Mormons: Why don't you pray to Jesus?

[RebeccaJ]

I didn’t participate in that thread, but really, Rebecca–no evidence at all? That’s absurd. Perhaps you mean that you didn’t think the evidence the Mormons provided amounted to much? Or that you thought the contrary evidence outweighed it?

This is the kind of “black-and-white” thinking I was complaining about a while back. In the real world, there can be legitimate “evidence” for multiple points of view, and the trick is to sort out which one seems to explain everything the best, and has the easiest time accommodating difficulties.

But that’s a lot of work, and most people are too lazy. So instead of trying to construct reasonable arguments, respond to criticisms, etc., they just go around pronouncing that their point of view is a proven fact, and there is “no evidence” for others.

You don’t like it, so therefore I am lazy and not capable of complex thought. I see.

Mormons don’t listen to reasonable arguments. You prefer convoluted, half-truths lined up into a maze of dissonant ideas. But hey, it feels really good to turn all that into “history”.

You believe it, therefore, it is.

 

[mfbukowski]

But that’s a lot of work, and most people are too lazy. So instead of trying to construct reasonable arguments, respond to criticisms, etc., they just go around pronouncing that their point of view is a proven fact, and there is “no evidence” for others.

BDawg
You nailed it. Snow did a great job in presenting evidence I didn’t even know existed, but the responses were exactly as you outlined. There was no real discussion of evidence. It was presented and then ignored.

 

[mfbukowski]

The Council of the Gods is actually a rather common theme in the Old Testament. The classic scholarly work on this was:

E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980.)

The classic biblical text mentioning this is Psalm 82:1.

“God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of the gods.” [This if from the New American Bible version on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website.]

Mullen’s book can be hard to find, outside of university libraries, so you can find some info on this topic by an Evangelical biblical scholar, see www.thedivinecouncil.com.

Dang I forgot that one! Oh well, you know me and my scholarship or lack thereof! Thanks!

 

[why_me]

Of course some will see no difference because of a belief that Jesus and God are two separate and distinct “personages”. And from the way Mormons describe and treat Jesus, He seems to be a subordinate God in the Mormon pantheon. But it’s not Catholics that are confused. It’s just that Mormons disbelieve anything that doesn’t “make sense” to them, that’s been pretty well established by the testimony of diverse Mormons posting to this forum. It’s no wonder God/Heavenly Father has been made into an anthropomorphic being in Mormonism ~ that “makes sense” to some people.

Here is the personal prayer that was in the brochure The People’s Mass on December 14th:

Heavenly Father, help us to be happy for the right reasons. Only your son’s second coming can show us what true happiness is.
The advrtisers explore our weakness to convince that happiness is having things, consuming more and more, looking young beyond our years. The stable at Bethlehem wants to show us that it lies elsewhere. Free us from false values and from our sins. Open the prisons we have made for ourselves by sending your son, the Key of David, Amen.

If this prayer closed in the name of Jesus Christ it could be a personal prayer that a mormon could say. I see two personages in this prayer.

 

[BartBurk]

The Council of the Gods is actually a rather common theme in the Old Testament. The classic scholarly work on this was:

E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980.)

The classic biblical text mentioning this is Psalm 82:1.

“God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of the gods.” [This if from the New American Bible version on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website.]

Mullen’s book can be hard to find, outside of university libraries, so you can find some info on this topic by an Evangelical biblical scholar, see www.thedivinecouncil.com.

The link was very interesting. I do notice, however, that God is never referred to as just one God among many other equal Gods or higher Gods. Just as Mormon scripture refers to our God as the Eternal God of the other gods, in the Council of the gods in ancient Judaism our God is the Eternal God of the other gods. There really is no parallel to King Follet in which our God is a descendant of Gods who existed previously. That these other gods eventually disappeared in Judaism is not surprising – these other gods don’t at all compare to the God of Israel in authority and aren’t the cause of creation or worthy of worship. The major argument traditional Christians have with the Mormon idea of God is that in Mormonism our God is not supreme over the entire cosmos. These other gods that ancient scripture may refer to have no significance because they ultimately don’t create anything or make any decisions. The article linked discourages the idea they might be angels, but in reality they don’t seem to have any more power than the angelic beings referred to in Christian scripture. While the concept is interesting there doesn’t seem to be any real significance to it when all is said and done.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Here is the personal prayer that was in the brochure The People’s Mass on December 14th:

Heavenly Father, help us to be happy for the right reasons. Only your son’s second coming can show us what true happiness is.
The advrtisers explore our weakness to convince that happiness is having things, consuming more and more, looking young beyond our years. The stable at Bethlehem wants to show us that it lies elsewhere. Free us from false values and from our sins. Open the prisons we have made for ourselves by sending your son, the Key of David, Amen.

If this prayer closed in the name of Jesus Christ it could be a personal prayer that a mormon could say. I see two personages in this prayer.

Yes, you do. That’s why you’re a Mormon, because that’s what “makes sense” to you.

 

[BDawg]

The link was very interesting. I do notice, however, that God is never referred to as just one God among many other equal Gods or higher Gods. Just as Mormon scripture refers to our God as the Eternal God of the other gods, in the Council of the gods in ancient Judaism our God is the Eternal God of the other gods. There really is no parallel to King Follet in which our God is a descendant of Gods who existed previously. That these other gods eventually disappeared in Judaism is not surprising – these other gods don’t at all compare to the God of Israel in authority and aren’t the cause of creation or worthy of worship. The major argument traditional Christians have with the Mormon idea of God is that in Mormonism our God is not supreme over the entire cosmos. These other gods that ancient scripture may refer to have no significance because they ultimately don’t create anything or make any decisions. The article linked discourages the idea they might be angels, but in reality they don’t seem to have any more power than the angelic beings referred to in Christian scripture. While the concept is interesting there doesn’t seem to be any real significance to it when all is said and done.

Hi Bart,

I agree with you, to some extent. That is, I believe the OT refers to God the Father as El Elyon (“God Most High”), and the other “gods” are some of his children–the angels. The concept that God the Father had a father, and so on, is not found in ancient Hebrew or Christian literature at all, so far as I have found. However, the LDS revelations state that in this dispensation things would be revealed that had never been revealed before. I think this is one of them.

So lets see what we do have, then. We have clear references in the OT to multiple beings who are called “gods,” and “sons of god,” but there is one being who is clearly the ruler of all. Therefore, in some passages it is perfectly acceptable to say there is “one God.” In the NT, we find out about Jesus, the son of God, who is called “God,” but he clearly indicates he is subordinate to “the only true God” (John 17:3), who is the Father. But he must be a “son of God” in a different sense than the other “sons of God” mentioned in the Bible, because he is called the “only Begotten Son.” LDS believe that the difference is that God was also the Father of Jesus’ body, not just his spirit. Jesus also explained that he was “one in” the Father, and that his disciples could become “one in” each other and the Father/Son “even as” the Father and Son are one (John 17:20-22).

I conclude that it must be perfectly acceptable to say, as the LDS do, that there is “one God” in the sense that the Father is the absolute monarch of the Universe, and in the sense that all “gods” are “one in” each other, and “one in” the Father. Their wills, purpose, and so on, are in complete harmony. I also conclude that it is perfectly acceptable to say that there are multiple “gods” in the sense that multiple beings are given that status.

It’s all in the Bible. Maybe you don’t agree on our interpretation, but most of the time people get stuck on simple matters of language. For instance, one poster on this thread (Melanie?) was going on about how there is ONLY ONE GOD. Take it up with David, who wrote Psalm 82, I say.

 

[BartBurk]

Hi Bart,

I agree with you, to some extent. That is, I believe the OT refers to God the Father as El Elyon (“God Most High”), and the other “gods” are some of his children–the angels. The concept that God the Father had a father, and so on, is not found in ancient Hebrew or Christian literature at all, so far as I have found. However, the LDS revelations state that in this dispensation things would be revealed that had never been revealed before. I think this is one of them.

So lets see what we do have, then. We have clear references in the OT to multiple beings who are called “gods,” and “sons of god,” but there is one being who is clearly the ruler of all. Therefore, in some passages it is perfectly acceptable to say there is “one God.” In the NT, we find out about Jesus, the son of God, who is called “God,” but he clearly indicates he is subordinate to “the only true God” (John 17:3), who is the Father. But he must be a “son of God” in a different sense than the other “sons of God” mentioned in the Bible, because he is called the “only Begotten Son.” LDS believe that the difference is that God was also the Father of Jesus’ body, not just his spirit. Jesus also explained that he was “one in” the Father, and that his disciples could become “one in” each other and the Father/Son “even as” the Father and Son are one (John 17:20-22).

I conclude that it must be perfectly acceptable to say, as the LDS do, that there is “one God” in the sense that the Father is the absolute monarch of the Universe, and in the sense that all “gods” are “one in” each other, and “one in” the Father. Their wills, purpose, and so on, are in complete harmony. I also conclude that it is perfectly acceptable to say that there are multiple “gods” in the sense that multiple beings are given that status.

It’s all in the Bible. Maybe you don’t agree on our interpretation, but most of the time people get stuck on simple matters of language. For instance, one poster on this thread (Melanie?) was going on about how there is ONLY ONE GOD. Take it up with David, who wrote Psalm 82, I say.

Of course LDS revelation depends upon the truthfulness of Joseph Smith and his comrades. And that is where we will have to agree to disagree. The Book of Mormon forever closes the door to my ever becoming LDS again because it demonstrates in my opinion that Joseph’s revelations were bogus. Believers in the Book of Mormon have to wrestle with another problem regarding the Godhead. The Book of Mormon’s continuing reference to Father, Son and Holy Ghost being One Eternal God is in my opinion starkly in opposition to Joseph’s later revelations to such an extent that I don’t think they can be reconciled. And of course in 3 Nephi the Nephites are praying to Jesus.

All that being said, I don’t have any problem regarding Mormons as Christian in some sense. I do wish they would make the Book of Mormon their final authority rather than the revelations Joseph Smith received in the Nauvoo period. A lot of his later teaching seem to be influenced too much by his descent into polygamy or vice-versa. I think he used his “men becoming gods through eternal increase” doctrine as a justification for his polygamous marriage/eternal increase doctrine. By the time of his death he seemed to be full swing into megalomania and the eternal gods thing no doubt appealed to him in that regard. That’s probably for another discussion …

 

[BDawg]

You don’t like it, so therefore I am lazy and not capable of complex thought. I see.

Mormons don’t listen to reasonable arguments. You prefer convoluted, half-truths lined up into a maze of dissonant ideas. But hey, it feels really good to turn all that into “history”.

You believe it, therefore, it is.

Hi Rebecca,

The problem isn’t that you are incapable of complex thought, but rather that you don’t avail yourself of that capability more often. For instance, you say that “Mormons don’t listen to reasonable arguments.” Really? None of them? I would never make such a “black-and-white” statement about Catholics. There are plenty, even on this haven of bigotry (the CAF Non-Catholic Religions board,) who listen to the arguments of others, and try to formulate reasonable responses from their point of view. Once in a while, even you fall into that category.

The difference is that I don’t expect that all reasonable people will automatically agree with every argument I make. Given the human condition, which involves limited minds and VERY limited information, how can anyone expect anything different?

Remember that my comments were directed against your statement that the Mormons here had provided “no evidence” for our beliefs about the Apostasy. So here you go again. Either a position is absolutely proven, or there is “no evidence.” Either we all agree with Rebecca, or we “don’t listen to reasonable arguments.”

 

[BDawg]

Of course LDS revelation depends upon the truthfulness of Joseph Smith and his comrades. And that is where we will have to agree to disagree. The Book of Mormon forever closes the door to my ever becoming LDS again because it demonstrates in my opinion that Joseph’s revelations were bogus. Believers in the Book of Mormon have to wrestle with another problem regarding the Godhead. The Book of Mormon’s continuing reference to Father, Son and Holy Ghost being One Eternal God is in my opinion starkly in opposition to Joseph’s later revelations to such an extent that I don’t think they can be reconciled. And of course in 3 Nephi the Nephites are praying to Jesus.

Hi Bart,

I don’t agree with your assessment of Book of Mormon theology. See this article for a good explanation of why some of us don’t think this kind of reasoning holds up.

All that being said, I don’t have any problem regarding Mormons as Christian in some sense. I do wish they would make the Book of Mormon their final authority rather than the revelations Joseph Smith received in the Nauvoo period. A lot of his later teaching seem to be influenced too much by his descent into polygamy or vice-versa. I think he used his “men becoming gods through eternal increase” doctrine as a justification for his polygamous marriage/eternal increase doctrine. By the time of his death he seemed to be full swing into megalomania and the eternal gods thing no doubt appealed to him in that regard. That’s probably for another discussion …

Megalomaniacs typically don’t voluntarily give themselves up to be killed by mobs. JS clearly thought he would be killed, but came back from Iowa to give himself up, predicting along the way that he wouldn’t be coming back. Whatever you think about his revelations, it is completely clear that he believed in them wholeheartedly.

 

[ChristIsLord]

Maybe that will help you see it. How is it different? And this notion that you “pray along with saints” instead of praying to them-- if you address them directly, which you do, to me you are praying TO them. Why would you ask a saint to intercede for you, when you can address God himself? It is like you are asking the boss’s buddy to put in a good word for you – like you are somehow manipulating the boss-- or that God will listen better to the saint than he would listen to you. Doesn’t make sense. God loves you and will listen to YOU. You don’t need anyone else’s help!.

actually it does, “the prayers of the righteous availeth much”, who is more righteous than the saints in heaven? jesus commands us to pray for one another, why would we do that if what you wrote is true? revelations blatantly shows the saints and angels in heaven offering the prayers of the christians on earth before god.

the mormon “godhead” is three seperate and distinct “gods” so of course you’re polytheistic, why would it bother you so much?

 

[BDawg]

the mormon “godhead” is three seperate and distinct “gods” so of course you’re polytheistic, why would it bother you so much?

So how do you respond to post #85 above?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,

The problem isn’t that you are incapable of complex thought, but rather that you don’t avail yourself of that capability more often. For instance, you say that “Mormons don’t listen to reasonable arguments.” Really? None of them? I would never make such a “black-and-white” statement about Catholics. There are plenty, even on this haven of bigotry (the CAF Non-Catholic Religions board,) who listen to the arguments of others, and try to formulate reasonable responses from their point of view. Once in a while, even you fall into that category.

The difference is that I don’t expect that all reasonable people will automatically agree with every argument I make. Given the human condition, which involves limited minds and VERY limited information, how can anyone expect anything different?

Remember that my comments were directed against your statement that the Mormons here had provided “no evidence” for our beliefs about the Apostasy. So here you go again. Either a position is absolutely proven, or there is “no evidence.” Either we all agree with Rebecca, or we “don’t listen to reasonable arguments.”

bdawg, I have been in conversations with Mormons for years. I have heard, read, responded, studied, thought about and taken seriously many conversations that I have had.

They all invariably end up in a) attacks on myself, like you and snow do or b) Mormons will believe for the sake of believing. Just because.

The stuff posted by mormons in the apostasy thread is just so shallow and more of the mormon I-believe-it-so-I-am-going-to-make-it-so by pulling out of context quotes from various sources…I don’t have the patience for it any longer. Perhaps you find this sort of thing intelectually stimulating. I get more and more bored with it.

You are right that I don’t take the time to respond to this nonsense. Why? Because it is absolutely pointless. It is like arguing with a kindergartner who is telling you how the world works. I view mormons as playing at religion, made up fantasy land, like a group of children who are playing “school”. You mimick and imitate and try to convince the world that you’ve reinvented religion to what it should be. When what you are doing is removing and transforming truth into lies.

That is how I see it. And I see that these sort of internet “conversations” as nothing but a springboard, a platform, for mormons to blanket the world in darkness. I don’t want to be a part of your agenda that has one purpose, to deceive the world into believing the nonsense that is Mormonism.

I can’t say this is my last post. But you have pointed out what I have been thinking, and where I have been going. Less time on Mormon nonsense, more time in devotion to my faith and to God.

 

[ChristIsLord]

So how do you respond to post #85 above?

i would basically say that i can pull out random quotes out of context from mutliple areas of the bible and make connections that were never meant to be made and probably prove my chocalate lab is part of this pantheon of gods. however when i look at the historical record of judaism and christianity it’s obvious that the idea of a pantheon of gods with “god the father” the “supreme ruler” is essentially no different than any other pagan and polytheistic religion that ever existed and completely abhorent to monotheists.

 

[BartBurk]

Hi Bart,

I don’t agree with your assessment of Book of Mormon theology. See this article for a good explanation of why some of us don’t think this kind of reasoning holds up.

The Community of Christ and many other Mormon splinter groups wouldn’t agree with FAIR on this, but that is unimportant since I don’t believe in the Book of Mormon anyway.

Megalomaniacs typically don’t voluntarily give themselves up to be killed by mobs. JS clearly thought he would be killed, but came back from Iowa to give himself up, predicting along the way that he wouldn’t be coming back. Whatever you think about his revelations, it is completely clear that he believed in them wholeheartedly.

I don’t agree that Joseph voluntarily gave himself up to a mob. He had called the Nauvoo Legion to Carthage to save him as Quinn details in his book. I’m sure megalomaniacs always believe in their revelations. See nos. 5 and 6 at this link:

i4m.com/think/history/fallen_prophet.htm

 

[BDawg]

i would basically say that i can pull out random quotes out of context from mutliple areas of the bible and make connections that were never meant to be made and probably prove my chocalate lab is part of this pantheon of gods. however when i look at the historical record of judaism and christianity it’s obvious that the idea of a pantheon of gods with “god the father” the “supreme ruler” is essentially no different than any other pagan and polytheistic religion that ever existed and completely abhorent to monotheists.

Really? Here is a quotation from the article I linked for Bart a couple posts back.

Pennsylvania State University’s Baruch Halpern wrote, “Scholars have traditionally taken a theological and prescriptive approach to the issue of Israelite monotheism: monotheism is the conviction that only one god exists, and no others. This conviction, however, is difficult to document . . . . Monotheism, Yehezkel Kaufmann observed, postulates multiple deities, subordinated to the one . . . . Two elements distinguish it from polytheism: a conviction that the one controls the pantheon, and the idea of false gods.” [Baruch Halpern, “Monotheism,” in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 524-525.]

I have the Oxford Companion to the Bible on my bookshelf, and the quotation is accurate.

So where are you getting your historical information? For example, it seems to me that the Father Gods in most of the pantheons (Zeus, Odin, and so on) were often frustrated by other gods, and were not monarchs in an absolute sense.

And how, exactly, am I pulling quotations out of context? Isn’t it true that the Bible calls real beings other than the Father “gods”?

Finally, please make good on your claim to prove that your dog is a god via biblical quotations. I can’t wait.

 

[ChristIsLord]

Finally, please make good on your claim to prove that your dog is a god via biblical quotations. I can’t wait.

*It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their **dogs.” *“Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

so here we have jesus acknowledging that he will grant dogs their prayers if they have faith. he is also acknowledging that gentiles are dogs. later the bible states:

"28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. "

so now gentiles are no longer unclean, while jesus called them dogs, and that jesus will acknowledge them as clean and righteous if they have faith (my chocolate lab is very faithful).

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes"

so if gentiles are dogs, and dogs are later to be found clean, and all of mankind are gods (remember jesus clearly stated gentiles are dogs therefore dogs are gentiles) then my chocolate lab is a “god”. I should be a mormon apologist…

 

[BDawg]

I don’t agree that Joseph voluntarily gave himself up to a mob. He had called the Nauvoo Legion to Carthage to save him as Quinn details in his book. I’m sure megalomaniacs always believe in their revelations. See nos. 5 and 6 at this link:

i4m.com/think/history/fallen_prophet.htm

Hi Bart,

This seems like a very irresponsible source. JS burned some evidence to keep it from the mobs, and so he “denounced polygamy”? Please. And note also that the source for the supposed claim by Emma Smith came from William McLellin, who turned against JS in 1838 and was an active participant in the persecutions, thereafter. He wrote this claim in a letter to Emma Smith’s own son–why didn’t she tell him herself?

They say JS drank some wine on the eve of his death. So what? It is well known that the Word of Wisdom was not considered binding until decades after that. The text of the revelation says it was given “not by commandment,” for Pete’s sake. And yet, this is supposed to be evidence that JS was a “fallen prophet”?

There are many other similar points I could make about the rest of the page. It seems like they are trying to make a mountain out of several molehills that are taken completely out of context.

For instance, the fact that JS was in Iowa, and consented to come back and surrender himself to quell the fears of some people in Nauvoo. It ignores the testimony of several people who said that JS said he would not be coming back.

In short, there is no attempt to make sense of all the historical data–just an attempt to find anything that can be turned against JS.

 

[BartBurk]

Hi Bart,

This seems like a very irresponsible source. JS burned some evidence to keep it from the mobs, and so he “denounced polygamy”? Please. And note also that the source for the supposed claim by Emma Smith came from William McLellin, who turned against JS in 1838 and was an active participant in the persecutions, thereafter. He wrote this claim in a letter to Emma Smith’s own son–why didn’t she tell him herself?

They say JS drank some wine on the eve of his death. So what? It is well known that the Word of Wisdom was not considered binding until decades after that. The text of the revelation says it was given “not by commandment,” for Pete’s sake. And yet, this is supposed to be evidence that JS was a “fallen prophet”?

There are many other similar points I could make about the rest of the page. It seems like they are trying to make a mountain out of several molehills that are taken completely out of context.

For instance, the fact that JS was in Iowa, and consented to come back and surrender himself to quell the fears of some people in Nauvoo. It ignores the testimony of several people who said that JS said he would not be coming back.

In short, there is no attempt to make sense of all the historical data–just an attempt to find anything that can be turned against JS.

Read Quinn’s book which is the source of the page. I think the fact Joseph asked the Nauvoo Legion to come rescue him speaks volumes about whether or not Joseph had decided to die willingly. His defense with a pistol (and I don’t begrudge him that) also testifies against the idea that he was willingly giving up his life. The order to Dunham was in a handwritten note from Joseph Smith, but Dunham decided it would be unwise to act.

 

[BDawg]

Read Quinn’s book which is the source of the page. I think the fact Joseph asked the Nauvoo Legion to come rescue him speaks volumes about whether or not Joseph had decided to die willingly. His defense with a pistol (and I don’t begrudge him that) also testifies against the idea that he was willingly giving up his life. The order to Dunham was in a handwritten note from Joseph Smith, but Dunham decided it would be unwise to act.

Hi Bart,

I’m glad you don’t begrudge him the right to defend against mob attacks. I also don’t begrudge him the right to ask for an armed escort out of town. Understanding that you probably won’t get out of a situation alive, and deciding not to try, anyway, are two different things.