How Anti-mormonism Turns Faith Into Used Chewing Gum

[Gordon]

MORMONS HATE THE BIBLE!

No, we (LDS) reject the false interpretations of it and the secular heresies to which you espouse.

 

[Theo1689]

There's no grounds to do so. The evidence shows it was addressed to them, the covenant people. That's the evidence.

Great!
Then you've just admitted defeat!
The issue is NOT who the "audience" is.
The issue is your FALSE claim that the assertion was "subjective", an,d LIMITED to only the Jews.

YOU HAVE REFUSED TO DO SO.
YOU HAVE LOST THE DEBATE.

Congratulations!

The burden of proof is upon you to affirmatively prove it applies to non-believers.

No, it's not.
YOU were the one who claimed it ONLY meant "for YOU PEOPLE ONLY, there exists only one God", even though it doesn't even come close to sayng that.

You can't support your false claim.
Therefore you lose.

Now learn some humility, and take the "L" like a man.

We could ask if the Old Testament did apply to non-believers, why didn't God didn't punish other nations for not obeying His Law, such as practicing idolatry?

Questions are not valid argumnents.
You are just DODGING the issue.

Well, I'd ask for the authoritative source that defines your beliefs, but....

Thank you for admitting that you reject the Bible.

And once AGAIN, this forum is NOT for discussing "[my] beliefs".

No. The Trinity wasn't even conceived prior to Jesus. It's clearly your problem.

The discussion is NOT about "the Trinity".
Stop DODGING the issue.

 

[Aaron32]

I've pointed this out multiple times now.

It seems as if Christians here are guilty of Bonnie's observed Mormon apologetic tactics:

3. Repeat the same old questions, over and over again, and....
4. Pretend we have not answered their questions or dealt with their points, to make it appear that we have not, and they have won the debate
5. Ignore our points and Bible verses that put their quoted bible verses into proper perspective, that show that they have misinterpreted and/or misunderstood what the Bible was talking about

I hope lurker's can see how subjective these observations are.

 

[Aaron32]

Great!
Then you've just admitted defeat!
The issue is NOT who the "audience" is.
The issue is your FALSE claim that the assertion was "subjective", and LIMITED to only the Jews.

YOU HAVE REFUSED TO DO SO.
YOU HAVE LOST THE DEBATE.

Congratulations!

Huh?

You: We can read and understand the Bble, if that's what you're asking.
Me: [C]an you understand beyond your limited interpretation?
You: What part of my interpretation is "limited"?
Me: The fact that you can't recognize that Judaism was originally henotheistic and changed around 600 BC.
You: Well, Deut. 4 says you're wrong.
Me: Oh, weird. What's the first line of Deut 4 "Now therefore hearken, O Israel" Not the world.
You: Why do you find that "weird'?
Me: to point out that it was addressed to the nation of Israel, the covenant people, not the whole world.
You: You STILL haven't demonstrated that it was "only true for them, and not for anyone else".
Me: There's no grounds to do so. The evidence shows it was addressed to them, the covenant people. That's the evidence.

Cite the text that defines the 'assertion' I claimed was subjective?

My guess is, you'll ignore this request, running away claiming that you've somehow "won" something and there's no further need to discuss.
If anything I've proven that Deuteronomy was address to the Jews. You then tried moving the goal posts by trying me to put me on the defensive that I should prove "only true for them, and not for anyone else". Last time I checked, we don't live the law of Moses, nor is there any evidence of non-Israelite nations living according to the Law of Moses. So, clearly it was true for them, and not for anyone else.

Jehovah was the God of the covenant people. Other nations had their gods that they worshipped. They did not covenant with Jehovah. This is all fact. Any warped way you want to twist this around and say that I've lost is all in your head.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

YOU were the one who claimed it ONLY meant "for YOU PEOPLE ONLY, there exists only one God", even though it doesn't even come close to sayng that.

Right. I did that. That's exactly what it says.

You can't support your false claim.

I did, and you've yet to refute it.

Therefore you lose.

Clearly, you care more about score keeping rather than objective truth.

Now learn some humility, and take the "L" like a man.

Childish...I'm embarrassed for you.

Questions are not valid argumnents.

Then answer the question. You can't. That's why it breaks your argument.
I don't need an argument to prove your beliefs wrong, I just need to show that your beliefs are irrational.

Thank you for admitting that you reject the Bible.

Nope, I never did.

And once AGAIN, this forum is NOT for discussing "[my] beliefs".

Oh yes, now you want to escape the discussion by any means possible.
Next line of argument will be a list of complaints saying that everything is "off topic."

The discussion is NOT about "the Trinity".
Stop DODGING the issue.

Sure it is. That's the ONE God, you believe in, and why Mormons are wrong, correct?

 

[organgrinder]

Secular Christians believe in false doctrines.

Incorrect.

They are still waiting for the coming of the Messiah.

The Jews are still waiting, even though they missed Him the first time. And?

Strawman. Heavenly Father is no more "beholden" than the prophet is.

According to you. If that were the case, no sustaining votes necessary, right?

This is so childish, and meant to bait. If you want a "definition", you've been given one... authority.

Authority from whom to whom?

They aren't meant to be identified, since they are irrelevant to our Salvation. We worship Heavenly Father alone as God.

So those real other gods exist. Where we don't know but you believe they are real. So you are henotheistic (I was wrong about the polytheistic term. I meant henotheism.)

Another silly statement meant to slight. Just like "cult", it is used to disparage. You know by using such a label, it elicits the idea of worshiping multiple gods. While acknowledging the existence of other gods...we worship only one.

Maybe you do only worship one, maybe you worship three or more. And the Christ (Jesus) you worship differs from the Christ (Jesus) we worship, says your former president, prophet, apostle and revelator Gordon Hinckley. By this we know we worship different Christs, right? And your Father God was once a man according to Joseph Smith, whereas the Christian and Jewish God never was (don't even think about the incarnation... the old Mormon fallback diversion). I don't think we actually know who you worship, but it isn't the biblical God.

Nothing in the Bible requires belief in only one god to exist for Salvation.

Mormons believe doctrinally everyone is "saved" from the fall. The Mormon "salvation " differs from Christian salvation so yes, belief in One God is necessary by faith in the living Son of God, Jesus.

We believe, as the Bible, and Jesus Himself taught, that we can receive all that the Father has.

OK.

You have been shown that your understanding is incorrect.
Clearly, you do not know what this term means.

Actually I do. You worship three "gods" (Mormon Father, Son (Jehovah) and the Holy Ghost) and believe in the existence of many more. Polytheism in a system that is also henotheistic.

 

[organgrinder]

.

No, it's not difficult at all if you can get out of the man made teaching of the necessity of monotheism, and recognizing God's authority, and His personal relationship with us. "The Word" is God. Jesus disciples were given power to forgive sins because they had "the Word".

Monotheism is what the written Word of God teaches. There has been a sizeable list posted.

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Rephrased: To those whom the word of God came, God called them "gods".
This is what Jesus said, and scripture cannot be broken.

Yes and your understanding of that Psalm 82 quoted passage and our understanding of it are quite different. The Mormon understanding ignores the sizeable number of one God, only One God, verses and instead zeros in on Psalm 82. The gods mentioned were judges. We don't need to revisit this again do we?

Mormonism is about the restoration of Israel.

Nope. Romans 9, 10 and 11 tell about the election, rejection and restoration of Israel. No Mormonism there.

Exodus: 19:6
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Jeremiah 31:
31 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Eph 1:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Yup. Great scriptures. All true.

D&C 1:
17 Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;
18 And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—
19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—
20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;

2 Ne 32:
2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?
3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.
4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.

3 Ne 11:
(Jesus speaking)
28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.
31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

D&C 132:
7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

“Bring with you all that you have of good and truth which you have received from whatever source, and come and let us see if we may add to it.” —President Gordon B. Hinckley

Sorry Aaron. I don't buy into the Book of Mormon or Hinckley. Remember, Hinckley said Mormons-- perhaps LDS would be a better term-- worship a different Christ (Jesus) than Christians worship. That which is different is not the same.

 

[Gordon]

Incorrect.

Correct. We can do this all day long...

The Jews are still waiting, even though they missed Him the first time. And?

You appeal to the beliefs of Judaism to counter LDS beliefs...even though they don't even believe the Messiah has come. It's like dismissing my beliefs because Muslims disagree...the same people that believe Jesus was merely a prophet.

According to you. If that were the case, no sustaining votes necessary, right?

Where are you getting "votes" from? To sustain means to support.

Authority from whom to whom?

God, the Father. Just like the authority He gave to Jesus to be a God. The Priesthood is authority to act in the name of God.

And the Christ (Jesus) you worship differs from the Christ (Jesus) we worship

Tangent. Critics always resort to this garbage. Yes, we believe different aspects regarding Him... regardless of your misunderstanding of Hinckley's intention. It is still the same Christ spoken of in the Bible.

Mormons believe doctrinally everyone is "saved" from the fall.

Incorrect. Jesus Redeemed Mankind from Sin and Death (the Fall), which is the free gift (Grace)...yet not all are "saved". One must accept Jesus as the Christ, repent of their sins (with real intent and sorrow, honestly seeking to turn from them), and be baptized by authority. This qualifies for Salvation.

Salvation

Gospel topic information and links to additional resources

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

belief in One God is necessary

This is not supported by Biblical text

You worship three "gods" (Mormon Father, Son (Jehovah) and the Holy Ghost)

Again... incorrect. We worship the Father as God, alone. We worship Jesus as the Christ, the Redeemer of Mankind. If you think that is "idolatry", then, like I said, you clearly have no idea what that term actually means. Furthermore, acknowledging the existence of other gods who
we neither worship in any way, shape or form, nor create idols to...is also not "idolatry".

 

[organgrinder]

You appeal to the beliefs of Judaism to counter LDS beliefs...even though they don't even believe the Messiah has come. It's like dismissing my beliefs because Muslims disagree...the same people that believe Jesus was merely a prophet.

Judaism adheres to monotheism which is what this about. It makes no difference if they have accepted the coming of Jesus as Messiah or not at this juncture. It doesn't change the fact they believe and have believed in monotheism.

Where are you getting "votes" from? To sustain means to support.

Oh... so can the Mormon God of the divine council be non-supported? There would need to be an accounting, yes?

God, the Father. Just like the authority He gave to Jesus to be a God. The Priesthood is authority to act in the name of God.

Maybe the Mormon god gave Jesus authority to become a God, but the biblical Triune Godhead existed from eternity. And all believers in Jesus-- women too-- share in that priesthood.

Tangent. Critics always resort to this garbage. Yes, we believe different aspects regarding Him... regardless of your misunderstanding of Hinckley's intention. It is still the same Christ spoken of in the Bible.

No. He said they were different. Plain English.

Incorrect. Jesus Redeemed Mankind from Sin and Death (the Fall), which is the free gift (Grace)...yet not all are "saved". One must accept Jesus as the Christ, repent of their sins (with real intent and sorrow, honestly seeking to turn from them), and be baptized by authority. This qualifies for Salvation.

Salvation from Physical Death. All people eventually die. But through the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected—saved from physical death. Paul testified, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). In this sense, everyone is saved, regardless of choices made during this life. This is a free gift from the Savior to all human beings.
All go to one of three kingdoms and some to outer darkness. There is no hell according to Mormons here. Mormon "salvation" differs greatly from Christian biblical salvation. And the only recognized baptism is LDS baptism, correct? You need a Mormon Melchizedek priest for that authority, correct? Christians only need a born-again believer to baptize another person who also professes to be a believer.

 

[Gordon]

Judaism adheres to monotheism

This is not the "Judaism" forum. Their current beliefs are not relevant to this discussion. You, as well as I, believe their beliefs are in error (regarding the Christ)...yet trying to use them to counter LDS beliefs is disingenuous. In this regard, is doesn't matter what they believe. You asked me to clarify, and I did. Dismissing it by saying "that's not what Judaism believes" is silly.

Oh... so can the Mormon God of the divine council be non-supported? There would need to be an accounting, yes?

Of course there would be an accounting...that's why a third of the host of heaven were expelled for rebelling. In the LDS Church, likewise, of you fail to support/sustain the prophets/apostles, you will not be allowed to enter the temple.

the biblical Triune Godhead existed from eternity. And all believers in Jesus-- women too-- share in that priesthood.

More heretical doctrines.

No. He said they were different. Plain English.

Like usual, the critics ignore context.

Salvation from Physical Death. All people eventually die. But through the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected--saved from physical death.

The article was clear... this is not the same as personal salvation.

There is no hell according to Mormons here.

There is. Those who inherit telestial glory will spend a thousand years in hell. Outer Darkness can also be considered "hell".

And the only recognized baptism is LDS baptism, correct?

Yes. Within the LDS Church is found the authority to perform saving ordinances.

Christians only need a born-again believer to baptize another person who also professes to be a believer.

This is non-Biblical.

 

[Aaron32]

Monotheism is what the written Word of God teaches. There has been a sizeable list posted.

Yes, monotheism in the terms of worshipping one God. But your side takes it a bridge too far with the intent to exclude us from Christianity.

Mormons believe Jehovah is Jesus. We are not guilty of the idolatry that the prophets preached against in the Old Testament.
Yet, we believe that faithful Saints will be rulers, and in offices of authority, given by God, to continue His work throughout eternity.
Because we call people with authority in heavenly realm "gods", the term was used in Psalm 82, you guys want to make us out to be like the heathen nations that worshipped engraven images. That's false and rather offensive.

Fact: One must accept the existence of "other gods" to obey the commandment "Thou shalt not no 'other gods' before me. According to your side, simply acknowing the existence of 'other gods' is considered "polytheism" and no longer "monotheism". Your beating up Gordon on the "reality" of false gods, drilling him on the reality of their "godhood." Their real in the sense that they exist.

Yes and your understanding of that Psalm 82 quoted passage and our understanding of it are quite different.

Well, you say that, but how so. I have no problem accepting the "gods" being addressed as men with God given authority. How do you define them?

The Mormon understanding ignores the sizeable number of one God, only One God, verses and instead zeros in on Psalm 82. The gods mentioned were judges. We don't need to revisit this again do we?

You tell me. It sounds were in agreement that they they were men given God's authority to do his work. It seems to be the term that is offensive to you, because it's the title of the Being you worship. It affirms that Jesus was an exalted man, and that's probably an uncomfortable thought, thinking that is detracts away from Christ's holiness and divinity, but such doesn't have to be the case. It's just a word that represents a concept.

If you can get past the term, and accept the definition that we seem to mutually agreed upon,
let's consider this, how many "gods" do Mormons serve and/or worship?

There's a commandment to honor your father and mother who is the head (has authority over) the family, so that's one. There's priesthood authorities in Church: bishop, stake president, area authority seventy, the quorum of twelve, the first presidency, and generally anyone we sustain in their individual callings from Sunday School teacher to the guy in charge of cleaning the building. Collectively, as the Church we could say that's two. There's the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That's three. There's bosses of those that work, our customers if one is self-employed, that's four. There's government authorities, politicians,and law enforcement. That's five. Am I leaving any ruling class out that influences our lives? So, I've counted 5 ruling classes, but we could break these all into individuals and say we serve a whole patheon.
Paul said "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;" (Col 3:22-24) So, with this in mind, can you honestly compare us to the idolaters of the Old Testament, and claim we are ignoring the verses cited?

So because we literally agree with Paul that are many so-called gods and lords, yet, to us there is on God, and one Lord...that makes us equivalent to the heathen nations of the Old Testament?

By becoming parents, we can become "gods" ourselves. Anti-mormons say we do this with the intent of being exalted so that we can be worshipped. But what is missed is the moral of the story which is those that seek their own glory gets cast down, and those that seek God's glory get exalted. That's the same message Jesus preached.

How can you not recognize how anti-mormons portray us as anything but a smear campaign? I guess knowing that good-hearted people, such as you and Bonnie, to buy into and promote this narrative makes me so upset.

Nope. Romans 9, 10 and 11 tell about the election, rejection and restoration of Israel.

Right. Well, if you really flesh it out, and go below the surface you'll find that to do so, covenants are required. Covenants require priesthood authority. We don't see one Lord, one faith, one baptism in the Protestant realm. If you can't see Mormonism in the gathering of Israel, then I dare say you've fundamentally misunderstood Mormonism.

Yup. Great scriptures. All true.

Glad you like them.

Sorry Aaron. I don't buy into the Book of Mormon or Hinckley. Remember, Hinckley said Mormons-- perhaps LDS would be a better term-- worship a different Christ (Jesus) than Christians worship. That which is different is not the same.

Fair enough. Can you give up the man made idea of Trinity to worship the God of the Bible? If not, then I guess it is what it is.

 

[organgrinder]

Yes, monotheism in the terms of worshipping one God. But your side takes it a bridge too far with the intent to exclude us from Christianity.

Mormons believe Jehovah is Jesus. We are not guilty of the idolatry that the prophets preached against in the Old Testament.
Yet, we believe that faithful Saints will be rulers, and in offices of authority, given by God, to continue His work throughout eternity.
Because we call people with authority in heavenly realm "gods", the term was used in Psalm 82, you guys want to make us out to be like the heathen nations that worshipped engraven images. That's false and rather offensive.

Fact: One must accept the existence of "other gods" to obey the commandment "Thou shalt not no 'other gods' before me. According to your side, simply acknowing the existence of 'other gods' is considered "polytheism" and no longer "monotheism". Your beating up Gordon on the "reality" of false gods, drilling him on the reality of their "godhood." Their real in the sense that they exist.

Well, I appreciate your answer, but don't agree I must accept the existence of other gods in the sense of "real gods". God commanded Moses to have no other gods before Him. Were the people worshiping real gods or statues, inventions of their own minds, etc? God had shown by the miracles in Egypt where he debunked all the Egyptian gods and the parting of the Red Sea that He alone was God and there was no other-- not just to the Israelites but also to the surrounding nations. We see the fear and dread of people surrounding Israel when they finally went into the promised land for the people had hear about the God of Israel. He was real. Theirs weren't.

In the millennial kingdom Jesus will be on the throne of David as prophesied and we will under His authority for whatever purposes He has for us. We are a kingdom of priests per Exodus 19:6. The Textus Receptus on which the KJV New Testament is based has it "kings and priests". Other translations based on older manuscripts have it like this:
Rev 1:6
He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
NASU
Those in the millennial kingdom will do whatever He bids.
we have a different understanding of "god" as referenced in Psalm 82. we understand "gods" to be earthly judges and rulers who simply were not good. They acted like "gods" but in reality were simply men.

I was just reading this morning in Ezekiel 28 and here is what it says.

Ezekiel 28:1-2 (in fact the verses after that which show the end result of this idolatry) says this:

The word of the Lord came again to me, saying,
2 “Son of man, say to the leader of Tyre, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Because your heart is lifted up And you have said, ‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods In the heart of the seas’; Yet you are a man and not God, Although you make your heart like the heart of God—
NASU

God rebukes this prince for his idolatry, thinking he was a god in what he does. The rest of the verse show what would happen. It parallels Psalm 82 as I read it.

God has been specific in His word. There is no other god than He. Isaiah chapter 43 through 46 make that very clear. Not just to the chosen people, but to all creation.

Well, you say that, but how so. I have no problem accepting the "God's" being addressed as men with God given authority. How do you define them?

Rulers, judges, pastors, presidents, kings, etc. The verse says:
Dan 2:21
He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise And knowledge to those who have understanding.
NKJV

You tell me. It sounds were in agreement that they they were men given God's authority to do his work. It seems to be the term that is offensive to you, because it's the title of the Being you worship. It affirms that Jesus was an exalted man, and that's probably an uncomfortable thought, thinking that is detracts away from Christ's holiness and divinity, but such doesn't have to be the case. It's just a word that represents a concept.

Jesus was and always be God. Here is what Philippians says:
Phil 2:5-11
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
NKJV

In the New Living Translation (not the Living Bible paraphrased) it reads:
Phil 2:5-11
Your attitude should be the kind that was shown us by Jesus Christ,
6 who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God,
7 but laid aside his mighty power and glory, taking the disguise of a slave and becoming like men.
8 And he humbled himself even further, going so far as actually to die a criminal's death on a cross.
9 Yet it was because of this that God raised him up to the heights of heaven and gave him a name which is above every other name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
TLB
He was born as a human being to Mary so he had a human nature. He was also God in the flesh. The scripture says this:
1 Tim 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world,
NKJV
That only refers to Jesus.

If you can get past the term, and accept the definition that we seem to mutually agreed upon,
let's consider this, how many "gods" do Mormons serve and/or worship?

There's a commandment to honor your father and mother who is the head (has authority over) the family, so that's one. There's priesthood authorities in Church: bishop, stake president, area authority seventy, the quorum of twelve, the first presidency, and generally anyone we sustain in their individual callings from Sunday School teacher to the guy in charge of cleaning the building. Collectively, as the Church we could say that's two. There's the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That's three. There's bosses of those that work, our customers if one is self-employed, that's four. There's government authorities, politicians,and law enforcement. That's five. Am I leaving any ruling class out that influences our lives? So, I've counted 5 ruling classes, but we could break these all into individuals and say we serve a whole patheon.
Paul said "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;" (Col 3:22-24) So, with this in mind, can you honestly compare us to the idolaters of the Old Testament, and claim we are ignoring the verses cited?

I am not going there with that definition of "god" used in your example. My parents were never considered by me to be a god. They were my parents. same with my instructors. They weren't gods either. Your examples aren't valid in my book and no Christian believer will buy those examples as "gods" under your definition. If you consider them "gods" per Psalm 82, then also consider the ramifications and the end result of those who considered themselves gods.

So because we literally agree with Paul that are many so-called gods and lords, yet, to us there is on God, and one Lord...that makes us equivalent to the heathen nations of the Old Testament?

If you believe you may become a god or are a "little god" or "god in embryo" (some Word of Faith preachers like those terms and they are very wrong and on dangerous ground) then what do the scriptures say about that?

By becoming parents, we can become "gods" ourselves. Anti-mormons say we do this with the intent of being exalted so that we can be worshipped. But what is missed is the moral of the story which is those that seek their own glory gets cast down, and those that seek God's glory get exalted. That's the same message Jesus preached.

I don't believe as parents we can become "gods oursleves".

 

[organgrinder]

PART TWO

How can you not recognize how anti-mormons portray us as anything but a smear campaign? I guess knowing that good-hearted people, such as you and Bonnie, to buy into and promote this narrative makes me so upset.

I am truly sorry you are upset, but I have to stand by what the written word of God says. One God and only One God. Men are not nor will they ever become gods.

Right. Well, if you really flesh it out, and go below the surface you'll find that to do so, covenants are required. Covenants require priesthood authority. We don't see one Lord, one faith, one baptism in the Protestant realm. If you can't see Mormonism in the gathering of Israel, then I dare say you've fundamentally misunderstood Mormonism.

I don't see Mormonism as the regathering of Israel. I see God regathering Israel as He promised in Ezekiel 37 (vision of the dry bones), the nation rebirthed in a day in May 1948 and the subsequent protection and enlargement of its territories since then. God's promises to Israel still stand and will be fulfilled. Israel will never again leave the land.

God made born again believers part of Israel (read Romans 9-11). We are wild olive branches grafted into the vine. The only priesthood authority required is from Jesus Himself as the Melchizedek High priest. There exists only one Melchizedek priest at a time. Jesus hasn't abdicated that role or title to anyone else.

So not, I don't agree that Mormonism is the regathering of Israel. We will disagree on that.

Glad you like them.

Fair enough. Can you give up the man made idea of Trinity to worship the God of the Bible? If not, then I guess it is what it is.

I don't believe it is man-made. I see evidence throughout scripture. One God, three persons in that One God.

Do me a favor and put me on your prayer list. I talk to the urologist this morning to set a procedure. No cancer but I don't like getting cut on.
Thanks.

 

[organgrinder]

This is not the "Judaism" forum. Their current beliefs are not relevant to this discussion. You, as well as I, believe their beliefs are in error (regarding the Christ)...yet trying to use them to counter LDS beliefs is disingenuous. In this regard, is doesn't matter what they believe. You asked me to clarify, and I did. Dismissing it by saying "that's not what Judaism believes" is silly.
Of course there would be an accounting...that's why a third of the host of heaven were expelled for rebelling. In the LDS Church, likewise, of you fail to support/sustain the prophets/apostles, you will not be allowed to enter the temple.
More heretical doctrines.
Like usual, the critics ignore context.
The article was clear... this is not the same as personal salvation.
There is. Those who inherit telestial glory will spend a thousand years in hell. Outer Darkness can also be considered "hell".
Yes. Within the LDS Church is found the authority to perform saving ordinances.
This is non-Biblical.

The problem is, you don't understand "biblical".

 

[Theo1689]

Me: The fact that you can't recognize that Judaism was originally henotheistic and changed around 600 BC.
You: Well, Deut. 4 says you're wrong.
Me: Oh, weird. What's the first line of Deut 4 "Now therefore hearken, O Israel" Not the world.
You: Why do you find that "weird'?
Me: to point out that it was addressed to the nation of Israel, the covenant people, not the whole world.

Okay, so please explain to me how you think you've "proved" your point.

Deut. 4:35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.​

So please explain to us which word in this verse you think means, "henotheistic".

And please explain to me what you think 'There is no other besides him" means.

You: You STILL haven't demonstrated that it was "only true for them, and not for anyone else".
Me: There's no grounds to do so.

Okay, let me explain somthing to you.
I'm going to be very, very, VERY charitable, and assume that you've at least graduated high school.

When they taught you American history, was that "just for you", or was it absolute truth that is true for everyone?

When they taught you Algebra and Trigonometry, was that "just for you", or was it absolute truth that is true for everyone?

When they taught you Biology and Chemistry, was that "just for you", or was it absolute truth that is true for everyone?

When they taught you English grammar, was that "just for you", or was it absolute truth that is true for everyone?

99.99% of the things we're taught, are ABSOLUTE truths, true for everyone, not "just for you".


Now, Mormons like to make the example, "Well, each of us has different fathers, but we have our own father. We have one father "for us", but that doesn't mean that ohter fathers don't exist. And okay, that's all well and good. But that's an ANALOGY. And an "analogy" doesn't prove truth, it simply makes it more helpful for someone to understand your view, whether your view is true or false.

What Mormons do is CHERRY-PICKING here, and ASSUMING that "gods" are like "fathers", we each only have one, but there are still many out there.

BUT.
YOU.
HAVEN'T.
PROVED.
THAT.
TO.
BE.
TRUE.

And if you want to end this arguing NEVER having proved it, then that's perfectly fine. You just lost the debate. It's as simple as that.

The Bible teaches that only ONE god exists.
Mormonism teaches MANY gods exist.
And you choose to reject God's word in favour of Mormonism.
And then you fee lthe need to TWIST God's word to try to FORCE it to fit Mormonism.

And that simply won't fly.

The evidence shows it was addressed to them, the covenant people. That's the evidence.

Then you have no evidence.
Thank you for conceding the argument.

My guess is, you'll ignore this request, running away

More worthless and insulting rhetoric.

anything I've proven that Deuteronomy was address to the Jews. You then tried moving the goal posts by trying me to put me on the defensive that I should prove "only true for them, and not for anyone else". Last time I checked, we don't live the law of Moses, nor is there any evidence of non-Israelite nations living according to the Law of Moses. So, clearly it was true for them, and not for anyone else.

You're trying to compare the existence of God (which is a fact) with the Mosaic Law (which is a set of commandments)?

And you don't understand that they're not the same thing?

Only one God exists, whether the Gentiles acknowledge them or not.
And the Mosaic Law exists, whether the Gentiles are held under them or not.

(And FYI, you may want to go and read Romans 2:14-16.)

Childish...I'm embarrassed for you.

<sigh>
More childish insults by you.

Then answer the question. You can't. That's why it breaks your argument.
I don't need an argument to prove your beliefs wrong, I just need to show that your beliefs are irrational.

So you think I have to present an argument, but you don't?
Now THAT is "irrational".

Oh yes, now you want to escape the discussion by any means possible.

Only because it's going nowhere, since you keep running away from Scripture and all you're doing is throwing around childish insults.

Sure it is. That's the ONE God, you believe in, and why Mormons are wrong, correct?

Well, not only is the Trinity OFF-TOPIC in this forum.
But you will never understand or accetp it unless you apply "milk before meat".
It's like trying to master Calculus before learning basic arithmetic.
Or more accurately, it's like arrogantly "proclaiming" that Calculus is FALSE, which is your understanding because you haven't mastered basic arithmetic yet.

 

[Aaron32]

Well, I appreciate your answer, but don't agree I must accept the existence of other gods in the sense of "real gods".

Can we agree that "other gods", (ie. anything that can come between man and God) does exist.

God commanded Moses to have no other gods before Him. Were the people worshiping real gods or statues, inventions of their own minds, etc?

From a purely objective philosophical (beyond religious) perspective, this is a question we should be asking ourselves.
To me, the Trinity is the invention of man. I'm sure a God of flesh and bone is an invention to you.
If we both claim salvation in Jesus, is it within our Christian responsibility to criticize another of who they think God is, or can we just stick to loving our neighbor as ourselves, and treating others as we would like to be treated?

God had shown by the miracles in Egypt where he debunked all the Egyptian gods and the parting of the Red Sea that He alone was God and there was no other--

Yes. Mormons believe this also.

not just to the Israelites but also to the surrounding nations. We see the fear and dread of people surrounding Israel when they finally went into the promised land for the people had hear about the God of Israel.

Other nations feared, but that doesn't equate to actual faith. the "...devils also believe, and tremble."

He was real. Theirs weren't.

There's examples in the Old Testament of Jehovah being superior to the gods of other nations, but you can't holistically claim that whenever the members of non-Israelite nations prayed they were praying to inventions of their own minds. This goes by the OP of this thread. Maybe it had nothing to do with who's God was more "real" but rather what God's will was.

In the millennial kingdom Jesus will be on the throne of David as prophesied and we will under His authority for whatever purposes He has for us. We are a kingdom of priests per Exodus 19:6. The Textus Receptus on which the KJV New Testament is based has it "kings and priests". Other translations based on older manuscripts have it like this:
Rev 1:6
He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
NASU
Those in the millennial kingdom will do whatever He bids.
we have a different understanding of "god" as referenced in Psalm 82. we understand "gods" to be earthly judges and rulers who simply were not good. They acted like "gods" but in reality were simply men.

Jesus called them "gods", citing it in their law, they were given God's authority. And yes, they were men.

I was just reading this morning in Ezekiel 28 and here is what it says.

Ezekiel 28:1-2 (in fact the verses after that which show the end result of this idolatry) says this:

The word of the Lord came again to me, saying,
2 “Son of man, say to the leader of Tyre, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Because your heart is lifted up And you have said, ‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods In the heart of the seas’; Yet you are a man and not God, Although you make your heart like the heart of God—
NASU

God rebukes this prince for his idolatry, thinking he was a god in what he does. The rest of the verse show what would happen. It parallels Psalm 82 as I read it.

This is all a red herring. How men chose to fulfill their responsibility with righteous or unrighteous dominion is irrelevant, The fact is, God placed them in that position.
Just yesterday, Theo declared himself the arbiter of truth, and by making fun of him, I was accused of blaspheme. Clearly, a man can get lifted up in their heart based on their assumed knowledge, not just by the position they hold.

God has been specific in His word. There is no other god than He. Isaiah chapter 43 through 46 make that very clear. Not just to the chosen people, but to all creation.

Let me know of the Mormons that are actually arguing against that. I'd be surprised if there is any. If you think you're challenging our beliefs by citing those chapters, then there's clearly a breakdown in communication here.

Rulers, judges, pastors, presidents, kings, etc. The verse says:
Dan 2:21
He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise And knowledge to those who have understanding.
NKJV

Yep.

Jesus was and always be God. Here is what Philippians says:
Phil 2:5-11
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
NKJV

In the New Living Translation (not the Living Bible paraphrased) it reads:
Phil 2:5-11
Your attitude should be the kind that was shown us by Jesus Christ,
6 who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God,
7 but laid aside his mighty power and glory, taking the disguise of a slave and becoming like men.
8 And he humbled himself even further, going so far as actually to die a criminal's death on a cross.
9 Yet it was because of this that God raised him up to the heights of heaven and gave him a name which is above every other name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
TLB
He was born as a human being to Mary so he had a human nature. He was also God in the flesh. The scripture says this:
1 Tim 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world,
NKJVere
That only refers to Jesus.

All true, but not pertinent to the point Mormons are making here.

I am not going there with that definition of "god" used in your example. My parents were never considered by me to be a god. They were my parents. same with my instructors. They weren't gods either. Your examples aren't valid in my book and no Christian believer will buy those examples as "gods" under your definition. If you consider them "gods" per Psalm 82, then also consider the ramifications and the end result of those who considered themselves gods.

You're clearly attached to your singular definition of the term "gods". They didn't just consider themselves gods, Jesus and Paul considered them gods as well. If you're more interested on attacking us on the letter, rather than the spirit, I don't see much use discussion, all that results is contention.

If you believe you may become a god or are a "little god" or "god in embryo" (some Word of Faith preachers like those terms and they are very wrong and on dangerous ground) then what do the scriptures say about that?

I don't believe as parents we can become "gods oursleves".

Do you believe the Word of God has come to you? Do you believe that you can authoritatively say, based on your own knowledge, not by flesh and blood, but by the Holy Ghost what's true and what false? (Just as a parent can instinctively know what's best for their child.) What ever label you want to throw on that state of being, or that type of group of people, that's the type of people we're referring to.

I don't believe I am a "god in embryo". Spiritually, I do consider myself an eternal being, made the the same light and truth that exists of God's glory (aka. the light of men [John 1:4]) Yet, I consider myself lower than the dust of the earth. Having said that, God can use me, and make me into whatever He wants to be, all to His glory. And when I testify of His truth, I can say it with conviction. That truth that I testify, which can be verified by God's Word, and made known by God through personal revelation, that carries the authority of God when I speak.

 

[Aaron32]

PART TWO

I am truly sorry you are upset, but I have to stand by what the written word of God says. One God and only One God. Men are not nor will they ever become gods.

Just a difference in terminology.

I don't see Mormonism as the regathering of Israel. I see God regathering Israel as He promised in Ezekiel 37 (vision of the dry bones), the nation rebirthed in a day in May 1948 and the subsequent protection and enlargement of its territories since then. God's promises to Israel still stand and will be fulfilled. Israel will never again leave the land.

Yep, a difference in literal versus symbolic.

God made born again believers part of Israel (read Romans 9-11). We are wild olive branches grafted into the vine.

So, now you're going back to symbolic. Which is it?

The only priesthood authority required is from Jesus Himself as the Melchizedek High priest.

Then why did Jesus give Peter sealing power?

There exists only one Melchizedek priest at a time.

Where are you getting this?

Jesus hasn't abdicated that role or title to anyone else.

I think you're confusing Melchizedek authority with the position of "the Great High Priest"
There's many offices in a Church, all operate through the same authority.

So no, I don't agree that Mormonism is the regathering of Israel. We will disagree on that.

Yep, guess so.

I don't believe it is man-made. I see evidence throughout scripture. One God, three persons in that One God.

I don't know how you reconcile God making man in His image. He doesn't have a body, and he's three people in one.

Do me a favor and put me on your prayer list. I talk to the urologist this morning to set a procedure. No cancer but I don't like getting cut on.
Thanks.

Will do. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope everything goes well

 

[Aaron32]

Okay, so please explain to me how you think you've "proved" your point.

Deut. 4:35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.​

So please explain to us which word in this verse you think means, "henotheistic".

And please explain to me what you think 'There is no other besides him" means.

I don't have the desire to go the rounds and detail extensive research when you get the response you don't want to hear, and you'll just dismiss it as "worthless rhetoric". So, I'm going the lazy route and finding an explanation via Google search that summarizes what I have been telling you, and adds more detail and states it more eloquently than I can, which also answers your question.

Obviously, you're going to say that I'm just borrowing from somebody else's work, and I'm ok with that. You're going to dismiss my response no matter what.

Here's the link: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7506/do-deuteronomy-435-and-39-preclude-henotheism
The question is: Do Deuteronomy 4:35 and 39 preclude henotheism?
The poster of the question more detailed: [Deut 4:35] is pretty much monotheistic. I failed to see how that may be henotheistic at all. So does this verse prove a monotheistic view of YHWH and exclude henotheism?*

Answer:
The question rests on a severe anachronism, in that many or most ancient cultures in contact with Israelite culture did not have a conceptualization of 'monotheism' or 'henotheism' until well after the biblical books were written. Just to illustrate this, the Greek word 'atheism' was used to describe the Jewish people, because from a Greco-Roman perspective the Jews did not worship the gods of the state religion.1

Within the Hebrew Bible, the family of Hebrew and Aramaic words often translated as 'God' with a capital-G are used for:

Yahweh
Foreign gods (e.g. gods of Egypt, Baal, Chemosh, Dagon)
Angels (e.g. Psalm 8.5, where elohim was understood as referring to 'angels' in the LXX, Syriac OT, and NT)
In one case, the spirit of a dead prophet is even perceived as an elohim, despite that the context makes it clear the speaker does not have a deity in mind (1 Samuel 28.13).

Many of the occasions we find 'god' applied to other entities do not deny the existence of such 'gods', only that they were inferior or subordinate to Yahweh.

For example, in Exodus 12.12 Yahweh claims he will 'execute judgment on all the gods of Egypt'. Psalm 82 portrays Yahweh as the chief God sitting in judgment amid a divine council of gods. Yahweh is called 'the God of gods' on more than one occasion, an idiom that simply means 'the greatest God'.2

What this shows is that the common modern definition of the word 'god' — with its connotations of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent supernatural entity — does not correspond very well to the ancient Near Eastern concept of a 'god' as we find that word-family used, at least in the Hebrew scriptures.

The issue to look for, however, is not whether the authors of the biblical books believed in the existence of other gods, but what qualities they ascribed to Yahweh in comparison with or distinction from other elohim. If we understand that broader usage of the word 'god' in the ancient Jewish culture, this can help us understand the meaning of the aforementioned passages in Deuteronomy.

Michael Heiser argues that both Yahweh and the divine figures we call 'angels' are 'gods' fit the ancient understanding of the word elohim. However, it was an ontological quality that distinguished Yahweh as the unique, supreme God, which is what qualifies him alone for worship; all other gods (whether called 'gods', 'sons of God', or 'angels / messengers') are his creations, and thus unworthy of worship.3

While 'there are indeed many gods', the various biblical authors believed Yahweh was utterly unique and sovereign, with all other gods, real or not, inherently inferior.4

Footnotes:
1 Cassius Dio, Roman History 67.14.2.
2 Compare the expressions: holy of holies (i.e. most holy), song of songs (greatest song), king of kings (supreme king), etc.
3 Heiser, 'The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature'.
4 This, for example, is why Paul, as a Jew from the Second Temple period, could say 'there are indeed many gods', but immediately turn around and say 'but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist'. (1 Corinthians 8.5-6).

 

[organgrinder]

Can we agree that "other gods", (ie. anything that can come between man and God) does exist.

Only one God exists. There are no others per scripture. Anything else is a false god. That can be a job, money, spouse, etc. Those come between us and God. They are also considered idols.

From a purely objective philosophical (beyond religious) perspective, this is a question we should be asking ourselves.
To me, the Trinity is the invention of man. I'm sure a God of flesh and bone is an invention to you.
If we both claim salvation in Jesus, is it within our Christian responsibility to criticize another of who they think God is, or can we just stick to loving our neighbor as ourselves, and treating others as we would like to be treated?

Loving our neighbor is critical, even when we have disagreements with them. You and I disagree on doctrinal issues, yet we can converse and even share a meal together (and we have). The criticism should be about doctrine. We come from different point of view with some overlap. I am bible-based and you have the Bible plus other standard works. Sometimes discussions get heated, yes. However, hopefully we can discuss in such a way that biblical love comes through, even when it doesn't give another person good feelings. Oftentimes facts are loving but not received because facts require us to make a decision. Sometimes out of our comfort zone. I have been there as a former Roman Catholic.

Other nations feared, but that doesn't equate to actual faith. the "...devils also believe, and tremble."

True. However, the knew the God of Israel was unlike any "god" they ever experienced or heard of.

There's examples in the Old Testament of Jehovah being superior to the gods of other nations, but you can't holistically claim that whenever the members of non-Israelite nations prayed they were praying to inventions of their own minds. This goes by the OP of this thread. Maybe it had nothing to do with who's God was more "real" but rather what God's will was.

God of the Old and New Testaments were far superior to any so-called gods worshiped anywhere, anyplace and anytime. I find it interesting that before anything about God was written, the entire story of salvation was written over 12 months in the heavenly constellations (Psalm 19). Starting with VIrgo (the Virgin shall conceive) and ending with Leo (The Lion of Judah who will return). Great book by Troy Brewer (Looking UP). The entire story of salvation. Romans 1 speaks of all men knowing of God and therefore are without excuse. God's will has always been that people have relationship with Him.

Jesus called them "gods", citing it in their law, they were given God's authority. And yes, they were men.

This is all a red herring. How men chose to fulfill their responsibility with righteous or unrighteous dominion is irrelevant, The fact is, God placed them in that position.
Just yesterday, Theo declared himself the arbiter of truth, and by making fun of him, I was accused of blaspheme. Clearly, a man can get lifted up in their heart based on their assumed knowledge, not just by the position they hold.

Ezekiel 28 is not a red herring. It parallels Psalm 82. And was it Theo who called himself an arbiter of truth or someone else? I don't recall seeing that.

Let me know of the Mormons that are actually arguing against that. I'd be surprised if there is any. If you think you're challenging our beliefs by citing those chapters, then there's clearly a breakdown in communication here.

The disagreement comes when guys like Gordon insist it he was the only God for the chosen people, Israel and that other gods existed, even in other universes (different thread than this one).

You're clearly attached to your singular definition of the term "gods". They didn't just consider themselves gods, Jesus and Paul considered them gods as well. If you're more interested on attacking us on the letter, rather than the spirit, I don't see much use discussion, all that results is contention.

Jesus and Paul were both speaking about rulers and judges. Jesus in particular was speaking to the religious leaders about religious leaders. You, the LDS church and I disagree on Psalm 82's meaning and who Jesus and Paul were referring to. I only have the written word to go by and that is what I am sticking with. God's word is truth. we stick with what is written. We will disagree here.

Do you believe the Word of God has come to you?

Yes. By faith and by what is written in the word of God.

Do you believe that you can authoritatively say, based on your own knowledge, not by flesh and blood, but by the Holy Ghost what's true and what false?

Based upon what I find in scripture, yes.

I don't believe I am a "god in embryo".

You would be in disagreement with some of your prior presidents, prophets, apostles and revelators. Here is a section:
President Brigham Young declared,
The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; when we have been proved in our present capacity, and been faithful with all things He puts into our possession. We are created, we are born for the express purpose of growing up from the low estate of manhood, to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven.

John Taylor, Young’s successor, concurred when he stated that man “is a God in embryo and will live and progress throughout the eternal ages, if obedient to the laws of the Godhead, as the Gods progress throughout the eternal ages.” In the words of Mormon Apostle John Widtsoe, man “comes of a race of gods, and as his eternal growth continues, he will approach more nearly the position which to us is Godhood, and which is everlasting in its power over the element s of the universe.”

Spiritually, I do consider myself an eternal being, made the the same light and truth that exists of God's glory (aka. the light of men [John 1:4]) Yet, I consider myself lower than the dust of the earth. Having said that, God can use me, and make me into whatever He wants to be, all to His glory. And when I testify of His truth, I can say it with conviction. That truth that I testify, which can be verified by God's Word, and made known by God through personal revelation, that carries the authority of God when I speak.

Yes, we are all eternal beings. The body will die but not out soul or spirit.

 

[Aaron32]

Okay, let me explain somthing to you.
I'm going to be very, very, VERY charitable, and assume that you've at least graduated high school.

When they taught you American history, was that "just for you", or was it absolute truth that is true for everyone?
When they taught you Algebra and Trigonometry, was that "just for you", or was it absolute truth that is true for everyone?
When they taught you Biology and Chemistry, was that "just for you", or was it absolute truth that is true for everyone?
When they taught you English grammar, was that "just for you", or was it absolute truth that is true for everyone?

99.99% of the things we're taught, are ABSOLUTE truths, true for everyone, not "just for you".

This is a false analogy as the Book of Deuteronomy and other Old Testament preaching wasn't addressed as abstract universal truths like the book of Proverbs teaching concepts on wisdom. The Torah is 'the Law', given by the law givers.
Thus, a more appropriate question is "When the US Constitution and the American legal system is taught, is that "just for you", or was it absolute truth that is true for everyone?
The answer is, it's primarily for Americans, and those that somehow interact with the United States.

Now, Mormons like to make the example, "Well, each of us has different fathers, but we have our own father. We have one father "for us", but that doesn't mean that ohter fathers don't exist. And okay, that's all well and good. But that's an ANALOGY. And an "analogy" doesn't prove truth, it simply makes it more helpful for someone to understand your view, whether your view is true or false.

Believe what you want, but Jesus taught in parables. It seemed good enough for Him.

What Mormons do is CHERRY-PICKING here, and ASSUMING that "gods" are like "fathers", we each only have one, but there are still many out there.

BUT.
YOU.
HAVEN'T.
PROVED.
THAT.
TO.
BE.
TRUE.

If "other gods" don't exist, then the 1st commandment of the Ten is non-sensical.
We all serve and worship something. There's your proof.

The Bible teaches that only ONE god exists.
Mormonism teaches MANY gods exist.
And you choose to reject God's word in favour of Mormonism.
And then you fee lthe need to TWIST God's word to try to FORCE it to fit Mormonism.

And that simply won't fly.

Then you have no evidence.
Thank you for conceding the argument.

More worthless and insulting rhetoric.

You're trying to compare the existence of God (which is a fact) with the Mosaic Law (which is a set of commandments)?

And you don't understand that they're not the same thing?

Only one God exists, whether the Gentiles acknowledge them or not.
And the Mosaic Law exists, whether the Gentiles are held under them or not.

(And FYI, you may want to go and read Romans 2:14-16.)

<sigh>
More childish insults by you.

So you think I have to present an argument, but you don't?
Now THAT is "irrational".

Only because it's going nowhere, since you keep running away from Scripture and all you're doing is throwing around childish insults.

Well, not only is the Trinity OFF-TOPIC in this forum.
But you will never understand or accetp it unless you apply "milk before meat".
It's like trying to master Calculus before learning basic arithmetic.
Or more accurately, it's like arrogantly "proclaiming" that Calculus is FALSE, which is your understanding because you haven't mastered basic arithmetic yet.

All worthless rhetoric that does nothing to prove your argument in regards to the topic.

 

[Theo1689]

I don't have the desire to go the rounds and detail extensive research when you get the response you don't want to hear, and you'll just dismiss it as "worthless rhetoric". So, I'm going the lazy route and finding an explanation via Google search that summarizes what I have been telling you, and adds more detail and states it more eloquently than I can, which also answers your question.

Thank you for proving you are wrong.

Here's the link: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7506/do-deuteronomy-435-and-39-preclude-henotheism
The question is: Do Deuteronomy 4:35 and 39 preclude henotheism?
The poster of the question more detailed: [Deut 4:35] is pretty much monotheistic. I failed to see how that may be henotheistic at all.

Did you read the bolded part at all?
Or do you simply ignore all answers that don't support your false teachings?