with "latter-day revelation":

I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so.

If you believe in the doctrine of the evolutionist, then you must accept the view that man has evolved through countless ages from the very lowest forms of life up through various stages of animal life, finally into the human form.(71)

What Joseph Fielding Smith condemned above is exactly what early LDS leaders such as Orson Pratt taught. Some Mormon writers have admitted that Joseph Smith "did not accept the dogma of Creationism..."(72) For Smith, there could not have been a single beginning of all things, because his doctrine of eternal progression rested upon the assumption that limitless generations of gods had evolved from mortal men in a limitless number of universes previous to ours.

In keeping with Joseph Smith's teachings, modern Mormonism has continued to deny that God created the universe ex nihilo, or "out of nothing":

To create is to organize. It is an utterly false and uninspired notion to believe that the world or any other thing was created out of nothing or that any created thing can be destroyed in the sense of annihilation.(73)

We should emphasize that the word "created" which some men have interpreted as "being made from nothing" really comes from a Hebrew word which means "to organize." In other words, the Lord's power of creation is really his organizing power. Even with God there is no such thing as making something from nothing.(74)

Solomon was quite correct when he wrote, "There is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). As is the case with all heresies, Mormonism's cosmology should be quite familiar to those studied in Church history. In the early years of the Third Century, Tertullian's treatise entitled Against Hermogenes was devoted to refuting the teaching that God organized the universe out of pre-existent and eternal substance known as "Matter." Tertullian drew this teaching out to its logical conclusion by noting that if God required matter to create, then God is to that extent subservient to matter: "For if He drew His resources from it for the creation of the world, Matter is already found to be the superior, inasmuch as it furnished Him with the means of effecting His works; and God is thereby clearly subjected to Matter, of which the substance was indispensable to Him.... On this principle, Matter itself, no doubt, was not in want of God, but rather lent itself to God, who was in want of it.... [God was] one who was, I suppose, too small, and too weak, and too unskilful, to form what He willed out of nothing."(75)

Contrary to the claims of Mormonism, the Christian Church has historically insisted that God created ex nihilo. Time, space, and matter are only viewed as eternal inasmuch as they existed as ideas within the mind of God; otherwise, they had a definite beginning (Isaiah 41:4 64:4; Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Titus 1:2; 2 Peter 3:4). This concept of creation ex nihilo is primarily drawn from Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Charles Hodge commented on this important verse:

The proof of the doctrine of a creation ex nihilo... is plain from the fact that no mention is ever made of any preexisting substance out of which the world was made. The original creation is never represented as a moulding of matter into form and inbuing it with life. Nor do the Scriptures ever represent the world as an emanation from God, proceeding from Him by a necessity of His nature. Much less does the Bible ever identify God and the world. In thus ignoring all other doctrines, the Scriptures leave us under the necessity of believing that God created the world out of nothing.(76)

Of particular interest to our discussion is the Hebrew word barah, which is translated "created." In the context of Genesis 1:1, this word is to be distinguished in meaning from yatsar, which is used to describe the formation of man's body from the already existing materials of the earth (Genesis 2:7), chuwl, which refers to the structuring of the formless earth of Genesis 1:2 (cf. Psalm 90:2), and asah, which carries essentially the same meaning as chuwl (Genesis 2:3). Though barah may at times carry the meaning of the forming of already existing materials, as in the case of the creation of mankind (Genesis 1:27, 5:1; Deuteronomy 4:32; Isaiah 45:12), it should be noted that in each of these cases, the verb is coupled with an accusative noun. In other words, the Scripture clearly mentions the material which is being acted upon. In Genesis 1:1, the absence of an accusative noun is significant to show that there was, in fact, no substance involved in the initial creation of "the heavens and the earth."

The very wording of the first chapter of Genesis itself rules out the possibility that God merely "organized" pre-existing and eternal matter. For instance, in verse three we read, "Then God said, Let there be light; and there was light." This is reiterated in 2 Corinthians 4:6, where we are told that "God... commanded light to shine out of darkness...." In other words, God spoke of light where there was no light, and thus brought it into existence. Light was not derived from a pre-existing substance called "darkness," for the darkness that was in the beginning was the absolute absence of light and was therefore nothing.

Therefore, the origin of all things was the divine Word, or fiat, of the eternal God. Though it is certainly beyond the capacity of our limited minds to comprehend, the relationship of the Father and Son is described in terms of the thinker and his thought, and the speaker and his words. Tertullian wrote:

For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call logos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse....

For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word....

I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself...."(77)

Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, "Let there be light." This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God — formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom... then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect.... Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things; and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart — even as the Father Himself testifies: "My heart," says He, "hath emitted my most excellent Word."(78)

It is apparently in this sense of "speaking" forth His "Reason" or "Wisdom" in the form of the Word that the Son was "eternally begotten" of the Father, who is the "fountain of the Godhead."(79) In the preamble of John's Gospel, the Son of God is designated as "the Word" who was "in the beginning with God" (John 1:1-2), and through whom "all things were made" (verse 3). Thus, to quote Tertullian once again, "[T]he Father acts by mind and thought whilst the Son, who is in the Father's mind and thought, gives effect and form to what He sees."(80) We see this concept taught in the book of Hebrews: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:3). The Greek word phainomenon, translated as "things which are visible," is a present adjectival participle, which carries the characteristics of both a verb and a noun.(81) From this word, we have our English word "phenomenon." In essence, what the writer of Hebrews was attempting to convey is that what can be seen was not made of anything that had the potential to appear of itself, either to us or to God. Another clear passage in this regard is Romans 4:17, which states that God "calls those things which do not exist as though they did." In other words, the universe was made out of nothing.

That barah, as it appears in Genesis 1:1, must refer to creation ex nihilo is also plain from the fact that such act of creation left the earth "without form, and void" (Genesis 1:2). It would be absurd to suggest that God's re-organization of pre-existing materials merely resulted in additional chaos, for He "did not create [the world] in vain... [but] formed it to be inhabited" (Isaiah 45:18). Thus, we are drawn to the conclusion that there were two stages involved in the creation: first, God created the substance of matter, or "primeval dust of the world" (Proverbs 8:26), out of nothing through the instrumentality of His Word, and second, He organized this created matter into the present world (kosmos). Regarding a possible objection to this doctrine, Reformed theologian Robert Lewis Dabney wrote, "It is objected that a creation out of nothing is a contradiction, because it makes nothing a material to act on, and thus, an existence. We reply that this is a mere play upon the meaning of the preposition; We do not mean that 'nothing' is a material out of which existences are fashioned; but the term from which an existence absolutely begins. God created a world where nothing was before."(82)

Consistent with the claim that the Mormon religion is "restored Christianity," LDS apologists have repeatedly attempted to find support for their doctrines in the writings of the early Church fathers. However, although they may find scattered and obscure references in these early writings to such things as "deification,"(83) they are very hard-pressed indeed to locate any endorsement of the postulation that matter is eternal. For example, in the Second Century, Ireneaus was very clear in denouncing as "infidelity" the denial that "God... formed all things... out of what did not previously exist" and that "God... created matter itself."(84) He went on to write, "While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point pre-eminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence."(85) Tertullian, writing in the late Second and early Third Centuries, was even more clear:

The object of our worship is the One God, He who by His commanding word, His arranging wisdom, His mighty power, brought forth from nothing this entire mass of our world, with all its array of elements, bodies, spirits, for the glory of His majesty; whence also the Greeks have bestowed on it the name of Kosmos.(86)

This authority of Scripture I claim for myself even from this circumstance, that whilst it shows me the God who created, and the works He created, it does not in like manner reveal to me the source from which He created. For since in every operation there are three principal things, He who makes, and that which is made, and that of which it is made, there must be three names mentioned in a correct narrative of the operation — the person of the maker, the sort of thing which is made, and the material of which it is formed. If the material is not mentioned, while the work and the maker of the work are both mentioned, it is manifest that He made the work out of nothing. For if He had had anything to operate upon, it would have been mentioned as well as the other two particulars.... What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it.(87)

In the early part of the Third Century, Hippolytus, who is believed to have been a disciple of Ireneaus, wrote, "The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself, not infinite chaos, nor measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, nor warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them."(88) In the Fifth Century, Aurelius Augustine championed the doctrine of creation ex nihilo as well: "...God made all things which he did not beget of himself, not of those things that already existed, but of those things that did not exist at all, that is, of nothing.... For there was not anything of which he could make them."(89)

Not only is the Mormon doctrine of the "Eternal Duration of Matter" untenable from a scriptural standpoint and without historical support, but it fails to stand up to philosophical scrutiny as well. Christian doctrine declares that God alone is self-existent and eternal; as the "unmoved Mover," He is necessary in His existence and therefore incapable of change (Malachi 3:6), whereas the creation is contingent and in a constant state of flux.

Change, or motion from one state of being to another, involves the passage of time. Now, time is a finite measurement and can have no meaning in the context of infinity. For example, there can be no measurement of time known as a day contained within the definition of eternity, for no amount of finite days may ever equal eternity. The finite and the infinite are as incompatible as night and day. Each successive day is dependent, or contingent, upon the passage of the preceding day. Therefore, each day is not self-existent for it draws its existence from the one preceding it. Merely extending the series back ad infinitum does not solve the dilemma of the necessary relation of the contingent to the cause. As Robert Lewis Dabney noted, "[A] series composed only of contingent parts must be, as a whole contingent. But the contingent cannot be eternal, because it is not self-existent."(90)

It is apparent that Mormon apologists, much like advocates of the humanistic concept of an eternal universe, have not given careful thought to the problems that arise from their founder's ideas of "Eternal Duration." For example, in his book, Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie applied this concept to what is known in Mormonism as "eternal progression": "Endowed with agency and subject to eternal laws, man began his progression and advancement in pre-existence, his ultimate goal being to attain a state of glory, honor, and exaltation like the Father of spirits.... This gradually unfolding course of advancement and experience — a course that began in a past eternity and will continue in ages future — is frequently referred to as a course of eternal progression" (emphasis in original).(91) McConkie's talk of a "process that began in past eternity and will continue in ages future" is entirely nonsensical. Simply put, the fact that said process "began" shows that it is temporal, not eternal. McConkie further confused the matter by defining "endless time" as "eternal, unending duration of time"(92) on the one hand, and then by defining "eternal" as "the opposite of that which pertains to time...."(emphasis in original)(93) on the other, and by even defining "eternity" as the antithesis of the "realm of time."(94)

Such confusion is the necessary product of a false belief system that attempts to place matter on the same footing as God. The Mormon simply cannot develop a coherent cosmology from such a faulty basis. The following lengthy quotation from J.P. Moreland's book, Scaling the Secular City, may be helpful in further illustrating this point:

Suppose a person were to think backward through the events in the past. In reality, time and the events within it move the other direction. But mentally he can reverse that movement and count backward farther and farther into the past. Now he will either come to a beginning or he will not. If he comes to a beginning, then the universe obviously had a beginning. But if he never could, even in principle, reach a first moment, then this means that it would be impossible to start with the present and run backward through all of the events in the history of the cosmos. Remember, if he did run through all of them, he would reach a first member of the series, and the finiteness of the past would be established. In order to avoid this conclusion, one must hold that, starting from the present, it is impossible to go backward through all of the events in history.

But since events really move in the other direction, this is equivalent to admitting that if there was no beginning, the past could have never been exhaustively traversed to reach the present moment (emphasis in original).(95)

Time involves, and in fact relies upon, the passage of its units from future to past, but such terms as these are meaningless when speaking of eternity, which contains no future and no past. The very fact that time passes is a clear indication that its cause is outside of itself. The belief that "eternity is a long time"(96) is therefore an oxymoron (a contradiction in terms), as is "eternal progression." This is borne out by the Scripture itself when it speaks of "the beginning, before there was ever an earth" (Proverbs 8:23), and is perhaps what is meant when we are told that God "divided the light [day] from the darkness [night]" (Genesis 1:4-5), and later created "lights in the firmament of the heavens" to provide for "signs and seasons, and for days and years" (verse 14).

Can it be said that time was indeed created, but that matter is eternal? Not at all. Mormons believe that matter has eternally existed in a series of organizations and reorganizations. According to McConkie, "An infinite number of worlds have come rolling into existence at [God's] command."(97) However, this process implies motion, and, as stated above, motion cannot exist independent from the passage of time.

Finally, the very existence of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo presents an insurmountable problem for the proponents of an eternal universe. Since a true infinity can contain no contingents, how can the existence of such an allegedly false doctrine be explained? If one declares that it originated in the mind of man, then an element of contingency has been introduced into that which is claimed to be eternal, thereby destroying the claim to eternality. However, the idea that such a doctrine has itself existed eternally is likewise problematic. Can falsehood be said to be eternal, being as it is a perversion, and therefore a derivative or contingent, of truth? Such questions as these simply cannot be answered within the scope of Mormonism or any other non-Christian belief system which denies the biblical account of creation.

We have also seen that Mormonism has historically embraced what is known philosophically as monism (that all things are but manifestations of one reality or Being), and more specifically, pantheism (that "God is all and all is God"). Granted, most Mormons today would object vehemently to being labelled as pantheists. However, that this is precisely what Orson Pratt had in mind when he deified "Truth" and insisted that all things partake of it is an indisputable fact. Joseph Smith taught the same thing, though he used the term "intelligence" in place of Pratt's "Truth" to describe that which even God is made of. In other words, "God came from the universe; the universe did not come from God...."(98)

The occult doctrine of an eternal substance, by whatever name it is called, from which even "God" derives his/its existence is entirely at odds with the teachings of the Bible. God's distinction from His creation is seen throughout the Scriptures, and contrast is frequently made between His eternality and the temporality of the creation:

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God (Psalm 90:2).

Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look on the earth beneath. For the heavens will vanish away like smoke, the earth will grow old like a garment, and those who dwell in it will die in like manner; but My salvation will be forever, and My righteousness will not be abolished (Isaiah 51:6).

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My Word will by no means pass away (Matthew 24:35).

The distinction between Creator and creation can especially be seen in the plan of redemption. In John 3:16, we are told that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." Though this verse is misunderstood by many to teach that God's love is directed toward each and every human being in history, whom He earnestly desires to save, others have more accurately interpreted this verse to be speaking of the creation-order. According to Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, "The word 'world' refers to the world as the orderly system of men and things. That is, the world that God created and loves is His creation as it is intended to be: a world in subjection to God. Thus, God loves His created order of men and things, not for what it has become (sinful and corrupted), but for what He intended" (emphasis in original).(99) The fact that creation itself will one day benefit from Christ's atoning sacrifice is made clear in Romans 8:19-22: "For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now."

Since we read that the creation has been "subjected to futility," from which it will someday be delivered, the only logical conclusion is that it is distinct from God. After all, God is a perfect Being, and, with the exception of the unique event of the Incarnation, He can never be said to suffer "futility," nor can He be "delivered from bondage of corruption." God is self-sufficient, whereas the creation is dependent upon the decree and power of the Creator for its continued existence: "God... has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 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 at the right hand of the Majesty on high...." (Hebrews 1:2-3) Again we see here the importance of the divine fiat — God's Word created the world, and God's Word sustains the world. The clear distinction between Creator and creatin is abundantly evident throughout the Scriptures. Therefore, we must conclude that pantheism is not so much false as it is an outdated concept. Quite simply, there was once a "time" when nothing but God existed, since He alone is self-existent and eternal (Psalm 90:2). Either God created the universe out of nothing, or He created it out of Himself. Because of this, the historic Church has always taught that God created ex nihilo, as we have seen. It was the first-century Gnostic heretics who attempted to introduce their pantheistic views into the Church, as they are again seeking to do via Mormonism and similar cults.

We have seen extensive evidence that nearly all early Mormon leaders were heavily involved in the occult arts, and that Mormonism itself is rooted firmly in occultic ideology and practice, particularly necromancy. All involvement in occult practices, including attempted communication with the spirits of the dead, is strictly forbidden in the Bible. When coming into the Promised Land, the Israelites were given the following prohibition:

When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorceror, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you (Deuteronomy 18:9-12; cf. Leviticus 19:31, 20:27).

The main reason that the Bible takes such a strong stand against spiritism is that the contacted spirits are not at all what they seem to be, but are actually demonic entities. Though seldom appearing as such, their true identity may be discerned from the anti-Christian theology that is consistently delivered through seances, Ouija boards, automatic writing, and other occultic channels (1 John 4:1-3). Demons are immortal beings of more ancient origin than man, and have unlimited access to the files of human history. As it suits their evil purposes, they utilize this knowledge to masquerade in a variety of forms, sometimes as a departed loved one, depending upon the emotional needs of the inquirer.

The Bible records only two incidents of communcation with the dead — both of them divinely ordained. The first of these is described in 1 Samuel, chapter 28. Here, King Saul disobeyed God by invoking the spirit of the prophet Samuel through the medium of Endor (verses 7-8). Much to the surprise of the medium, what appeared was not her familiar spirit as intended, but Samuel himself (verse 12). The dead man then prophesied in the name of the Lord concerning Saul's defeat and death at the hands of the Philistines, which was fulfilled the following day (1 Samuel 31:6). That this was not a masquerading demon is clear from the nature of the given prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).

Mormon apologists have attempted to use such passages as this to show that godly men and women may communicate with the dead, and thereby to justify their leaders' involvement in necromancy. However, it should be pointed out that Saul by this time had become completely apostate and it was because of his attempt to communicate with the dead prophet that he lost his life: "So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the LORD, because he did not keep the word of the LORD, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance" (1 Chronicles 10:13).

The second account of communication with the dead is given in the seventeenth chapter of Matthew's gospel. In this case, Jesus Christ was transfigured into His true heavenly glory, and was seen by three of His disciples to speak with Moses and Elijah (verse 2). The possibility that demonic spirits were in operation here must also be ruled out, for not only was the contact initiated by Christ, but God the Father also approved of His Son's actions (verse 5). As Creator, God obviously has both the power and the right to communicate with whomever He wishes, whether they are living or dead. However, Scripture makes it quite clear that contact with the "other side" is off limits to humans. When men begin to seek spiritual information from sources other than God's Word, deception inevitably occurs and the person is led to a false concept of himself and his relationship to his Creator. Therein lies the greatest danger of the practice of spiritism. Mormons, therefore, would do well to heed the words of the prophet Isaiah: "...[W]hen they say to you, 'Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,' should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?" (Isaiah 8:19-20).

1. Richard Cavendish, The Black Arts (New York: G.P. Putnam Publishing Group, 1967), page 81.

2. Manly P. Hall, The Lost Keys of Masonry (Los Angeles, California: Hall Publishing Company, 1924), pages 93-94.

3. Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry (Washington, D.C.: Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction, Thirty-Third Degree, 1962), pages 604-605.

4. Ken Wilber, Up From Eden (New York: Doubleday Publishing Company, 1981), page 1.

5. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine (Pasadena, California: Theosophical University Press, 1963), Volume II, pages 245, 258.

6. Vera S. Alder, The Initiation of the World (New York: Samuel Weiser, Inc., 1968), page 34.

8. Orson Pratt, The Seer (Liverpool, England: S.W. & F.D. Richards, 1853-1854), February 1853, page 24.

9. B.H. Roberts, quoted in Joseph Fielding Smith (editor), The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1976), page 347 (footnote).

12. Joseph Smith, in Smith, Teachings of the Prophet, pages 351-354; see also Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1966), page 751; B.H. Roberts, article: "The Immortality of Man," Improvement Era, April 1907, pages 401-423.

13. Pratt, The Seer, March 1853, pages 34, 38; July 1853, pages 102-103; see also Doctrine and Covenants 77:1-4.

14. Fred C. Collier (editor), The Teachings of President Brigham Young (Salt Lake City, Utah: Colliers Publishing Company, 1987), Volume III, page 241.

15. Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses (Liverpool, England: F.D. and S.W. Richards, 1855), Volume VI, page 36.

17. Doctrine and Covenants 77:1, 130:7-9; see also Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume IX, page 87.

25. Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Volume VI, page 4; see also Smith, Teachings of the Prophet, pages 346-347.

26. Charles Sackett, What's Going On in There? (Thousand Oaks, California: Sword of the Shepherd Ministries, Inc., 1982), page 28.

31. Reed C. Durham, No Help For the Widow's Son (Salt Lake City, Utah: Martin Publishing Company, 1980); Mormon Miscellaneous, October 1975; D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1989). Dr. Durham delivered this information before the Mormon History Association on 20 April 1974. For this he was severely criticized by other Mormon scholars and officials for his frankness and was even confronted by then-president Spencer W. Kimball himself. As a result of the negative response to his research, Dr. Durham felt it necessary to write an immediate letter to the General Authorities, reaffirming his faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and the Mormon church as the only true church. D. Michael Quinn, on the other hand, was not so fortunate. As a result of the publication of his book, he lost his job as Professor of History at Brigham Young University, and eventually was excommuncated. Obviously, this is one important aspect of the "prophet's" life that the LDS hierarchy does not want either the members of their church or the general public to know.

33. Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism, Magic, and Masonry (Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1983), page 11.

34. Brigham Young, Young's Office Journal, 30 December 1861; see also Quinn, Early Mormonism, page 58.

36. Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), page 31.

37. Duane S. Crowther, Life Everlasting (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), page 151.

38. Charles W. Penrose, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Juvenile Instructor's Office, 1888), pages 40-41; see also Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, Volume XIX, page 229.

39. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (self-published, 1887), page 12; W.D. Purple, Reminiscence (Kirkham, 1951), Volume II, page 365.

42. Doctrine and Covenants 8:8; Isaac Butts, affidavit in Arthur C. Deming, Naked Truths of Mormonism (Oakland, California: Deming and Company, 1888), page 2.

45. Gospel Principles (Salt Lake City, Utah: Corporation of the President, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1988), page 142.

46. John Whitmer, John Whitmer's History (Salt Lake City, Utah: Modern Microfilm Company, n.d.), Chapter Six.

47. Max H. Parkin, Conflict at Kirtland: A Study of the Nature and Causes of External and Internal Conflict of the Mormons in Ohio Between 1830 and 1838 (Salt Lake City: Max Parkin, 1966), pages 79-80.

50. Joseph Heinerman, Spirit World Manifestations: Accounts of Divine Aid in Genealogical and Temple Work and Other Assistance to Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City, Utah: Joseph Lyon and Associates, 1986), pages 94-97.

53. John A. Clark, Gleanings By the Way (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: W.J. and J.K. Simon, 1842), page 225.

54. Oliver Cowdery, letter to W.W. Phelps, printed in Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, February 1835, page 79.

55. Joseph Smith, History of the Church (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1964), Volume I, page 11.

58. Will Baron, a former devotee of the writings of New Age occultist Alice A. Bailey, described a vision of the "Ascended Master" Djwhal Khul in his book, Deceived by the New Age:

Suddenly, a physical force that I had never felt before seemed to come upon me. Brilliant light filled my whole being, as if my whole body had become an incandescent lamp. I felt and perceived this sphere of light to be encompassing me and permeating every cell of my body. My brain, especially, was flooded with light, as if a thousand-watt bulb had been switched on inside of my head.... Suddenly, a man radiating intense golden-white light stood before me. My first perception was that the mysterious, shining figure looked just like Jesus Christ. Immediately a strong intuitive thought, or "knowingness," surfaced that told me this person was Djwhal Khul, the high-ranking member of the White Brotherhood of Masters. He was the master who had dictated to Alice Bailey the contents of the metaphysical books she had published under her own name. He appeared to be surrounded by so much brilliance that I could not make out any background scenery. All I could see was his kingly form surrounded by light as he stood motionless before me. I noticed his curly golden hair resting upon his shoulders. He wore a long white robe. His arms hung at his side, and his feet were hidden by the light that enshrouded his entire being. Even though I had difficulty distinguishing his facial features because of the intensity of light that seemed to emanate more strongly from his face, he looked very handsome and dignified ([Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1980], pages 62-63).

59. Times and Seasons, 15 April 1842, page 753; Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and His Progenitors For Many Generations (London: S.W. Richards, 1853), page 79.

60. G.R. Mead (translator), Pistis Sophia: A Gnostic Gospel (London: Theosophical Publishing Society, 1896), page 378.

61. John Beaumont, An Historical, Physiological, and Theological Treatise of Spirits (London: D. Brown, 1705), page 90.

63. Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:4-5. Two important questions must be asked regarding this passage of Mormon "scripture." First, does not the fact that Mormons follow the instructions given in the Book of Mormon logically presuppose that they have already accepted it as being true prior to praying? Also, the wording of Moroni 10:4 is interesting: "[A]sk God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true..." If Moroni's words are to be taken literally, would not a subsequent "testimony" indicate that the Book of Mormon is "not true"?

67. Joseph Smith, quoted by Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man, and the Universe (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1968), page 146.

71. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1954), Volume I, pages 141-142.

74. W. Cleon Skousen, The First 2000 Years (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1953), page 19.

75. Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapter VIII; in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (editors), The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1951), Volume III, page 481.

76. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1993), Volume I, pages 558-559.

77. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter V; in Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III, page 600.

81. Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1960), page 90.

82. Robert Lewis Dabney, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), page 248.

83. Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, article: "Comparing LDS Beliefs With First-Century Christianity," The Ensign, March 1988, page 8.

84. Ireneaus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter X:2-3; in Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, page 370.

86. Tertullian, Apology, Chapter XVII; in Roberts and Donaldson, ibid., Volume III, page 31.

87. Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapter XX; in Roberts and Donaldson, ibid., page 489.

88. Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, Book X, Chapter XXVIII; in Roberts and Donaldson, ibid., Volume V, page 150.

95. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1987), page 29.

96. M. Lynn Bennion and J.A. Washburn, Principles of the Restored Church at Work (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret Sunday School Union, 1954), page 3.

98. Frank J. Beckwith, article: "The Philosophical Problems With the Mormon Concept of God," Christian Research Journal, Spring 1992, page 27.

99. Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensationalism (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), pages 201-202.

Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself. - Irenaeus (Against Heresies) 1.2

Theologically, Scripture teaches condemnation upon false doctrines and false teachers.

But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. - Gal. 1:8-9 (cf I Cor 16:22; II Cor 11:13-15; I Tim 1:18-20; Tit 3:10) NASB

Although the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity is plainly taught in Scripture:

Strongly implied - Gen 1:1-3; 12:7 (cf. Col 1:15-17; Job 33:4); Isa 48:12-16.

Gen 1:1 (Elohim) a Hebrew plural noun that is unique to Hebraic thinking. It occurs only in Hebrew and in no other ancient Semitic language. A principle of hermeneutics is that first references to terms are important with regards to interpretation and establishment of doctrine. It is extremely linguisticly unusual to utilize plural nouns with singular verbs, i.e., "created" (bara) and adjectives and pronouns (Gen 1:26; 11:7). This mechanism is never utilized in Hebrew in any other manner except with respect to the Godhead explicitely in Scripture.

Other references: Gen 48:15-16; Exo 31:3; Num 11:25; Jgs 3:10; Isa 6:8; 11:2; 42:1; 61:1

Clearly taught - Mat 3:16-17; 28:19; Luk 1:35; Jno 3:6-16; 14:16-17,23-26; 15:26; 16:13-15; Act 2:32-33; 5:29-32; Rom 8:16-17,26ff; I Cor 12:4-7; II Cor 1:21-22; 3:14; Eph 1:1-14; 2:17-22; 3:16-19; 4:4-6; Col 1:3-8; I Ths 1:2-5; II Ths 2:13-14; Heb 9:14; I Pet 1:2; I Jno 3:21-24; Jud 20-21.

implied in the word "Godhead": Act 17:29; Rom 1:20; Col 2:9

Other textual support of the doctrine:

Isa 63:7-11 references the trinity:

The Lord who is the God of Israel was their Savior (vv.7-8)
The Angel of His Presence saved them (v.9)
The Holy Spirit was grieved at their rebellion and was within them (vv.10-11)

Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8 both contain the phrase, "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord" (appears to reference the triune nature of God).

Num 6:24-26 (Three-fold Benediction) and similarly in II Cor 13:14 (Apostolic Benediction) seems to reference the triune nature of God.

It is a principle of hermeneutics that repetition in the scriptures implies that a particular doctrine is being stressed. The specific repetitions utilized makes allusion to the importance of the particular doctrine being emphasized, i.e., single word / phrase repeated in separate verses carries less emphasis than the same word / phrase repeated in the same verse. When something is repeated thrice, the doctrine is not only being emphasised, but it is being underscored. In these verses the triplet is significant not only individually, but the triplet is repeated in its entirely in seperate books of Scripture making them emphatic declarations. The fact that they are uttered in the old & new testaments makes the declaration universal.

Additional passages alluding to the doctrine include: Mat 3:16-17; Mar 1:9-11; Luk 3:21-22; Jno 1:32-34; Jno 14; 15:26; 16:7-14; I Cor 12:4-6; II Cor 13:14; Eph 1:3-14; 4:4-6; 5:18-20; II Ths 2:13-14; I Peter 1:2; Jud 20-21.

An intellectually honest appraisal of the Scripture results in the orthodox idea of the Trinity that God (the Father), Jesus Christ (the Son), and the Holy Spirit are simultaneously three distinct beings, and all the same being, none subserviant to another, all three with complete equality and a single will. There was no time when any did not exist. As such, the following are rejected as heretical doctrines:

Macedonianism

(named for Macedonius) Denied the diety of the Holy Spirit, asserting it was a servent, similar to the angels.

Monarchianism

The denial of three seperate beings in the Trinity. A famous Monarchianist, Sabellian, claimed the three persons of God are three facets of one personality, in the way that the sun is simultaneously hot, round, and bright. He became so associated with Monarchianism, that in the early church, heresy of any kind was called Sabellianism.

Modalist Monarchianism

Held that God was a single being, and that Father / Son / Spirit were simply three modes of the same being, only one being possible at a time. Taken to its logical extreme, it would have been impossible for the Spirit to descend as a dove and God’s voice to be heard during Christ’s baptism.

Subordinationism

Any doctrine that subordinates one being of the Trinity to another.

There's something seriously remiss with any theology that disavows the established doctrines regarding the nature of God. Its a virtual certainty that there will be serious error concerning other doctrines of, most likely, even greater significance. Other major heresies include:

Apollinarianism

(named for Apollinarius) Belief that Christ had no soul, but rather was filled with logos, or the Word, and was neither fully human nor fully divine.

Arianism

(named for Arius) Belief that the Father existed before the Son, the Son was created by the Father, and there was a time when the Son did not exist.

Docetism

(from the Greek word dokesis, which means to seem) Belief that Christ was wholly God, and his humanity and suffering only seemed to be real.

Dynamic Monarchianism

Claimed Jesus Christ was simply a man, whom God filled with an impersonal power, either at his conception, baptism, or resurrection. This denies Christ taking any personality from God, and teaches that Christ “became” God.

Ebionitism

Belief that Jesus was nothing more that a prophet: a man, but not divin. Named after the Ebionites, a first-century Jewish-Christian sect who emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul’s teachings.

Eutychianism

(named after Eutyches of Constantinople) belief that Christ had only a divine nature, not a human one.

Monophysitism

This heresy denies the humanity of Christ. It removes the value of Christ’s redemptive work, because it denies that Christ suffered as a man. It declares that Christ had a single (mono), divine, nature. This doctrine is still taught by the Oriental Orthodox churches: Coptic Church of Egypt; Ethiopian Orthodox; Syrian Orthodox; Armenian Orthodox; and Malankara (Indian) Orthodox.

Monothelitism

Belief that Jesus posessed one divine-human energia, not two cooperating (divine and human) wills. Still held by the Maronite Church in Syria.

Nestorianism

(named for Netstorius) Belief that God was not in Christ and that Mary gave birth only to the human Jesus. Nestorianism teaches that Jesus was filled with the logos, that only the human part of Jesus suffered and died, and that man simply needs an infilling of logos for salvation.

Noeticism

(named for Noetus) Belief that God moved as a single spirit into Mary, and was transferred into Christ at birth. God himself was crucified and raised himself from the dead.

OK, your the Bible expert, prove to me that the Trinity is a doctrine that is in the bible. I defy you to prove it's there, for you cannot prove what isn't so.

I’ve done that countless times already DU. I’ll pause here since you repeat the same later.

Jesus himself gave an analogy for his oneness with the father, that analogy is found in John 17:21-22 here, let me quote you the text: 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: Jesus was very clear, he expected the apostles to be one even as he and the father are one, we know that the apostles did not join together in some giant pre-technological transformer, they stayed separate but joined together in heart might mind and strength. Jesus made the analogy, I'll take his word over yours any day, especially when it comes to his relationship with his father.

Lurkers will note that DU is a one-note johnnie on this point. Jesus spoke in many other instances about his relation to the Father than just this one – and this one passage does not repudiate the Trinity – but forms the basis for understanding the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity. Judaism was monotheistic –only one true God in existence. Yet they recognized that Jesus claimed to be that God, they recognized that Jesus claimed to be the earthly image of the invisible God and Jesus was worshipped as that same God. His disciples knew he was God – from the same Gospel of John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. It becomes easy to cherry pick verses then superimpose a theological dogma (such as mormon polytheism) upon them – eisegesis, then ignore the passages such as John 1:1 and others that place those passages into a different interpretation because of context.

I have never condemned Christianity, I am a Christian. I have condemned the perversion of the faith known as the DOGAMA of the Trinity.

You adhere to mormonisn – therefore you are a mormon, not a Christian, regardless of what you might like to ‘call’ yourself.

If you dismiss a rubbing of the Los Lunas stone as not authoritative, well, you stand revealed as a charlatan with this statement.

Lurkers will note – even the mormon church and its proxy – the Maxwell Inst/FARMS – reject the Los Lunas stone as an artifact of the bom era. It is further rejected by archaeologists and related societies as being a valid artifact as well. Only charlatans try to pass off fake artifacts as real.

[GZ]Lurkers will note that instead of facing the fact that the passage was cited with ample context.
[du]Context provided at an anti site, LOL! My how your standards for an "Authoritative source" have slipped.

The jod, linked, hosted by an ‘anti’ site (that contains the whole jod online) now invalidates the whole jod. Lurkers will note – there is no change in the material between the MRM hosted material and that of the mormon hosted http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/. MRM is much better organized and linkable. Further, it has attached pdf scans from the actual page of the hard copy book. Lurkers are recommended to go to the MRM site for themselves and see. . A scanned copy would be an image, this is text, I.E, not a scanned copy. I linked to another site where it references the supporting material from other sources for the King follet sermon, but you didn't look, did you?

Lurkers will note – DU occasionally fails to apparently read other websites. The link provides a clearly readable text, but has a link to the scanned copy,

for example, the first page of the King Follet discourse from JOD vol 6 can be followed at this link.. Lurkers – ever wonder WHY DU doesn’t want you to go to these sites? Because they contain the materials that mormonism wants white-washed and ignored.

Yep, if you go back and look, I didn't say it was authoritative either.

So provide an ‘authoritative source for King Follett – then prove to me that the content/context of what I posted is wrong. (crickets)

ROTFLOL, throwing prophets under the bus? No, you are the one who wants to throw Mormons, prophets and all under the bus, and one with eyes and reading comprehension can see that.

Oh really – so I cite a mormon prophet and you use an excuse that it wasn’t from an ‘authoritative’ source to ignore it. Other times it’s the ‘ol “its their opinion” scam. Both joey and young made definitive statements/teachings on what the definition of the gospel according to mormonism is – progression godhood via laws, rules, ordinances etc. So address it DU, or are you backing out again from sustaining the words of your prophets and apostles again?

The atonement took place on both the garden and the cross, but you always had a problem with more than one being one, yet still separate.

No, I have problems with mormon polytheism usurping the definition of the Trinity. LOL, for mormons the cross is nothing but the means of eventually death. In fact, death is completely not in the mormon formula.

Apostle James E. Talmage taught that the death of the Son itself was not an act of suffering or atonement – “ Christ’s agony in the garden is unfathomable by the finite mind, both as to intensity and cause. The thought that He suffered through fear of death is untenable. Death to Him was preliminary to resurrection and triumphal return to the Father from whom He had come, and to a state of glory even beyond what He had before possessed; and, moreover, it was within His power to lay down His life voluntarily. He struggled and groaned under a burden such as no other being who has lived on earth might even conceive as possible. ”( Jesus the Christ, 1962, p. 613) Lurkers will note that the actual death of Jesus was only a necessary event preceding his resurrection.

Joseph Fielding Smith taught that the atonement occurred BEFORE the cross (General Conference Address,” CR (October 1947): 147-148). This teaching is also echoed by Marion Romney (General Conference Address,” CR (October 1953): 34-35 ) and your cuz McConkie stated same “ But primarily the ransom was paid in a garden—for there eternal life was won for the obedient ” (The Mortal Messiah, p.128 )

As for works, either Paul preached a gospel that is compatible with the rest of the bible, or he has condemned the other apostles with Galatians, your choice. (They speak of works being important too.) When I get through commenting on your protestations, I'll give you a scripture where Paul says works are good too.

LOL, once again a false black/white comparison. Lurkers will remember the term eisegesis, and observe DU apply it to Paul’s teachings that were “important” and “good too”.

AOF 1 shows a belief in God and Jesus, AOF 8 shows a belief in the Bible (which kind of precludes proving us wrong by the bible since we revere it as scripture).

LOL, as far as it is ‘correctly translated’ eh DU. Of course, please ignore your constant attacks on the credibility of the bible – since it is the only way to ‘support’ mormon heresy. Nor do these two aof’s relate to the Gospel preached by Paul, in either specificity or accuracy. Grasping at straws.

A metaphor for... a place of preference, a position of honor of trust. but who is Jesus being Honored by? The metaphor is always in relation to two people or beings, one honoring, trusting, or exalting the other. If Jesus is God the father, they being one in substance, why would he honor himself by standing on (or at) his own right hand? why use such a confusing metaphor? The answer is simple Jesus and God the father are not the same substance.

The only other mormon option is Jesus standing literally on the very hand of God. Of course this poses no problem within the understanding of the interrelationships of the Persons of the Trinity – not the manner that you bastardize them.

As to Hell, is there one? Yes, is it a permanent place to be kept? No. Hell will exist forever, it is eternal, for that is one of God's names, but people will not be left in Hell forever. Consider David Acts 2:25-33 The Bible tells us that David's soul will not be left in Hell. So, if David a murderer and adulterer will be let out of hell... Well, where will he go? In "Orthodox Christianity" there is only Heaven and Hell... Hmmm.

Poor biblical scholarship is in evidence once again. Mormons never learn context, both within the passage, historical or the underlying Greek. Immediate context of Act 2 – Peter appealed to Psalm 16:8-11 to prove that David prophesied Messiah's resurrection in the Jewish Scriptures. Psalm 16 is perhaps the clearest prediction of Messiah's resurrection in the Old Testament. As earlier (verse 1:20), Peter saw that Messiah's (Jesus') experiences fulfilled David's words. So was Peter discussing where David went – no. But further regarding ‘hell’ is this the best translation? The Greek term is “hades”, which Vines notes the scriptural usage as "the region of departed spirits of the lost" (but including the blessed dead in periods preceding the ascension of Christ).” Further verse 27 shows that God will not condemn David to eternal punishment either. And the citation of the Psalm has David rejoicing that God will enable him to enjoy his presence eternally.

LOL! Is it now? Consider the following scripture:Titus 3:8-15 8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

Lurkers will note if the read the chapter in context Paul immediately before these verses wrote:

Tts 3:4 KJV - But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Tts 3:5 KJV - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tts 3:6 KJV - Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tts 3:7 KJV - That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Paul affirms, ONCE AGAIN, that works are not a qualifying component to salvation –as in mormondom. Now with these verses note what is said in verse 8 -” which have believed in God” Lurkers will note that the phrase is in the past tense, meaning that the belief came first and that any works are an outgrowth of our love for God (Tit 3:4).

Really DU, read the bible, not commentaries ON the bible.

Godzilla, pay close attention to James 2:19-20 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Faith without works is dead. Works with out faith is useless, you need both.

Lurkers will note – in the same fashion that Du has cherry picked verses out of context, so to he does it again. LOL, but there is but ONE true God. What comes first in James message – faith or works? DU ignores James 2:14 where James makes this clear - a saving faith will have as a natural outgrowth a change in behavior that follows the royal commandment – loving your neighbor as yourself (vs 2:8). Where in these verses do you find word of wisdom, temple ceremonies, ordinances, special underwear, celestial marriage, etc. NO, James is condemning how the readers were favoring the rich over the poor (kinda like how the mormon church recently treated its members in a church in Haiti).

Excuse me? Different person of the Trinity?

Lurkers will have to excuse DU on this point – it has been a life work to misrepresent the definition of the Trinity to the extent that he wouldn’t recognize the definition even if it came up and bit him on the rear.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

Nice, lets see if you understand what was written.

I don't see any dispensation for persons of the trinity, persons in the Godhead, yes, but not in the Trinity.

And you won’t, as long as you insist on your flawed definition over the definition used by those who you’ve cited. Since you cited the Nicean creed, if you bother ever to read it, you will see the Persons identified –Father, Son and Holy Spirit being “of the same substance” (homoousion). Of course you are very blissful in ignorance; let this later creed clarify -

The Athanasian Creed: "We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in unity; we distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance. [Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons still they] have one divinity, equal in glory and coeternal in majesty. . . .

It is embarrassing to have to continually expose this kind of ignorance on the part of mormons. Perhaps someday they will learn to at least accurately use the terms within the use of the authors, and not that of some peep-stone viewer. BTW, Du defines “Godhead” as a celestial committee of some sort – totally ignoring the Greek word it is translated from “theotēs” which is defined as the ‘state of being God’, not a committee or similar. Just further evidence of a challenged biblical understanding of DU.

Oh, please, so I have "Bad Scholarship" because my interpretation of the Bible differs from your "correct one" (even though you offer no evidence that yours is the correct interpretation other than you say so...). What a weak argument, again, I am embarrassed for you.

Lurkers will note that in the preceding presentation of scripture the shallowness of Du’s ‘interpretations’ such as ignoring context, Greek, other relevant scripture passages, etc. All evidence that the one doing the ‘say so’ is not myself, since I take the time to place my scripture usage and response by presenting context, etc. Lurkers will remember, that interpretations based upon eisegesis are flawed from the start, since a predefined ‘interpretation’ is forced on the passage – evident by the abundant LACK of DU’s application context, Greek, etc.

I guess you would know the king of double standard, you see him everyday in the mirror.

I only see myself in the mirror, not you DU.

GZ Thank you DU for proving my point – mormon salvation/gospel REQUIRES works before salvation. Let me restate the “math” for the fuller picture.
Actually, exactly why does God give commandments? So people don't keep them? Why command people to do work? So they won't do it? The Bible is replete with commands to do works, I quoted scriptures about being judged by works, you are the one denying the Bible, not me.

Lurkers will note once again – in DU’s citations the actual CONTEXT of the passage shows that the scripture passages were opposite of what was being represented by DU. Mormonism is like having only a hammer – making everything else look like a nail. I’ll type this slowly for you DU - first comes faith, next comes works out of love for the grace already given without merits or pre-qualifications. Mormonism requires you to be prequalified for that grace. Du should also read more closely in Galatians where Paul places the law in its proper context with grace. It is really all there in black and white DU, if you bother to read.

[GZ]What does this all boil down to? The mormon gospel we see belief + repentance + baptism + laying on of hands + temple work + mission work + church ministry + tithing + ceasing from sin + abstaining from the use of intoxicants and strong drinks and tobacco and caffeine + confessing Joseph Smith as Prophet + temple marriage + baptism for the dead + genealogy research, among many other works, laws and ordinances.
[DU] Actually, you'll find the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thank you DU for making my point again and finally agreeing with my statement. The ‘gospel’ of mormonism is a gospel of works just like bring’em young said:

"Gospel of the Son of God that has been revealed is a plan or system of laws and ordinances, by strict obedience to which the people who inhabit this earth are assured that they may return again into the presence of the Father and the Son" (JD, 13:233)

Lurkers will note – the gospel of Jesus Christ – confirmed by DU and prophet bring’em young – is a bloodless doctrine of works.

LOL! Yeah, so you know the "true interpretation of scripture", my church's doctrine better than any member, and I suppose you are also good looking, right and perpetually young.s

so far you’ve done an excellent job of trying to obscure the mormon church’s doctrines.

So... That is your irrefutable proof? LOL! I don't suppose you would think that I might have an alternate interpretation? Jesus was indeed the mortal, bodily fullness of the Godhead. Your interpretation of the scripture is wrong, but it's not the first time.

Lurkers, prepare yourselves for another trip down DU la-la land of bible interpretation.

As for collosians, you rendered it:
Jesus...being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness...he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross
The KJV renders it
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
There is indeed a big difference between being in very nature, God and being in the Form of God. I am in the form of God, so are you.

Lurkers, don’t you just love it when a mormon apologist tries to contrast translations, yet fails epically to actually go to the Greek behind the translations. LOL. Not sure just what bible DU is using – never heard of “collosians “ Why not try Philippians DU, it helps greatly when you get your scriptures straight. (Also using NIV fries mormon’s brains as well LOL)

Lurkers will note DU is trying to parse a difference between “form of God” and “nature of God”, the Greek is “morphē”. Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words remarks that morphe-

denotes "the special or characteristic form or feature" of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phl 2:6, 7, in the phrases "being in the form of God," and "taking the form of a servant." An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: "morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists . . . . Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ . . . . For the interpretation of 'the form of God' it is sufficient to say that

(1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and
(2) that it does not include in itself anything 'accidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the 'form,' at another separated from it . . . .
The true meaning of morphe in the expression 'form of God' is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, 'form of a servant.' It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that 'form' must therefore have the same sense in both." * [* From Gillford, "The Incarnation," pp. 16, 19, 39.]

So DU, there is indeed a big difference between form and nature – that difference is made manifest in the Greek from which the bible was translated from. KJV relies on older definitions and word usages, NIV on more current scholarship and understanding gained since the KJV was produced. You are not the NATURE of God DU, nor are you even the FORM of God as God is Spirit – or are you going to throw the words of Jesus under the bus as well?

[GZ]. . . Lurkers – an of you wonder why DU doesn’t have the same faith in the bible as he does the bom?
[DU] Now, to top it all off, you know how how much faith I have, truly you are a wonder.

You are stuttering again DU. Then why when confronted by biblical passages that completely refute mormonism do you always revert to attacking the credibility of the bible?

[GZ]Which of the nine different stories given by smithy should one believe.
[DU] How about, the only one Joseph smith was happy with?

LOL, lurkers, if you go to this mormon website , and read the various versions and background behind the evolving first vision stories, you may wonder just how happy he was about this.

The ‘favored’ first vision account was not written by smith, but by James Mulholland alledgedly in 1838, but not published until 1842. What DU doesn’t like to acknowledge is that there are earlier accounts in smith’s own handwriting that differ significantly. One in particular is an 1832 diary that smith kept – states he was 15 (not the official 14) years old; had determined on his own all churches were wrong (not the official ‘A local revival caused him to wonder which church was right, it had never occurred to him all were wrong’ version); has a ‘vision’ of Jesus (no heavenly father as in the official); and totally lacks the other aspects of the ‘official version.

Of course – if you go back earlier, you find smith’s first vision accounts associated with treasure seeking and gold plates. Liars change their accounts over time, and smith’s multiple versions prove him to be an unreliable source of testimony.

Actually, I was just reflecting your attack methodology, it's hard to find any "symbol" that has not been passed back and forth, if you look you can find whatever you are looking for.

LOL, Lurkers will note that DU was called on the carpet for claiming that Christians use a satanic symbol – the cross – totally ignoring Jesus’ words to “take up our cross and follow him”. Now it is ‘methodology’, LOL, sophomoric to the max.

James 2:14-26 anyone? James teaches works are necessary to salvation, exactly what I have been saying, exactly what you have been saying is against all that Paul teaches. Now you are saying they are in agreement? LOL!

Lurkers will note once again that DU can’t figure out what context is or simple reading comprehension. James never links works to salvation – James does note that works will be apparent after an authentic grace-based saving faith is present. Significant difference – evidence of mormons putting the cart before the horse once again.

[GZ] Each man had a very different perspective. Paul was declaring how a guilty, lost sinner could get right with God. James was writing about how a saved person could SHOW that his faith was real. As usual, mormons put the cart before the horse on this subject. What comes first – faith or works.
[DU] So, it's your assertion that we believe that Works come before faith? Who would do woks before they believed? That's ludicrous.

To put it more precisely, mormons place works before salvation (saving faith). Salvation is by grace alone – no works (see dozens of previous citations from Paul’s letters) in the mix. Mormon doctrine requires works BEFORE grace can be applied – even your AOF 3 states the same

MORONI 10:32: “Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, . .

[GZ]As has been pointed out by DU, faith (salvation) can only come AFTER obedience to the laws and ordinances >(AOF 3).
[du]Again, your interpretation is flawed, as usual. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

LOL – Lurkers, here is aof 3 again -

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

Lurkers will note – salvation by the mormons is conditional (may be saved), and that condition is >, by obedience to the laws and ordinances Works must be accomplished prior to salvation. The Gospel that Paul taught is that salvation cannot be earned by laws and ordinances – but is received by grace, unmerited favor (It would do DU good to look up that definition).

We are indeed saved by grace, but judged by works. The Bible says so.

Lurkers will note the difficulty DU has with AOF 3 with states quite clearly that men will be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances - grace is nonexistant in the aof. Mormon doctrine also demands that one must be godly (that the law and ordinances MUST be obeyed perfectly) before BEFORE grace is sufficient. We will see how applicable DU’s scripture passage is to mormonism.

Revelations 20:12-13

Once again - eisegesis – mormons claim their salvation is based upon works, they cherry pick a verse to ‘prove’ it – and fail once again. Had DU read the chapter and received the context placed on his choice, a whole different interpretation would be found. Rev 20 teaches about TWO resurrections. The first Rev 20:4-6 is that of the Righteous – the first resurrection – all the saved individuals will be raised. Rev 20:12-13 present the SECOND resurrection- those unrighteous sinners – and God will show them just how filthy their works were and incapable of ‘earning’ their salvation. Mormons would be careful not to count on getting into heaven based upon this verse.

And since you have so much trouble interpreting scripture, let me help a bit. Without the atonement, all men are guilty of all the law, With the atonement, mercy can be applied by the grace of Jesus.

Jesus died for Adam’s transgression – I thought mormons believed that was a good thing. While your statement reflects mormonism – it doesn’t necessarily reflect the biblical teaching as well as some mormon doctrines. All men stand guilty of the law. Only those who by grace (not works) accepted by faith the sacrifice of Jesus are no longer guilty of the law (again – read Galatians – if you can find it in your bible). To say some aspect of mormon ‘mercy’ enters in is contrary to your doctrines (Moroni 10:32 for example).

Then again, my father told me "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"

And the one who is truly blind is the one who won’t open their eyes.

Yeah yeah yeah, you keep trying to prove we think works will save us, I tire of proving you wrong it is too easy and endlessly repetitively recursive. Mormons believe in Being saved by grace, or not at all. We believe we are commanded to do works to show our faith, and we do them. The Bible says we all will be judged by our works.

Lurkers will note, now there is a backtracking on the works for salvation point – which earlier DU asserted was true. AOF 3 states clearly that obedience to laws and ordinances is a prerequisite for salvation, Moroni 10:32 is clear that all ungodlieness must be removed before grace can take effect. Bring’em young taught mormon gospel was laws and ordinances required to be completely obeyed as a prerequisite for salvation. Mormon ‘repentance’ is by definition “abandonment of sin” accomplished by the individual works. Spencer Kimball in the Miracle of Forgiveness states that there can be no forgiveness without repentance. .

Lurkers will note – the issue is salvation and is that salvation attained in any part by works. Mormons refuse to acknowledge the abundant references in the NT that salvation is by grace alone. DU has clearly stated that it is dependent upon works. Mormon doctrine and teachings are clear that works precede the application of grace. Lurkers will note – Du’s words ring hollow on this point , mormon doctrine and teachings state otherwise.

" Let me make this real simple for you GZ. Prove to me that the Trinity is Biblical, and I'll cease posting for a month. If you can't, then you (by virtue of your failure) admit that it's harder to prove your beliefs than it is to attack another's.

I will present the evidence for the Trinity – but refuse to accept your terms since you’ve proven to be – shall we say - less than honest and honorable in the past.

Since books have been written on this subject, I recommend the lurkers to go to the following sites for greater details (doubt that DU will).

The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity
THE NATURE OF GOD - THE TRI-UNITY OF GOD
A Christian Thinktank – The Trinity
WHAT IS THE TRINITY, Plus links.
Mormonism 201: Chapter 3 - The Trinity
The Trinity
Jesus as God's Wisdom, and the Trinity Doctrine
The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity
The Doctrine of the Trinity

Boiled down to its very essence the doctrine of the Trinity has two simple components -
1. There is only one TRUE God - Deuteronomy 4:35, 6:4, 10:14, Psalm 96:5, 97:9, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6-8, 44:24, 45:5-6, 45:21-23, 46:9, 48:11-12, John 17:3, 1 Timothy 2:5, Revelation 1:8, (Hosea 13:4). He is not, in His essential nature, a man: Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19. All other gods are false gods.
2. There are three Persons - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – each of which are identified as God.
a. Father - 1 Peter 1:2; Philippians 2:11
b. Jesus - 2 Peter 1:1; Titus 2:13; John 1:1; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8
c. Holy Spirit - Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

“Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance....And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” —Athanasian Creed

Now if Du is earnest in his desire to understand and come to believe in the Trinity he will honestly study the materials presented in the links, read his bible, pray asking with a sincere heart, with real intent for God to testify of Jesus and ask God to reveal the truth of the Trinity and listen for God's response.

Its been a long time? Must be; I don't recall conversing with you. I don't mean to be crass in that regard. Either that, or you 'lurked' on a thread I posted to. In that regard, yes, its been a while since I've posted a reply in the Religious Forum. Frankly, I've been on self-imposed FR exile for a while. That's not material nor germane to the issue at hand however.

I do recall debating the doctrine of the Trinity with a person who eventually - after several weeks of back and forth - revealed they were Christadelphian. That was probably almost 3/4 decade ago; a lot has changed since then (both in my workman's ability and personal circumstances). In any event, unfortunately, as the case turned out in this particular encounter, I ended up rustling my robes and shaking dust off of my sandels for a particular reason that I cite below and will become apparent should you have the patience to read my entire post. To be fair in that regard, I've only read (and addressed 1/2 of your reply to me). I'm looking into the other half of your post.

Just as the Word declares the Lord to be longsuffering but His patience has limits, so does mine. In fact, given that I'm as lowly cretin that I am, there should be no illusions by anybody that my patience is as longsuffering as the Lord's. That most especially when it became clear to me the individual in question had no interest to hear or see the Truth of the Word; insisting on deliberate deaf or blindness; they being only interested in arguing for argument's sake. I don't have patience to engage in mental gynmastics - for argument's sake or intellectual excercise - and I haven't a clue whether I can convince you of the error inherent nontrinitarian doctrine (or is it dogma). I will, however, attempt to present as compelling apologia of trinitarian doctrine as I'm capable of. It is my fervent prayer that I'm a suitable tool for the Spirit in that regard. In Jesus' most precious and Holy name, Amen.

As far as 'dogma' - as you put it - of the Trinity, it is fundamental doctrine adhered to by various christian denominations (which incidently I believe fundamentally unbiblical). That notwithstanding, and that particular issue set aside, the crux of the matter isn't that of dogma by institutional religion (which I loathe), but what truth can be eisegetically discerned by reasonable, intellectually honest, independent study of the scriptures, with sincere prayer to the Spirit for illumination and edification from The Word?

Frankly I'm unfamiliar with whatever discourse we've had, but allow me to assure you that I have no interest in agitation or bomb throwing as you put it. I don't have the time to waste on such nonsense. In fact I need to address that issue forefront and center, right now, above all else, and just to make things crystal as far as that goes, and what not. O.k.? Jude 3 exhorts "...ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

What's telling in that verse is how many faith's there are, how often it was dispensed and to whom.

The interlinear for "that ye should earnestly contend" is epagonizomai (Strong's #1864) attributed to the roots #1909 & #75. The latter (agonizomai, from #73; to struggle, literally (to compete for a prize), figuratively (to contend with an adversary), or genitive case (to endeavor to accomplish something):--fight, labor fervently, strive.

#73 agaon (from #71, i.e., to lead, bring, drive, bring forth), a contest; figuratively, an effort or anxiety:--conflict, contention, fight, race.

AT Robertson says of #1864: Late and rare (in Plutarch, inscriptions) compound, here only in N.T. A little additional (epi) striving to the already strong agônizesthai (agôn contest). Cf. I Tit 6:12 agônizou ton kalon agôna.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary states: "A strong argument for resisting heretical innovators (Jud 25). Believers, like Nehemiah's workmen (Neh 4:17), with one hand "build themselves up in their most holy faith"; with the other they" contend earnestly for the faith" against its foes." The latter is implying 'combat', somthing that Vines concurs with:

"to contend about a thing, as a combatant" the intensity infered through agon (the word "earnestly" added to convey the intensive force of the preposition).

Albert Barnes suggests that the word "is one of those words used by the sacred writers which have allusion to the Grecian games."

In his commentary regarding I Cor 9:24,25, he makes the case Paul is referring to

the well-known athletic games at Corinth...By the phrase, "know ye not," Paul intimates that those games to which he alludes, were well known to them, and that they must be familiar with their design, and with the manner in which they were conducted. The games to which the apostle alludes were celebrated with extraordinary pomp and splendour, every fourth year, on the Isthmus which joined the Peloponnesus to the main land, and on a part of which the city of Corinth stood. There were in Greece four species of games: the Pythian, or Delphic; the Isthmian, or Corinthian; the Nemean, and the Olympic. On these occasions persons were assembled from all parts of Greece, and the time during which they continued was devoted to extraordinary festivity and amusement. The Isthmian or Corinthian games were celebrated in the narrow part of the Isthmus of Corinth, to the north of the city, and were doubtless the games to which the apostle more particularly alluded, though the games in each of the places were substantially of the same nature, and the same illustration would in the main apply to all. The Nemean games were celebrated at Nemaea, a town of Argolis, and were instituted by the Argives in honour of Archemorus, who died by the bite of a serpent, but were renewed by Hercules. They consisted of horse and foot races, of boxing, leaping, running, etc. The conqueror was at first rewarded with a crown of olive, afterwards of green parsley. They were celebrated every third, or, according to others, every fifth year. The Pythian games were celebrated every four years at Delphi, in Phocis, at the foot of Mount Parnassus, where was the seat of the celebrated Delphic oracle. These games were of the same character substantially as those celebrated in other places, and attracted persons not only from other parts of Greece, but from distant countries. See Travels of Anacharsis, vol. ii. pp. 375--418. The Olympic games were celebrated in Olympia, a town of Elis, on the southern bank of the Alphiss river, on the western part of the Peloponnesus. They were on many accounts the most celebrated of any in Greece. They were said to have been instituted by Hercules, who planted a grove called Altis, which he dedicated to Jupiter. They were attended not only from all parts of Greece, but from the most distant countries. These were celebrated every fourth year; and hence, in Grecian chronology, a period of four years was called an Olympiad. See Anacharsis, vol. iii. 434, seq. It thus happened that in one or more of these places, there were games celebrated every year, to which no small part of the inhabitants of Greece were attracted. Though the apostle probably had particular reference to the Isthmian games celebrated in the vicinity of Corinth, yet his illustration is applicable to them all; for in all the exercises were nearly the same. They consisted chiefly in leaping, running, throwing the discus or quoit, boxing, wrestling.

The implication here is an obvious aknowlegement that combative sports comprised these games. He goes on to say in his commentary of Jude 3:

"This word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It means to contend upon--i. e. for or about anything; and would be applicable to the earnest effort put forth in those games to obtain the prize. The reference here, of course, is only to contention by argument, by reasoning, by holding fast the principles of religion, and maintaining them against all opposers. It would not justify "contention" by arms, by violence, or by persecution; for:

that is contrary to the spirit of true religion, and to the requirements of the gospel elsewhere revealed;
it is not demanded by the proper meaning of the word, all that that fairly implies being the effort to maintain truth by argument and by a steady life;
it is not the most effectual way to keep up truth in the world to attempt to do it by force and arms."

So bruises, sprains, bloody nose, dislocations, fractures or broken bones, etc. are not out of the question in such earnest contention, albeit purely figuratively, eh? But it is with such zealousness that Truth is to be guarded / defended. Case in point: when Joshua wrestled with the Angel of the Lord and He injured him. As such, you threw down and bellowed loud and bloody that you did so.

Did you expect somebody to merely demure "hey, dropped something there." No. I'm calling you out on it. As far as I'm concerned: those are fighting words; I'm lathered up about it. With regards towards your comments about heretics:

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, - Tit 3:10,11a

AT Roberts says: "Heretical (hairetikon). Old adjective from hairesis (haireomai, to choose), a choosing of a party (sect, Act 5:17) or of teaching (II Pet 2:1). Possibly a schism had been started here in Crete. Is perverted (exestraptai). Perfect passive indicative of ekstrephô, old word to turn inside out, to twist, to pervert. Only here in N.T. "

Nontrinitarianism is a perversion of the common plain sense intimation of the overarching teachings throughout Scipture concerning the nature of God. You state that we can quote scripture at each other all day long and it won't mean anything. That's only true of what's being said is:

meaningless
gibberish
not interpreted or ignored

However, Scripture sates that the Lord is not the author of confusion, so that thows out the first two options, leaving only the third. To escape between the horns a 4th or additional alternative needs to be presented. But such is irrelevent to the topic at hand.

The Bible specifically states over and over again that there is only one God. This is why its incorrect to say that there are three Gods in one God. However, Scripture is clear that all three Persons of the Godhead are God and Lord in and of Themselves. God the Father is the first Person of the Trinity, His Son Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Trinity, and the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity. The Trinity as a unit is the Godhead.

There is no question that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are three separate, complete and individual Persons with their own individual, unique identities. So why does God the Father keep stating that there is only one God in Scripture? This is one of the mysteries of the Trinity that many people have a hard time with.

One must keep in mind that given God is infinite and as such His true nature and characteristics are incomprehensible to mortal finite Man. However, aspects of His being can be comprehended in as far as He has chosen to reveal Himself to us. Abraham desired to see His face, but God told him he could not bear it. However, He did allow Abraham to shield himself in a cleft of the rock and God showed His backside (whatever that is) to him. When Abraham returned He was glowing.

When asked what God's name was, He said: "I am that I am."

Since God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all God and Lord Themselves – this means that all Three of Them are totally perfect in Their actual personalities and natures. And if They are totally perfect in Their actual personalities – then this now means They are totally capable of being perfectly one with one another.

Jesus keeps repeating the statement that He and His Father “are one.” In other words, They are perfectly one with one another, They are in perfect harmony with one another, They are in perfect agreement with one another, They are in perfect unison with one another.

Since the Two of Them are both God and Lord Themselves – this now means this divine union between the Two of them is a perfect divine union. This perfect divine union of oneness between the Two of Them is so perfect, that God the Father can now say that there is only one God – not 3 separate Gods.

The same thing goes for the Holy Spirit. He is perfectly “one” with both God and Jesus. And since the Bible specifically tells us that the Holy Spirit is God and Lord Himself – then this now means His personal, divine union with both God and Jesus is a perfect divine union. As such, He too can be included as being part of the Godhead – where God the Father can now state that there is only one God, but one God in three, separate, perfect Persons within the actual Godhead itself.

Since all angels and all humans are imperfect, this means that we are not capable of establishing any type of perfect, divine, God-union with either God Himself or with any other human. Only God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have the ability to establish a perfect divine union with either Themselves, with one of us, or one of Their angels.

I believe that this “perfect divine oneness,” this “perfect divine union” between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is so “God-perfect” – that God the Father can now state that there is only one true God – but one God in three separate, unique and individual Persons.

For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. - 1 Jno 5:7

Is there any doubt that The Word is Jesus? John tells us that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "one". This verse is telling us that we are specifically dealing with a God Trinity involving three, separate Persons – but with all Three of these Persons being “perfectly one” with one another!

And if They are all God and Lord Themselves, and above verse is telling us that They are perfectly one with one another – then the Holy Spirit has just given us perfect proof text that we are now dealing with a Holy Divine Trinity of one God in three Persons.

I believe that this dovetails perfectly with the Hebrew word for God, i.e., Elohim (a plural noun) which is derived from a singular verb root, i.e., eloah and always used with either a singular verb, adjective or pronoun (he, him or his and NEVER they, or them, or their, etc.).

I pray that Lord convicts you of the wisdom the words I've written is intended to convey. It is not my vain and puffed up knowlege which I attempt to persuade you with; the Lord is a respecter of no person and He is little impressed by those who profess themselves to be wise and learned (having letters to prove it). It is my sincere and fervent prayer that I can shew myself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, [having] rightly dividing the word of truth. God is my witness, that all I've said was in meekness, kindness and love for another wretched sinner as I (scrounging in the dumpster for a scrap to eat): here is some food! Here, eat, it is the bread of life.

In Jesus' name, Amen. Amen. And Amen.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.