Defending the Faith

[HaggisShuu]

Hi all,

I recently read “A faithful reply to the CES letter” by Jim Bennet and found it to be a very invigorating, faith promoting read that to bed various concerns I had - not to mention it was quite humorous and enjoyable. For me it has settled many of the “Evidence based” attacks on the Church’s truth claims. However, there is still many theology criticisms the Church receives. 

Some of the most commonly attacked doctrines I see are:

• Exaltation 
• Our Open Canon 
• Calling us “Polytheists” 
• Temples and the associated ordinances 
• Pre-mortal existence 

The purpose of this thread is that I’m looking for some biblical quotes to defend said doctrines, as when I’ve been engaged in discussion with non Latter-Day Saints and quote one of our unique scriptures I find they just spit Revelation 22:18-19 at me and act like its the smoking gun against “Mormans” and Joseph Smith was a liar! In addition to biblical quotes if anyone has examples of early Christians practicing said doctrines so we can prove these are restored. My final ask would also be to invite arguments that bring into question the credibility of the Nicene Creed.

I have a few examples of each of these in my mind, but my knowledge of both the Bible and Early Christianity is reaaally poor, so I’m hoping this thread will pick up a bit of traction And enlighten me with new ways to “defend the faith” as the title suggests.

Thanks in advance.    

[Ironhold]

Once upon a time there was an academic paper entitled "Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing The Battle and Not Knowing It" by Carl Mosser and Paul Owens. The pair were grad school students at an Evangelical seminary in 1997 when they decided to compare the then-current state of pro- and anti- works. To their horror, they discovered that most authors of the day who were critical of the faith had become intellectually lazy; rather than investigate matters for themselves, they were just taking old arguments that were often no longer valid, bundling them together with some unique spin, throwing in a bit of personal invective, and calling it a day. As a result, arguments that were years or even decades out of date were still in active circulation. 

We're nearly 30 years on, and their conclusion still holds true, as you yourself have just seen. Far too many people who are in mainline Christianity don't do their homework and so take what their minister or another "authority" figure teaches them at face value. They are therefore ignorant of the truth, and often that means they are ignorant of their own belief systems. 

This includes a failure to read the Bible cover-to-cover. 

This is actually where I'd recommend you start: read the scriptures cover-to-cover, ponder them, then start going through the Sunday school manuals. In particular, I would suggest reading the former Gospel Principles manual - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng . 

Build up your own knowledge and understanding first before you even think about seeking out others. 

[HaggisShuu]

52 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

Once upon a time there was an academic paper entitled "Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing The Battle and Not Knowing It" by Carl Mosser and Paul Owens. The pair were grad school students at an Evangelical seminary in 1997 when they decided to compare the then-current state of pro- and anti- works. To their horror, they discovered that most authors of the day who were critical of the faith had become intellectually lazy; rather than investigate matters for themselves, they were just taking old arguments that were often no longer valid, bundling them together with some unique spin, throwing in a bit of personal invective, and calling it a day. As a result, arguments that were years or even decades out of date were still in active circulation. 

We're nearly 30 years on, and their conclusion still holds true, as you yourself have just seen. Far too many people who are in mainline Christianity don't do their homework and so take what their minister or another "authority" figure teaches them at face value. They are therefore ignorant of the truth, and often that means they are ignorant of their own belief systems. 

This includes a failure to read the Bible cover-to-cover. 

This is actually where I'd recommend you start: read the scriptures cover-to-cover, ponder them, then start going through the Sunday school manuals. In particular, I would suggest reading the former Gospel Principles manual - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng . 

Build up your own knowledge and understanding first before you even think about seeking out others. 

I appreciate this thank you, reading the bible cover to cover is something I am really eager to do as I was lazy when we had Old and new testaments for come follow me and gave up on it - I find the King James language quite difficult to digest - but I'm struggling to find an appropriate way to go about fitting this into my schedule as I'm currently working full time, as well as studying for a degree and I'm the Clerk for my Ward. Life keeps me busy . 
 

I know some website offer a "read the bible in 1 year" plan. I might print one off and see how much I achieve. I will absolutely look into the paper you mentioned so thankyou for mentioning that.  

[Ironhold]

27 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

I appreciate this thank you, reading the bible cover to cover is something I am really eager to do as I was lazy when we had Old and new testaments for come follow me and gave up on it - I find the King James language quite difficult to digest - but I'm struggling to find an appropriate way to go about fitting this into my schedule as I'm currently working full time, as well as studying for a degree and I'm the Clerk for my Ward. Life keeps me busy . 
 

I know some website offer a "read the bible in 1 year" plan. I might print one off and see how much I achieve. I will absolutely look into the paper you mentioned so thankyou for mentioning that.  

If you budget half an hour a day, you should be able to read 1 - 4 chapters. This might not seem like a whole lot to do at once, but it all adds up over time. 

The church actually has ideas for how to get you going: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/scripture-study-ideas?lang=eng

You also have a collection of videos based on various stories: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/collection/scriptures-video-collection?lang=eng . 

You're running a marathon instead of a sprint, so it's OK to pace yourself as long as you keep moving forward. 

And don't forget to keep some colored pencils, like the ones seen here - https://www.heb.com/product-detail/h-e-b-pre-sharpened-colored-pencils-12-pk/3845006 - or another such assortment of marking implements, handy so that you can highlight whatever verses speak to you or leave you with questions. This can help you as you study further. 

[Vort]

34 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

reading the bible cover to cover is something I am really eager to do as I was lazy when we had Old and new testaments for come follow me and gave up on it - I find the King James language quite difficult to digest

You are not the first to voice this concern. Personally, I am something of a linguistics geek, and I lovelovelovelovelove the KJV. But if it's not terry cloth underwear to you, use the NIV or the RSV or some other reputable, non-New-Agey nonsense version. The truths of the Bible are remarkably resilient and survive largely intact across various translations.

I would also greatly encourage you to spend most of your scripture study time in the Book of Mormon. Just my opinion, though it's a strong opinion that I have heard voiced by many others, including apostles and other Church leaders.

[Ironhold]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/books-and-lessons/seminary?lang=eng

These are the most recent manuals for seminary students, that is 14 - 18 year olds in high school. 

I would recommend potentially using these manuals as guides in addition to the regular Sunday School manuals. 

[Ironhold]

Hey, the Institute college-level materials are also on the church website as well: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/books-and-lessons/institute?lang=eng

[CV75]

18 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

Hi all,

I recently read “A faithful reply to the CES letter” by Jim Bennet and found it to be a very invigorating, faith promoting read that to bed various concerns I had - not to mention it was quite humorous and enjoyable. For me it has settled many of the “Evidence based” attacks on the Church’s truth claims. However, there is still many theology criticisms the Church receives. 

Some of the most commonly attacked doctrines I see are:

• Exaltation 
• Our Open Canon 
• Calling us “Polytheists” 
• Temples and the associated ordinances 
• Pre-mortal existence 

The purpose of this thread is that I’m looking for some biblical quotes to defend said doctrines, as when I’ve been engaged in discussion with non Latter-Day Saints and quote one of our unique scriptures I find they just spit Revelation 22:18-19 at me and act like its the smoking gun against “Mormans” and Joseph Smith was a liar! In addition to biblical quotes if anyone has examples of early Christians practicing said doctrines so we can prove these are restored. My final ask would also be to invite arguments that bring into question the credibility of the Nicene Creed.

I have a few examples of each of these in my mind, but my knowledge of both the Bible and Early Christianity is reaaally poor, so I’m hoping this thread will pick up a bit of traction And enlighten me with new ways to “defend the faith” as the title suggests.

Thanks in advance.    

I think your best approach is to be friends with these individuals to give them an opportunity to witness someone with the companionship of the Holy Ghost. That is stronger than any sophistry since people argue about the meaning of scripture all the time.

As far as using the scriptures to teach, from D&C 11:21, "Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and then shall your tongue be loosed; then, if you desire, you shall have my Spirit and my word, yea, the power of God unto the convincing of men."

The missionaries can give Biblical references to study for the areas you listed, but these are still interpretations after the fact of continued latter-day revelation and restoration.

[zil2]

FWIW, during my scripture study this morning, it occurred to me that one should not engage in this sort of thing unless one has first gained the sort of blessing that Amulek had when he and Alma went to preach to the people of Ammonihah:

Quote

Alma 10:17 Now they knew not that Amulek could know of their designs. But it came to pass as they began to question him, he perceived their thoughts, and he said unto them: O ye wicked and perverse generation, ye lawyers and hypocrites, for ye are laying the foundations of the devil; for ye are laying traps and snares to catch the holy ones of God.

...my observation is that an appeal to the Bible will do no good - they have their own interpretations.  Further, those online who post hateful comments about the Church are downright vicious - violent and vulgar in their hatred, to the point that Satan has hold of their hearts and they will not let the Spirit in.  I've always felt that the best way to "defend" the gospel is to live it, be an example, and engage personally with those who are receptive, not argue with those who attack.

But then, the best thing to do is follow the Spirit - if it says to engage with those who attack, then engage.  Just educate yourself up to your eyeballs, so you're prepared.  (And do all the Sunday School answers, with real intent, so that you can have the Spirit to be with you.)

[Traveler]

Greetings @HaggisShuu:

The Gospel of John in the New Testament documents a number of questions that are still used today against the teachings of Christ by religious professionals and their disciples.  I think that it is important to note that Jesus did not have much success with the scripture experts of his day (Pharisees and Scribes).  And yet we would not have a Bible today if not for the Pharisees and Scribes.   The concept of scripture canon never existed anciently whenever the scripture text were created by divine revelation.   I believe and argue with my Christian and Jewish friends and colleges that the canonization of scripture did not occur until after the paganization (mostly Hellenists) of ancient religious thinking.      

 

We LDS are polytheists.  I believe the ancient covenant peoples were polytheists.  In Genesis we are told that man was created in the image and likeness of G-d – at first glance this may seem monotheists but Genesis (1:27) also tells us that both the man and the woman are created in the image and likeness of G-d.  If anyone interprets this to mean G-d is both man and woman, then that the scripture is wrong and neither man nor the woman is in the image and likeness of G-d.  The only consistent interpretation is that there are male and female G-ds and this means that all that believe the Bible are polytheists.

Some think that the Bible distinctly informs us that there is ONE G-d.  The problem with this understanding is that the Hebrew term for one G-d is “ehad”.   If G-d is a single being the term would be “yhead” but that term is never used in scripture to designate one G-d.  “Ehad” is a plural word that designates unity.  “Ehad” is also used to indicate that in marriage a man and a woman are one (ehad) – and this ties in preciously with all scripture.

 

These things are not new.  They have been known for thousands of years.  Jesus explains it this way – There are those that have ears and hear not and have eyes and see not.  We can teach these things but regardless some will never listen.  There is a saying that – “A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still.”

Our job is not to convince anyone – our job is the teach correct principles and allow all to govern themselves.  Conversion does not come from our teaching but by the spirit.  If they are not willing to ask G-d what is true – with sincerity and real intent – they will not know the truth.

I believe the purpose of discussing religious doctrine is to gain understanding and insight for yourself.  I believe we will only learn something new if we discuss things with those of different opinions.  If we only convers with those with whom we agree (have the same opinion) – nothing will ever be learned.  It is also obvious that the more scripture is made available the more disagreements there are concerning meanings and interpretations.    Historically, studying scripture has never resulted in a convergence of ideas.  Even within a religious sect those that study scripture for themselves will have a divergence of understanding.

 

I thought to add one other thought.  If someone refuses to believe that there was a pre-existence for spirits before this mortal existence – it will be impossible for them to demonstrate that G-d is merciful or just – in that we are all born, live and die according to extremely different circumstances and opportunities.

 

The Traveler

Edited June 21, 2024 by Traveler

[Ironhold]

20 hours ago, zil2 said:

FWIW, during my scripture study this morning, it occurred to me that one should not engage in this sort of thing unless one has first gained the sort of blessing that Amulek had when he and Alma went to preach to the people of Ammonihah:

...my observation is that an appeal to the Bible will do no good - they have their own interpretations.  Further, those online who post hateful comments about the Church are downright vicious - violent and vulgar in their hatred, to the point that Satan has hold of their hearts and they will not let the Spirit in.  I've always felt that the best way to "defend" the gospel is to live it, be an example, and engage personally with those who are receptive, not argue with those who attack.

But then, the best thing to do is follow the Spirit - if it says to engage with those who attack, then engage.  Just educate yourself up to your eyeballs, so you're prepared.  (And do all the Sunday School answers, with real intent, so that you can have the Spirit to be with you.)

Often, it isn't the critic we're reaching, but the third party who is watching the exchange. 

[HaggisShuu]

On 6/21/2024 at 1:56 AM, Traveler said:

We LDS are polytheists.  I believe the ancient covenant peoples were polytheists.  In Genesis we are told that man was created in the image and likeness of G-d – at first glance this may seem monotheists but Genesis (1:27) also tells us that both the man and the woman are created in the image and likeness of G-d.  If anyone interprets this to mean G-d is both man and woman, then that the scripture is wrong and neither man nor the woman is in the image and likeness of G-d.  The only consistent interpretation is that there are male and female G-ds and this means that all that believe the Bible are polytheists.

Some think that the Bible distinctly informs us that there is ONE G-d.  The problem with this understanding is that the Hebrew term for one G-d is “ehad”.   If G-d is a single being the term would be “yhead” but that term is never used in scripture to designate one G-d.  “Ehad” is a plural word that designates unity.  “Ehad” is also used to indicate that in marriage a man and a woman are one (ehad) – and this ties in preciously with all scripture.

 

In the weeks that have passed since starting this thread I've taken it upon myself to begin reading the Old testament, as I've had some time off work and the Church assignments have eased off a bit. 

I converted from an Anglican background and so the trinity and the existence of only one God was the commonly taught doctrine that defined my early spiritual development. I never really studied the scriptures for myself, just took everyone's word for it. 
 

Needless to say, I am absolutely shocked (in a good way) to see just how much language there is used to denote the existence of multiple gods in just Genesis and Exodus alone.
 

That said I much prefer the term Monolatry to Polytheism. There may be gods, but I only worship my Heavenly father, as per the 10 commandments. 

[Traveler]

17 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

In the weeks that have passed since starting this thread I've taken it upon myself to begin reading the Old testament, as I've had some time off work and the Church assignments have eased off a bit. 

I converted from an Anglican background and so the trinity and the existence of only one God was the commonly taught doctrine that defined my early spiritual development. I never really studied the scriptures for myself, just took everyone's word for it. 
 

Needless to say, I am absolutely shocked (in a good way) to see just how much language there is used to denote the existence of multiple gods in just Genesis and Exodus alone.
 

That said I much prefer the term Monolatry to Polytheism. There may be gods, but I only worship my Heavenly father, as per the 10 commandments. 

Welcome back.  I have received your input and enjoy your contribution - I plan to use it myself.  Thanks!  Hopefully we can continue our discussions further. 

 

The Traveler

[laronius]

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

In the weeks that have passed since starting this thread I've taken it upon myself to begin reading the Old testament, as I've had some time off work and the Church assignments have eased off a bit. 

I converted from an Anglican background and so the trinity and the existence of only one God was the commonly taught doctrine that defined my early spiritual development. I never really studied the scriptures for myself, just took everyone's word for it. 
 

Needless to say, I am absolutely shocked (in a good way) to see just how much language there is used to denote the existence of multiple gods in just Genesis and Exodus alone.
 

That said I much prefer the term Monolatry to Polytheism. There may be gods, but I only worship my Heavenly father, as per the 10 commandments. 

Because we also worship Jesus Christ (though not exactly the same way we do our Heavenly Father) I think henotheism works too. 

[Vort]

3 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

On 6/20/2024 at 5:56 PM, Traveler said:

We LDS are polytheists.

Expand  

Needless to say, I am absolutely shocked (in a good way) to see just how much language there is used to denote the existence of multiple gods in just Genesis and Exodus alone.

That said I much prefer the term Monolatry to Polytheism. There may be gods, but I only worship my Heavenly father, as per the 10 commandments. 

Yeah, I agree. We are most definitely not polytheists. Some like to use the term "henotheist", but I firmly maintain that we are monotheists in any meaningful sense.

Edited July 7, 2024 by Vort

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, Vort said:

Yeah, I agree. We are most definitely not polytheists. Some like to use the term "henotheist", but I firmly maintain that we are monotheists in any meaningful sense.

I would question your conclusion:  Polytheism is defined (at least in part) in the belief that there is more than one g-d (regardless of who you worship).

1.      If you give any account to the song “Oh My Father”  --  Truth is reason - - - tells me, I’ve a mother there.

2.      If you believe that men and women are created in the image and likeness of G-d – which has some reference to #1.

3.      If you believe that Jesus was one with the Father or that through Christ we can become heirs of G-d and/or one with G-d.

4.      If you believe Jesus was correct when he said, “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are g-ds?”

In our last general conference, Sunday morning, Elder Rasband centered his talk around the theme that “Words Matter”.   Without question we worship our Father in Heaven as the one and only “True and Living G-d”.  I would also add that we do not believe in the trinity, but we do believe in G-d the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.  That they do constitute a council of 3 separate and distinct individual G-ds that we refer to as the G-dhood by which all things concerning the Great Plan of Salvation are governed and are spoken of in sacred scripture.

Concerning the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - there seem to be two possibilities one being the Trinity - meaning one individual is playing out multiple roles or that there are 3 individuals playing out one united divine purpose.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

39 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Polytheism is defined (at least in part) in the belief that there is more than one g-d (regardless of who you worship).

I think inherent in polytheism ("the belief in or worship of more than one god.") is the idea that each of these gods is available for worship and you can pick which one(s) you want to worship (and rotate between them based on need as the gods in such belief systems often "specialize").  While technically each of us is free to worship however and whatever(s) we will, the reality is that there is only one true God:

40 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Without question we worship our Father in Heaven as the one and only “True and Living G-d”.

And I think this is why @Vort said that:

17 hours ago, Vort said:

we are monotheists in any meaningful sense.

...the "in any meaningful sense" being the key qualifier.

[Vort]

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I would question your conclusion:  Polytheism is defined (at least in part) in the belief that there is more than one g-d (regardless of who you worship).

With all due respect to you, Traveler, this is not merely a settled point of doctrine, but a bedrock foundational teaching of Christianity, indeed of all true religion since the beginning. A very brief example of a few scriptural verses substantiating this:

• Deuteronomy 6:4 (cf Mark 12:29) Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord
• Alma 11:28-29, 44 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And [Amulek] answered, No. ...Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God...
• James 2:19 Thou believest there is one God; thou does well; the devils also believe, and tremble.

We are not polytheists. We are monotheists.

[HaggisShuu]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

With all due respect to you, Traveler, this is not merely a settled point of doctrine, but a bedrock foundational teaching of Christianity, indeed of all true religion since the beginning. A very brief example of a few scriptural verses substantiating this:

• Deuteronomy 6:4 (cf Mark 12:29) Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord
• Alma 11:28-29, 44 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And [Amulek] answered, No. ...Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God...
• James 2:19 Thou believest there is one God; thou does well; the devils also believe, and tremble.

We are not polytheists. We are monotheists.

I most certainly don't speak for everyone. But personally, I feel like polytheist is term thrown around to make us look bad, and when we (I mean Latter Day Saint) claim to be monotheist, it's generally to appeal to other Christians who call us unbiblical. But I don't think either of these terms are accurate. 
 

God reveals unto us line upon line, precept upon precept and the scriptures you quoted don't take into account Latter Day revelation. I'm sure everyone is aware of (and quite frankly baffled by) Lorenzo Snows quote "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may become".
 

Heavenly Father (Elohim) is an exalted being, Heavenly mother is an exalted being. As we don't accept the trinity, Jehovah and the Spirit are also respected as individual Gods in the God Head. This is at least 4 Gods, who exist as part of Latter Day theology. But what about Heavenly Fathers spirit children and parents? Lorenzo Snow opened up the possibility of there being potentially an infinite number of gods in existence. 

I agree with you in practice that we are monotheist. But monotheism (according to my understanding) is one God, one who receives our worship. Which ignores the teachings of the prophets. Which is why personally why I would lean towards monolatry or henotheism - which I understand to be defined as, many Gods may exist, but there is only one who is relevant enough for us to worship - as I only worship Heavenly Father as he is my spirit Father and creator. 

Of course my understand may be flawed as I'm only human and by no means an expert or prophet when it comes to theology, but this has been the only way for me to reconcile Lorenzo Snows baffling teaching. 
 

 

[estradling75]

To me there is a very good historical reason to push on the monotheists versus polytheist line... But I'm not so sure its really needs to be pushed as hard now beyond tradition.

In historical times there were pantheons of Gods (Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian etc.) and they were very popular.  If an individual felt that one God in a pantheon was against them they could try a different God or a different pantheon.  This allowed people to be fickle and faithless in their devotions.

Then God delivered his chosen people out of Egypt.  The physical deliverance was probably the easiest part, delivering Israel from their fickle and faithlessness was much harder.  The 10 plagues showed the various Egyptian Gods had no power, and they had to be continually reminded that nothing could stop their God.  There was no other power they could run to no one they hide behind.

This is a very important lesson.

But now I think is a lesson we only need to revisit when someone tries to divide the Godhead. We are to pray to the Father in the name of Christ because that is what Christ instructed us to do.  Or setup a non authorized channel (Prayers to Heavily Mother)   

[Vort]

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

the scriptures you quoted don't take into account Latter Day revelation

On the contrary, the Book of Mormon is the very foundation of latter-day revelation.

[HaggisShuu]

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

On the contrary, the Book of Mormon is the very foundation of latter-day revelation.

Maybe a poor choice of words from me but I don't think it invalidates what I was trying to say. 
 

I will admit the Alma quote has always stumped me a bit. The Godhead as I understand it are all separate beings united in one purpose. This verse just seems so, trinitarian. 

Edited July 8, 2024 by HaggisShuu

[ZealoulyStriving]

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

Maybe a poor choice of words from me but I don't think it invalidates what I was trying to say. 
 

I will admit the Alma quote has always stumped me a bit. The Godhead as I understand it are all separate beings united in one purpose. This verse just seems so, trinitarian. 

To be an annoying quibbler...

The Trinatarianists argue those Book of Mormon passages as fitting the Modalist model- which they also reject.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism

[SpiritDragon]

I'm going to jump in on the polytheism vs monotheism vs other names debate. I also have to reiterate as others have said that the doctrine of Christ's restored church and in all ages where Truth was being dispensed is that of One true and living God. Call it what you will, but monotheism is the best fit as far as I'm concerned. 

As for a Biblical passage to the effect, @Vort shared some great passages above establishing the One true God point. I think the challenge we have too often is not taking God at His word and instead of trusting in the Lord, we lean to our own understanding. While we can say that because there are distinct physical and spiritual personages that constitute the godhead and infinite possibilities of a lineage of gods that clearly there are more than one God. However, when Jesus prays that those that are given Him can be one with Him as He is one with the Father, I believe He is inciting a greater oneness than we fully grasp. I think some of our best ways of describing this oneness fall short because of our imperfections from the Fall.

Even Zion is said to be of ONE HEART and ONE MIND, and yet we don't worry about everyone fusing together and sharing a physical heart. In looking at a team working together for a common goal, a government that is referred to as one government, a family that is unified and sticks together we get a small sense of a unified purpose that we may use to attempt to explain a oneness of purpose, but I firmly believe it still falls short of hitting the mark to better explain a multiplicity being one. So I think at the end of the day, we are best served to simply accept God at His word that there is one true and living God.

As to the idea of individuals being exalted and becoming gods, I think this leads into the disservice that is done with this topic. I know anytime the doctrine according to SpiritDragon is coming out we enter shaky ground, so beyond simply accepting God's teaching on the matter, this is my best attempt to explain how I'm currently viewing this topic that is an evolving understanding for me that falls back on the bedrock of the Lord himself teaching there is One God. I have two sort of models that I view as being closer to what I think the case is.

The initiates into an order model: In this model I view God as an order, like those entering into the order of the priesthood, but with a greater oneness achieved by attaining an eye single to the glory of God (always desiring to abide by eternal law with a perfect harmony of balance between conflicting forces such as justice and mercy). Here each member of the order of God (one God, one order) has become God (one with God, Joint heirs with Christ, having all that He and His Father Hath). Within said order while our Heavenly Father and Jesus will always be revered as God and given due respect and worship, in keeping with the Saviour's teachings of the greatest being the least, this glory will be humbly given back to all members of the family of God, the order of God, the One God. Pride can have no place within this unity and is one reason why Satan's idea of getting the glory for himself failed from it's inception, it lacked the necessary ingredients for true oneness by seeking position and glory rather than humility and shared glory.

My second way of looking at it, is less well thought out and more a different attempt to understand many being one. If we are to look at our current human bodies, we are made up of nearly countless bacteria, many systems, organs, cells, and elements. While they can be separated out to component parts, they are each unique and play a role in the whole. This may also be referenced in a simpler sense in the scriptures speaking of the body of Christ. While we may look at the church as a whole as being part of the body of Christ, perhaps we could do better to limit this to the Church of the First Born (those given to Christ that He prays can be one with Him). 

Anyway, I share these models not to suggest that they are the only and right way to view things, but to share some thought processes that may help others in their journey to make sense of seemingly contrary points in that we have been taught there is One God and yet multiple individuals who are God.

[estradling75]

When reading ancient prophets I think sometimes we engage in "Present-ism"  and read into it things the prophet themselves did not.  One of the biggest examples is the use of Symbols vs Literal.  We are a very Literal people, but the ancient prophets were/are full of symbolism.  This causes all kinds of problems.

Another is that we assume the light and knowledge we have now the ancient prophets also had... This is debatable on some subjects.  For example Heavily Father as we currently understand the concept did not seem to really take hold until Christ came.  Before the the record is really sparse, I am not saying it wasn't revealed but it did not seem to stick until after Christ.

Now the Old Testament does talk about God as Father... But both ancient and modern Jews would take this as a reference to Jehovah.  Modern revelation clearly identifies Jehovah as Christ.  And Father is a Title that Christ himself also has.... So this can get a bit confusing.  So here is a tip.  When you hear an ancient prophet talk about the Father and the Son try replacing the "Father" with "Jehovah" and see it the statement still holds true?  If it does then odds are that was how the prophet themselves were expecting their audience to understand it that way, not the way we currently struggle to understand it.