James White fails on Isaiah 44:24

On his “Dividing Line” webcast, James R. White provided an attempted interpretation of Isa 44:24 against “Mormon” theology. One can watch this episode of his show. His comments on this verse begin at the 36:57 mark here.

There are a number of problems with White’s interpretation (read: eisegesis) of this verse. One such problem is his misinformed comment that:

"Anybody who can read the original language can know that Elohim and Jehovah are not separate Gods"

White has been corrected on many occasions by LDS scholars on this issue, including Daniel C. Peterson, William Hamblin, and Daniel McClellan. The near-consensus of Old Testament scholarship is that Yahweh (Jehovah) and Elohim were separate deities who were only at a later stage identified with one another. For a good discussion, see Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford, 2001). One key text is Deut 32:7-9 which differentiates Yahweh from El Elyon:

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High (Elyon) apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; and the Lord's (Yahweh) portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. (NRSV)

The Masoretic Hebrew text reads "sons of man," but the earliest Hebrew text of this pericope from Qumran reads "sons of God" (alt. "gods"), with Yahweh being one of these deities distinct from El Elyon.

For further discussion, see Daniel McCllelan's post, "Decoupling YHWH and El."

One cannot help but see the double standards in White’s interpretation of Isa 44:24 when he asks which divine person creates in the LDS temple endowment in light of this text. However, keep in mind what White believes that Paul “split” the Shema in 1 Cor 8:4-6; such an interpretation (based on Bauckham’s ludicrous idea of divine identity) results in one rendering the Greek of Deut 6:4 as follows:

"Akoue Israel, Iesou o Pater hemon, Iesou eis estin" (Listen Israel, Jesus is our Father, Jesus is one)

Needless to say, such is inane (and results, not in the Trinity, but Modalism), but such is the exegetical gymnastics (read: eisegesis) one must engage in to hold to the Trinity.

One other problem for White is that he does not address which divine person is speaking in this passage. In both the Hebrew and the LXX, singular verbs and singular personal pronouns are used, indicating one divine person is speaking, not three. Which member of the Trinity is speaking? And if White wishes to absolutise this passage and be consistent, where is the exegetical justification for allowing an additional two divine persons in his belief?

Unlike White, I provided a careful exegesis of this text previously on this blog; for the sake of convenience. let me reproduce it here:

Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. (Isa 44:24)

This verse has been used by a number of critics of Latter-day Saint theology, arguing that God, and God alone, was involved in creation, contrary to the Book of Abraham that has “the gods,” under the jurisdiction of the Father, involved in creation (see chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of Abraham). However, there are problems for our Trinitarian opponents who sometimes use this verse against Latter-day Saint theology and Scripture.

Firstly, one should compare Isa 44:24 with Heb 1:1-2:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he also made the world.

In this pericope, it is the singular person of the Father who is the creator, with Jesus as an intermediary (cf. 1 Cor 8:4-6). Absolutising both these passages, the Isaiah text forces us to conclude that the person of the Father alone was the creator, which, of course, is antithetical to Trinitarian sensibilities.

[God] alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

In this passage, it is Yahweh alone who “trampled upon the waves of the sea” (NRSV). Interestingly, however, there is a difference between the Masoretic Text and the LXX. The LXX renders this portion of the verse as καὶ περιπατῶν ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἐδάφους ἐπὶ θαλάσσης, which Brenton renders in his translation as "and walks on the sea as on firm ground." Therefore, the LXX states that Yahweh alone has the authority to walk upon the seas. One should compare the LXX rendition of Job 9:8 with Matt 14:29:

[Jesus] said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus.

Absolutising LXX Job 9:8 in the way that critics of LDS theology absolutise Isa 44:24, one must conclude that Yahweh alone can walk on the water, and taking it to its “logical” conclusion, Peter is Yahweh(!) Of course, that is eisegesis, just as it is eisegesis to claim that Isa 44:24 is a strictly “Trinitarian.”

Ultimately, Isa 44:24 is better understood that the authority and source of creation derives from God (the Father) and all those who played a role in creation were under His jurisdiction, including the person of Jesus (see 1 Cor 8:4-6, as an example). This was the interpretation of the earliest Christian commentators, including Origen (185-254):

Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also [John 1:3], through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He [the Father]. (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John [Ante-Nicene Fathers 9:328]; comments in square brackets added for clarification)

We can further substantiate this by examining another text from the book of Isaiah:

I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no saviour. (Isa 43:11)

In this verse, God is said to be there only מושׁיע (“Saviour”). Notwithstanding, there are other figures who are referred to as being a מושׁיע:

And when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer (מושׁיע) to the children of Israel, who delivered them, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother. (Judg 3:9)

And the Lord gave Israel a saviour (מושׁיע), so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as before time. (2 Kgs 13:5)

In these verses, Isa 43:11 notwithstanding, Yahweh Himself commissions other “saviours” (מושׁיע). Absolutising Isa 43:11 in the way that our Trinitarian critics absolutise Isa 44:24, one would have to conclude that it is explicitly contradicted by the two aforementioned texts. However, if one understands that Yahweh is the ultimate source of being a saviour but can commission others to be “saviours” such as Othniel, there is no issue.

Ultimately, Isa 44:24 is properly understood, not speaking as the “number” of persons involved in the creation, but that the Father alone is the source of its causality and does not preclude other divinities having had a role as an intermediary in the creation, as one finds in the Book of Abraham and Latter-day Saint theology.

τελεω and τελειοω in the Johannine Corpus

John 19:30 is a common text defenders of penal substitution cite (sometimes as the “proof” of such a doctrine of atonement). In my post here, I addressed and refuted the claim that the use of τετελεσται supports such a forensic understanding of Christ’s sacrifice.

In this post, I will show that John’s use of the verb τελεω (the verb τετελεσται is derived from), and the related verb τελειοω, as used in the Johannine literature (the Gospel of John; 1-3 John; book of Revelation) never has such a penal/forensic meaning which is necessitated by the historical Protestant understanding of John 19:30

Other instances of τελεω in the Johannine corpus outside of John 19:28, 30:

But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. (Rev 10:7)

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. (Rev 11:7)

And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is ended . . . and the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power, and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled. (Rev 15:1, 8) What is interesting is that v. 1 speaks of the wrath of God having “ended” in a time period post-dating John 19:30 and Christ uttering the phrase, “it is done.” If a Protestant apologist wishes to be consistent, they would have to argue that fulfilment will be when the Father’s wrath is propitiated, notwithstanding their claim that John 19:30, in their view, teaches such happened when Christ uttered his final words!

For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. (Rev 17:17)

And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season . . . But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection . . . When the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison. (Rev 20:3, 5, 7)

Usages of τελειοω in the Johannine literature

Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34)

But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. (John 5:36)

I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. (John 17:4) The form of τελειοω in this verse is an active aorist participle τελειωσας, used with respect to Christ "having accomplished" (NASB) what the Father sent him to do. Using the approach Protestants often do to John 19:30, this "proves" that everything for salvation was "done and dusted" (reverently speaking) at the moment Christ offered his High Priestly prayer and God's wrath against sin was completely propitiated then and there. Of course, such is eisegesis.

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17:23) τελειοω in this verse is meant in the sense of moral perfection, not in a forensic or fiduciary sense.

After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. (John 19:28) In this verse, τελειοω is used alongside τετελεσται, but it clearly has a non-forensic meaning, being used to convey the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy.

But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. (1 John 2:5)

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us . . . Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:12, 17-18). The use of τελειοω in this pericope as well as 1 John 2:5 (cf. John 17:23) refutes the forensic understanding of this verb and its cognates. Here, John speaks of the completion/perfection of love, but love is a human volition, but in the Protestant understanding of the atonement and justification, it is a legal transaction, similar to a modern will, in contradistinction to love (as well as faith) which is a non-legal and timeless virtue.

Cheryl Schatz: double standards and baldly asserting sola scriptura

On her Website, Cheryl Shatz (whom I soundly refuted in this post) writes that:

MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that they believe your Church is wrong, your Christian creeds are abomination to God, and you pastor or Priest is a hireling of Satan.

And yet, on her twitter feed, she writes:

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons have another gospel. According to Paul, they are both cursed. The gospel is in Christ alone and the Bible alone.

(source: https://twitter.com/CherylSchatz/status/659729859137040384)

Firstly, we can't help but see the double standards she engages in, which is part-and-parcel of the anti-Mormon modus operandi. Secondly, and more importantly, however, I would like to see Cheryl Schatz defend her claim that the gospel is in "the Bible alone" (the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura) using the historical-grammatical method of biblical exegesis. For her aid, I have exegeted many of the main texts used in support of this doctrine (click here).

Negative Questions in the Book of Mormon

In Moroni 10:3-5, we read the following (emphasis added):

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; for if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Some may ask why LDS ask people to pray if the Book of Mormon is true when, based on this pericope, one is instructed to ask if it is not true. However, what is interesting is that the Book of Mormon may reflect a possible Hebraism where a negative rhetorical question having a positive meaning is intended by the author. Ben Spackman has an article in this issue, "Negative Questions in the Book of Mormon." Biblical examples Ben give includes Deut 11:30:

Are they not on the other side of Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites, which dwell in the champaign over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh?

 The intended answer to this rhetorical question is yes, they were indeed on the other side of Jordan.

Assessing two weak arguments for Sola Scriptura

I recently encountered an exchange between an LDS apologist and a Protestant on twitter. I tend to avoid such debates, due to the character limit (150 characters is not enough to engage in a meaningful discussion of any topic), but the Protestant apologist ("blainebowden") raised two rather weak arguments in favour of sola scriptura:

One simple thing I don't understand is . . . If you believe the bible, why do you need the Book of Mormon? Isn't Gen-Rev enough?

Unless one will argue that the warning in Rev 22:18-19 is “proof” of sola and tota scriptura, was understood by Protestantism (which it is not), this is question-begging to the highest degree. This may be enough for some, but for those who privilege sound exegesis, sola scriptura is clearly found wanting on this score (search "sola scriptura" on this blog to see the main texts exegeted in careful detail--it is a man-made, anti-biblical tradition).

Once Christ ascended and the Word was sent to the Gentiles, it's finished. There's no need for more until the second coming.

If that was the case, all the New Testament would discuss would be events up to and including the ascension of Jesus in Acts 1:11. However, events post-dating the ascension are discussed (Acts 1:12 onwards . . . ) and the Pauline epistles and other texts not only detail issues post-dating the ascension, they were also written after the ascension. So, obviously, Gen-Rev is too much for this one misinformed Protestant apologist. The Protestant canon of 66 books could not be in view in such comments as the "Word" (being defined here as the Scripture given up to the point the Gospel was preached to all nations) was not completed (indeed, the record of the ascension in Acts 1;11 was not record, so perhaps, if one were consistent, the entire New Testament should be thrown out; after all, it was written after the gospel was preached to the Jews and the Gentiles! Of course, I am being flippant, but that is the inane and illogical hermeneutic bred by this false tradition).

Again, the words of Robert Sungenis hold true on the impossibility of proving sola scriptura from the Bible:

Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [San Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 1997], pp. 106-67, here, p. 128 n. 24).

Thoughts on M Russell Ballard and Roman Catholicism

Recently, there has been some discussion about comments made by Elder M Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve on Roman Catholicism's theology of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Some have taken these statements to be "anti-Catholic." I know some people have commented on this issue, including Daniel C. Peterson (an LDS scholar for whom I have great respect), but I have decided to write "blind" on this topic and not read any of the commentary/blog posts on this so I can give my own perspective on this and related issues. Of course, I realise that some may not appreciate these comments, but I do believe that doctrinal truth is of eternal importance.

As background: I am a former Roman Catholic from Ireland and a graduate of a Catholic seminary (Pontifical University of Ireland, Maynooth). I have discussed Roman Catholicism a couple of times on this blog, and, unlike most people who are former Catholics, I actually understand the theology and history of Roman Catholicism; indeed, some Catholic apologists have said that I would make a great Catholic apologist due to my knowledge of the issues (which I take to be a high compliment). I am also convinced that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ and have warned people about the eternally precarious position they place their eternal lives if they were to embrace Rome's gospel.

Firstly, Latter-day Saints, including those in our community who are uncomfortable with comments critiquing Rome, should realise that (1) Latter-day Saints claim to be members of the only true and living Church (D&C 1:30) and (2) understand that the reality of false gospels is not hypothetical, but a reality (see Gal 1:6-9). Indeed, as a result of the Great Apostasy, the plain and precious truths of Christ's true gospel were changed, and in some cases, grossly perverted, and were under God's own anathema (see the strong denunciation of creeds and those who profess belief thereto in JS-H 1:19).

Secondly, I realise that many 19^th and even 20^th century LDS commentators (e.g., Orson Pratt; Bruce McConkie) believed that the “great and abominable church” in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, as well as the Whore of Babylon from the book of Revelation, was one-to-one equivalent to the Roman Catholic Church, I believe that this is a rather naïve reading of the pertinent texts. For a good paper, see Stephen Robinson’s article here (he identifies the church in 1 Nephi 13 as Hellenism). I think this is a more exegetically-sound position to hold than the 19th century reading of the texts.

Some comments I have seen on facebook have stated that Ballard was wrong in stating that Roman Catholics do not know the members of the Godhead as Rome has done, and continues to do, a lot of good. They are half-right on this point--one has to applaud the saintly individuals (morally speaking) produced by the Catholic church and the official moral theology of the Catholic Church is very biblical and conservative (as one who has been active in the pro-life movement for 12 years, I commend their views on the sanctity of human life, for e.g.) However, good morality is not the equivalent of good theology--there are many moral individuals who belong to denominations that preach a false gospel (e.g., Christadelphians; Calvinists; Jehovah's Witnesses), just as there are immoral people in the LDS Church (wheat and the chaff . . . enough said). I also recognise the great intellectuals who are, and have been, Catholic (one obvious example would be Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274]). One should not ignore the positives the Catholic Church has done and continues to do (intellectual integrity is always important).

Theologically speaking, however, I agree with Ballard, as unpopular as that seemingly is even in some LDS circles. If one holds to official Catholic theology, which would include the false doctrine of the (creedal/Latin) Trinity, one has a false conception of the Father, Son, and Spirit. I have discussed the Trinity many times on this blog, especially the topic of Christology, so I will refer to this post on the topic of LDS vs. Trinitarian Christologies (while it is a response to a Reformed Baptist, the Catholic Church would share the same Christology).

Moreover, not only has the Roman Church distorted the person and nature of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, they have also added to the gospel many ahistorical, unbiblical dogmas (doctrines that are purportedly definitional of the gospel that one must believe under anathema), such as the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption, and the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, as well as doctrines and practices uniquely LDS Scriptures view to be false (such as infant baptism [Moroni 8:9]). And let us not forget that indulgences are still part-and-parcel of official Catholic teaching (no, Trent and/or Vatican II did not get rid of this teaching; see this post-Vatican II document on indulgences from the Holy See) or that there is a movement to dogmatically define Mary as co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, and advocate (it really is a question of when not if this becomes elevated to a dogma—it already is a doctrine of the Catholic Church).

For Latter-day Saints approaching Roman Catholicism in general, and the comments of M. Russell Ballard specifically, one has to realise that, while he could have (and should have) discussed why he believed such to be the case, he is right, not just about the false conceptions of the Godhead and its members one finds from the official dogmatic teaching of Roman Catholicism, but all the other man-made traditions that have been elevated as de fide dogmas, such as the Transubstantiation, the papacy and papal infallibility. Such is why I would agree with Ballard as well as strongly oppose theological ecumenism, as there is no possible theological compromise between the LDS Church and Roman Catholic Church (not the same as rejecting the validity of discussing theology with one another [see this book as a good example of how such can and should be done]).

Anyway, this post reflects just some quick thoughts on a (seemingly contentious) issue, so consider it my two cents worth (Euro, not Dollar, of course).

Carlos Bovell and the internal witness of the Spirit of the Truthfulness of Scripture

While the mystical experiences of their authors initially worked "externally" to foster the earliest believers' commitment to gradually receiving the NT writings as Scripture, there is an even more important facet to Scripture's authority that stems from within believers. Aside from the social mechanisms of institutional control that became operative in Christian cultures and sub-cultures (which worked to discourage radical breaks from inherited, religious traditions), another, and arguably more important, subjective component was also at work. What might be called the Bible's "internal" authority derives from the fact that, upon reading Scripture (or hearing Scripture being read), believers find that the Christian Bible is a provision from God to Spirit-filled Christians, which acts as a means of grace for communing with him. By contemplatively reading the Bible and hearing the Bible being read, believers can commune with God "in" the glorified Christ through the Holy Spirit. The Bible exerts its authority upon believers internally by virtue of its being designated by God to serve in a capacity of facilitating communion with God in Christ by the Spirit. Since a disproportionately small percentage of believers have the raw experience of having the resurrected Christ appear to them (much less instruct them). God more regularly coordinates the Spirit in the texts with the Spirit in believers. (Carlos R. Bovell, “The Internal Authority of Scripture” in Carlos R. Bovell, ed. Biblical Inspiration and the Authority of Scripture [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2015], 90-110, here, pp.90-91; italics in the original)

The Priesthood of All Believers

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. (Exo 19:5)

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Pet 2:9)

Often, Evangelicals who reject the existence of a ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant, cite 1 Pet 2:9 as "proof" that all believers are part of the "priesthood of all believers," and that there is no New Covenant priest (except for Jesus). Of course, this ignores the biblical evidence for a New Covenant priesthood, such as the priestly language used in the Last Supper accounts as well as the prophecies of such a priesthood by Old Testament prophets, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah (see here for a discussion). Furthermore, the appeal to 1 Pet 2:9 to support this relatively late concept in Christian theology is based on eisegesis, as is so many of the doctrines Evangelical Protestants hold to (e.g., purely symbolic view of baptism; the Trinity; sola scriptura; forensic justification; eternal security).

Firstly, note that it is an established fact from Hebrews that Christ is the High Priest of the New Covenant, just as there was a High Priest (Aaron) in the Old Covenant (e.g., Heb 4:14). This shows us that not all priests are of the same rank, something inconsistent with the Evangelical claim. Secondly, we know that there was a Levitical priesthood that was of a lower rank than the High Priest but still superior in rank to the "priesthood of all believers" and thus one would be justified in expecting this second rank (members of an ordained, ministerial priesthood) of priests to be paralleled in the New Covenant along with the clear presence of the first (the great High Priest, Jesus) and third rank ("Royal Priesthood").

This is further substantiated by the fact that even after Moses calls the people a royal priesthood, he goes on to put them into different categories (those of priests and laity):

And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down and charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish. And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them. And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount and sanctify it. And the Lord said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them. (Exo 19:21-24)

Clearly, there is a second class of priests, and these are members of a ministerial priesthood.

That the New Testament authors understood this correspondence between the Old and New Covenant priesthoods can be seen in Jude 11:

Woe to them! For they go the way of Cain, and abandon themselves to Balaam's error for the sake of gain, and perish in Korah's rebellion. (NRSV)

In this verse, Jude warns the Christian community to respect the priest-laity division, noting that there will be disobedient members of the community who will be modelled after Cain, Balaam, and Korah who engaged in such a rebellion. All these situations were sins involving the priesthood. Korah's rebellion, for instance, is the most noteworthy of the three; in Num 16 Korah, serving as an equivalent of a deacon, gets upset and gathers a group of friends and engages in a rebellion:

And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord? (Num 16:3)

Moses then rebukes Korah and says to him that he would be thankful that he is a deacon, but that he should not seek to raise himself to the level of a priest:

And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also? (Num 16:10)

Funnily enough, Evangelicals would side with Korah on this! They would say to Latter-day Saints and others who hold to a ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant, "you raise yourself above everyone else; everyone is equal!"

The only way Jude's warning of a modern Korah-like rebellion makes any sense is if there will be Christians who will try to usurp authority and "move up" in the New Covenant priesthood--it makes no sense if the Evangelical understanding of the "priesthood of all believers" is correct.

As with so many of their beliefs and practices, Evangelicals are forced to defend a doctrine that is void of any sound biblical-exegetical support and is, in reality, based on a concept Martin Luther invented in 1520 in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. They are also in the unenviable position of holding to an ecclesiology and understanding of the "priesthood" that would result, if they were consistent, in the rejection of Isaiah and Jeremiah as false prophets as they prophesied of a ministerial priesthood as being part of the New Covenant (see the paper linked above).

Six Reasons Proving Cheryl Schatz Doesn't Understand the LDS Church

I recently encountered an article entitled, "Is Mormonism Christian? The Mormon Connection" by Cheryl Schatz. Here is a refutation of the opening alleged disproves of the claim “Mormonism” is truly Christian. Her comments will appear in red and my response will appear in black.

1. Mormonism teaches that there is more than one God.

True or False?

True. This is an direct conflict with what God Himself says on this subject in the Bible (Isaiah 44:6 and 8, 45:5, 6, 18, 21, 22). This also mysteriously contradicts the Book of Mormon (Alma 11:22, 26-31, and 35). Who is right: God, or the president of the Mormon Church?

The Isaiah texts are a screed directed against the popular Israelite and Canaanite theologies of the time showing that Yahweh is superior to Ba'al, and that there is no female co-mediatrix figure with Yahweh (Asherah). For a full exegesis, see here. Indeed, if Cheryl Schatz is serious about using such texts, she will have to embrace Unitarianism--the verbs and pronouns in the Hebrew text and the LXX are singulars, showing that a singular person is in view, not three persons in one "being" (a concept utterly alien to the conceptual worldview of Isaiah). Furthermore, Isa 6 shows that Isaiah believed in a heavenly court, a theme found in other texts such as Psa 82.

That the Bible affirms a plurality of (true) Gods is based on exegesis, not wishful thinking (unlike Trinitarianism).

Firstly, do not that in Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities. That this is the Christological model of “Biblical Christianity” can be seen in many places, such as Heb 1:8-9:

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast love righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.

This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim eloheyka)].

That there is a "plurality of Gods" can be seen in a variety of texts, such as Deut 32:7-9 from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which places Yawheh as one of the Gods to whom jurisdiction of a nation is given  and even in the book of Genesis (20:13), where elohim is coupled with a verb in the plural, meaning plural gods (elohim is irregular in Hebrew; it has a plural ending, but when coupled with a verb in the single person, it means "One G/god"; however, when coupled with a verb in the plural [as in Psa 82:6] means [plural] G/gods).

The Hebrew of this verse uses plural verb structures and plural persons when discussing the (true) Gods who caused Abraham to wander. It is rendered (I will transliterate the Hebrew for convenience) – 

Wyhy k'sr ht'w 'ty 'lhym mbbyt 'by ... (English: "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house..."). Another way to put it: "And it came to pass when they, (the) Gods, caused me to wander from the house of my father..." Not only is this consistent with LDS theology, but also supports the creation story in the Book of Abraham. If it had been the singular 'God', it would have been ht'h 'lhym rather than the plural ht'w 'lhym, consistent with the creation account of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 4:1ff) and LDS theology, though it blows strict forms of monotheism (whether unitarian or creedal triniarian) out of the water.

With respect to Deut 32:7-9, the NRSV (1989) of this pericope reads:

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.

One will note that this differs from the KJV; the Mastoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest text of the book of Deuteronomy, has the reading "sons of god" (the Hebrew beni-elim) or, as Ancient Near Eastern scholars understand the term, "gods."

In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 2014), we read the following note on page 419:

Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.

Other texts could be discussed, such as 1 Cor 8:4-6, which sums up the LDS perspective rather well--there is, to us, One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. Deut 6:4; Eph 4:5-6), but such does not preclude other beings who can correctly be called "god" having true existence and being in the midst of God--in fact, such is required by the biblical data when one takes a pan-canonical approach to theology and the Bible (just as one example, take Psa 29:1 "A psalm of David. Ascribe to the Lord, o divine beings [Heb: בְּנֵ֣י אֵלִ֑ים beni-elim], ascribe to the Lord glory and strength" [1985 Tanakh, Jewish Publications Society]).Both the Latter-day Saint and biblical understanding of this issue can be best summed up in the as "kingship monotheism":

Kingship MonotheismThere are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], p. 43).

Also, logically, one has to conclude a plurality of Gods, unless one wishes to explicitly reject at least one of premises a-c from the following:

A. There are at least three divine persons. 

B. Every divine person is God

C. If every a = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's 

D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.

On Psa 82:6, perhaps one of the most popular texts Latter-day Saints cite in favour of this doctrine, consider the following comments from three Evangelical Protestant scholars in a recent commentary:

Psalm 82: King of the Gods Psalm 82 places the modern reader in a very unfamiliar world. Modern thinkers hold to a monotheistic theology, meaning there is only one god and the gods of others simply do not exist. Ancient Israel did not have the same definition of monotheism. Indeed, for them not only did other gods exist, but these gods were active in the world. This psalm gives us a window on the assembly of the gods, a place where the gods are gathered to make decisions about the world. This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be a familiar image to ancient Israelites. A multitude of texts demonstrate this belief, e.g. Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 4:15-20; josh. 24:14-15. In addition, many prophetic texts extol the people to love God alone and not go after other gods, e.g., Jer. 8:19; Hos. 11:2. In later texts, the theology seems to move more toward an exclusive monotheism; see. Isa. 41:21-24 . . . Verses 6-7 place the gods on equal footing with the humans. They have lost their immortality, hence their god status. This ability for the Go of Israel to demote the others speaks of the power of the king of the council. The king alone can control all of the other gods. This divine trial also demonstrates the fairness of Israel’s god. This god is not capricious, but sentences the other gods for their refusal to act in ways that reflect the values of God’s kingdom . . . [Psalm 89:5-8] set the state in the heavenly council. In vv.5 and 8, God is praised by the heavens for God’s faithfulness, and this certainly continues the theme of vv.1-4 while also broadening God’s faithfulness to the whole world. The questions in v.6 are rhetorical, just as in Isa. 40:18 and Pss. 18:31 and 77:13, followed by the declaration of God’s clear supremacy among the gods (v.7). God is not only the God of Israel but is the chief god of the council, and all others bow before the Lord. [2] See 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Zech. 1:7-17.  See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. The Gilgamesh Epic is a story that concerns Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality that will make him a god, indicating the importance of immortality in ancient myth. (Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, The Book of Psalms [New International Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014], 641, 642, 680).

With respect to the Book of Mormon, let us examine the verses in question:

And Zeezrom said unto him, Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek] answered No. (Alma 11:26-29)

One should note from the get-go that the person of the Father is in view here. Later, there is a differentiation between “the one true God” and the Son of God, Jesus Christ:

And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God? And he [Amulek] said unto him, yea. And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he saith there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God. (Alma 11:32-35)

The idea that the Father is the “one true God” is not inconsistent with either Latter-day Saint theology on the plurality of gods and/or any high Christology. Indeed, such comments are part-and-parcel of the New Testament itself, where the Father is said to be the only true God, and the Son is distinguished, not just from the person of the Father, but God (Greek: θεος. Note the following example (many more could be offered)--

In John 17:3, we read:

αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

"Now this is life of the age to come that they may know you the only one who is the true God and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ" (my translation).

The title, τον μονον αληθινον θεον (“the only one who is the true God”) is predicated upon a single person, not a “being” composed of three “persons” (however one wishes to define “person”), and such is predicated upon the singular person of the Father, with Jesus himself distinguishes himself in John 17:3 from “the only true God.” Absolutising this verse, this is a strictly Unitarian verse as only a singular person is within the category of being the “only true God.” However, as noted, in Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities.

I am aware of the "three persons/one being" or "three 'whos' in the one 'what" idea--however, Trinitarianism also states:

Jesus = God

Father = God

Spirit = God

Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son

Numerically, there is only one God

God = Father, Son, and Spirit

To put it into logical language:

Jesus = x

Father = x

Spirit = x

Numerically, there is only one x

Only by using one definition of "God" when speaking of the triune "being" of God and another definition of "God" when predicated upon the persons of the Trinity can one get away from a logical/mathematical impossibility (3 "x"'s equalling 1 "x") or a form of modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person. The latter is condemned (rightfully) as heresy and antithetical to the biblical texts by Trinitarianism; the former, however, is not allowed, as the various person are said to be numerically identical to the "One God." This is not a "mystery" (something that cannot be understood perfectly, like the atonement of Jesus Christ), but a logical, mathematical, and I argue, a biblical-exegetical impossibility.

As we have seen, the author is using “arguments” that would refute their own theology. So much for consistency and fairness . . . (not that anti-Mormons are known for such).

Further, Alma 11 is consistent with LDS belief that there is only One God (the Father). However, it only shows theological and biblical illiteracy to claim that this refutes multiple gods being in the midst of the true God (cf. Deut 32:7-9 from Qumran as discussed above). In the Hebrew Bible, "gods" are found in reference to heavenly beings that are not supreme, but have true/ontological existence. For example, there are divinities that are inferior or subordinate to, or are divinities only by permission of the head God. Such divinities were felt to have religious power and authority, but only by participation/permission from the higher God. In the Old Testament, such would include member of the court of El alongside angels and possibly gods of foreign nations. The various mediating principles and half-personified divine attributes found in the Hebrew writings such as the דבר  or the divine word of Wisdom would belong to this class. In the New Testament, "the Word" and "the Mediator" are also used in this sense in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of John. In such passages, Christ is viewed as a subordinate being even though he is considered a divine and meriting some form of worship which, ultimately, goes back to the Father (cf. Phil 2:5-11).

One possible criticism is that modalism is in view in Alma 11, as Jesus is called “the very Eternal Father” in v.39. However, as we have seen previously, there is a clear distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son in this chapter. Furthermore, “[eternal/everlasting] Father” is a title of Christ in the Book of Mormon, denoting his role as the creator. Note, for instance, the words of King Benjamin in Mosiah 3:8:

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Only by confusing the title of “Father” with the person of God the Father can one claim such, but such would reflect pretty poor exegesis skills (cf. Isa 9:6 where the title אביעד ["Eternal Father"] is used of a Messianic figure).

2. Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ is the spirit-brother of Lucifer.

True or False?

True. See Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, page 282. This doctrine goes hand-in-hand with the teaching that Christ is a created being and not eternal God, the Creator (John 1:3, 10; Nehemiah 9:6) This, too, contradicts the Book of Mormon (Helaman 14:12, Mosiah 3: 8 and 5:15).

This is nothing short of eisegesis and yellow-journalism.

With respect to Christ being a "brother" to Satan, consider Job 1:6:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

In this text, Satan is presented as being among the “Sons of God” (בני האלהים) This can be seen in the verb יצב (to take [their] stand/position”) and that Satan is said to be in their “midst,” that is, he belongs among their ranks, clearly demonstrating that the theology of Job holds to a “Satan” who has real, ontological existence, in contradistinction to some Christadelphian interpretation of the "Satan" texts in Job. When one examines the phrase, “among them” (KJV), one finds that the Hebrew is a phrase consisting of the prefixed preposition (בְּ) meaning “in/among” and (תָּוֶךְ). When one examines the other instances of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible, it denotes someone being a member of a group, not independent thereof (e.g., Exo 28:33; Lev 17:8, 10, 13; Num 1:47; 5:3; 15:26, 29, etc.); indeed, commentators such as David J.A. Clines states that the phrase regularly denotes membership of the group in question (See Clines, Job 1-20 [Word Biblical Commentary, 1989], 19). The bare term תָּוֶךְ also denotes membership, not independence, of the group in question (cf. Gen 23:10; 40:20; 2 Kgs 4:13).

Furthermore, the "Satan" in Job 1:6, in Hebrew, is not just the bare term (שָׂטָן), meaning an "adversary," which, in and of itself, can denote anyone who opposes another, whether divine or not (e.g., the angel of the Lord is referred to as an adversary or שָׂטָן in Num 22:22), but is coupled with the definite article (השטן), “the satan,” which denotes the supernatural tempter (cf. Zech 3:2); one should compare this with similar Greek locutions in the LXX and NT such as such as ο σατανας (Sirach 21:27; Matt 12:26; Mark 3:26; 4:15; Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1 cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; 1 Tim 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2, 7); ο διαβολος (Matt 4:1,5,8,11; 13:39; 25:41; Luke 4:2,3,6,13; 8:12; John 8:44; 13:2; Acts 10:38; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim 3:6, 7; 2 Tim 2:26; Heb 2:14; James 4:7; 1 John 3:8, 10; Jude 1:9; Rev 2:10; 12:12; 20:10) and ο πειραζω (Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5), all denoting the external, supernatural tempter in most of Christian theologies (some small groups denying a supernatural Satan notwithstanding).

Why is this significant? One popular charge is that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus and Satan are “brothers.” Left on its own, it is shocking and seen as blasphemous. However, left on its own, with no explanation, is “yellow journalism.”

In Latter-day Saint Christology Christ has existed for all eternity; many critics claim that LDS theology is reflective of Arianism or some other Christology, but that is a non sequitur. D&C 93:21 and other texts affirm that Christ has existed eternally. Notice the “high Christology” of the following two passages from uniquely LDS scriptural texts (more could be reproduced):

And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he [Christ] is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Alma 11:39)

I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. (D&C 19:1)

In LDS theology, properly stated (and not the caricature one finds in works such as The God Makers and other presentations thereof) states we all pre-existed as the spirit sons and daughters of God. In that sense, we are all brothers/sisters of Jesus. However, Job 1:6 proves, unless one is a Christadelphian or some other similar group, “the Satan” is one of the “sons of God,” that is, a member of the heavenly court, one of whom was Yahweh (cf. Deut 32:7-9, etc).

On John 1:3, consider the following comments from LDS scholar Blake Ostler:

John 1:3.Copan and Craig also argue that John 1:3 supports the idea of creation out of nothing (here given in KJV): "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν). Copan and Craig assert of this verse: "The implication is that all things (which would include preexistent matter, if that were applicable to the creative process) exist through God's agent, who is the originator of everything" (pp. 117-18). But this verse says nothing about the creation of "preexistent matter." One must assume beforehand that the word create must mean to create ex nihilo in order to arrive at this conclusion, for this verse says only that if something was made, then it was made through the Word. It does not address anything that may not have been made. More important, it does not address how those things were made, its point being through whom the creation was made. Anything that was made was made by Christ. Since the translation one reviews is so critical to interpretation, I will provide another translation: "All things came about through him and without him not one thing came about, which came about."[27] The question in this case is whether the final phrase which came about is part of this verse or the beginning of the next verse. Hubler explains:

The punctuation of [John 1:3] becomes critical to its meaning. Proponents of creatio ex materia could easily qualify the creatures of the Word to that "which came about," excluding matter. Proponents of creatio ex nihilo could place a period after "not one thing came about" and leave "which came about" to the next sentence. The absence of a determinate tradition of punctuation in New Testament [Greek] texts leaves room for both interpretations. Neither does creation by word imply ex nihilo (contra Bultmann) as we have seen in Egypt, Philo, and Midrash Rabba, and even in 2 Peter 3:5, where the word functions to organize pre-cosmic matter.[28]

Of course, the reality of this text is that it does not consciously address the issue of creation ex nihilo at all. It states who accomplished the creation, not how it was done.[29] A person who accepts creation from chaos can easily say that no "thing" came about that is not a result of the Word's bringing it about but agree that there is a chaos in which no "things" exist prior to their creation as such. Copan and Craig hang their hat on the connotations of the word πάντα, meaning "all" in an inclusive sense. They argue that because "all" things that come about are brought about by the Word, there is no possibility of an uncreated reality that has not been brought about by God. However, the final phrase, ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν, translated "nothing made that was made," limits the scope of the creative power to the order of the created and implies that whatever is not made was not made by him. If it is created, he created it; if it is not, then it is not within the scope of "what is made."

Notes for the Above

[27] Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo," 108.

[28] Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo," 108.

[29] There is a major punctuation problem here: Should the relative clause "that was made" go with verse 3 or verse 4? The earliest manuscripts have no punctuation (P 66, 75* A B D and others). Many of the later manuscripts that do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with verse 4 (P 75c C D L Ws 050* and a few others). Nestlé-Aland placed the phrase in verse 3 and moved the words to the beginning of verse 4. In a detailed article, K. Aland defended the change. K. Aland, "Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4: ?ber die Bedeutung eines Punktes," Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 59 (1968): 174-209. He sought to prove that the attribution of ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν to verse 3 began to be carried out in the fourth century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to verse 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church. It was only after the Arians began to use the phrase that it became attached to verse 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from verse 4 to verse 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of verse 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there, while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in verse 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase ὃ γέγονεν with verse 4 gives a complicated expression. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (London: SPCK, 1978), 157, says that both ways of understanding verse 4 with ὃ γέγονεν included "are almost impossibly clumsy": "That which came into being—in it the Word was life; That which came into being—in the Word was its life." The following points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ἐν as verse 4 begins; (2) he repeats frequently ("nothing was created that has been created"); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to verse 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, ὃ γέγονεν) was life in him. In conclusion, the phrase is best taken with verse 3.

3. Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ was born after sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary (thereby denying the virgin birth)

True or False?

True. See Journal of discourses, Volume 4, page 218, for an example. Many Mormons are unfamiliar with this doctrine of their church, but this is nonetheless a cardinal teaching. This contradicts both the Bible (Matthew 1:23) and the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:10). Beginning to see a pattern?

Utterly false. Barry Bickmore destroyed this "argument" a number of years ago in response to Isaiah Bennet:

Virgin Birth

When nonauthoritative statements of LDS leaders do not deliver the desired "punch," anti-Mormon authors will often expand the authoritative to include their own dubious interpretations of LDS doctrine. This is especially true with regard to the LDS doctrine of the virgin birth. Bennett quotes a number of nonauthoritative statements by LDS leaders saying that Jesus is the "only begotten after the flesh," that Jesus was begotten "in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," that Mary "must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father," and the like (IM, pp. 292, 293; WMC, p. 93). He takes these statements to mean that members of the Church of Jesus Christ "do not believe that [Mary] was a virgin when [Jesus] was conceived or afterward because they believe conception occurred in the ordinary, natural way" (IM, p. 292) and that "God the Father begot Jesus in the flesh through copulation with the Virgin Mary" (WMC, p. 92). Since the LDS have an anthropomorphic concept of deity, it is certainly possible to interpret these statements in the way Bennett indicates. However, this is not the only interpretation possible, and Bennett leaves out important statements from our prophets and scriptures that lead to much more modest conclusions.

Certainly the prophets have clarified that the virgin birth was a case of sexual reproduction.[97] That is, Jesus had both a father and a mother in the flesh,and his flesh obtained its genetic blueprint from both. Similarly, they have made clear that Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary was told, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" (Luke 1:35). To us this indicates that Mary had to be transfigured by the power of the Holy Spirit to withstand the presence of God (see Moses 1:11). On the other hand, it is equally clear that our scriptures and prophets have affirmed that "His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Nephi 11:20.)"[98] That is, whatever the particular mode of conception, Mary came out of the experience still a virgin. Consider the following statement by President Harold B. Lee:

You asked about . . . the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more.[99]

Bennett even resorts to a highly interpretive paraphrase of a statement by Bruce R. McConkie to obscure this point. "McConkie resorted to redefining the term: A virgin is a woman who has not had sexual intercourse with a mortal man. The Heavenly Father is a resurrected, immortal man. Therefore, Mary did not lose her virginity" (IM, p. 294; cf. WMC, p. 93; citing The Mortal Messiah 1:314). Nothing of the kind is on the page or even in the book Bennett cites. (I will discuss below his tendency to lift quotations from other anti-Mormon authors without attribution and without checking sources.) However, his paraphrase is vaguely similar to the wording in McConkie's article, "Virgin Birth," in Mormon Doctrine. McConkie writes, "Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father." But how did the conception take place? He goes on to say that "Mary, his mother, 'was carried away in the Spirit' (1 Ne.11:13-21), was 'overshadowed' by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place 'by the power of the Holy Ghost' resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father." Finally, McConkie claims, "Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false."[100] All this seems quite a bit more vague than Bennett would have us believe.

Regarding McConkie's supposed statement, Bennett opines, "Of course, this is ridiculous. Sex is sex, whether it is with an immortal manor a mortal man" (WMC, p. 93). Is it really so obvious? We do not know what the mechanics of reproduction are when celestial beings are involved. As James E. Talmage explains, Jesus was begotten "not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof."[101] That is, it was a miracle.[102] What is the "higher manifestation" of natural law that occurred here? Talmage never says.

Indeed, one of Bennett's prime witnesses is Orson Pratt, who said that the Father and Mary "must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife" (IM, p. 294), but if Bennett had read just a few more lines, he would have found that Pratt also said the Father "overshadow[ed] the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband." Surely, Pratt meant that God acted in the capacity of a husband by begetting a child with Mary; but as for the mechanics of conception, Pratt only ventured to apply the scriptural language that God "overshadowed" her.

Consider this analogy. Jesus has a resurrected, celestial body. At one point he transported this undeniably physical body right through a solid wall, and the wall remained intact (see Luke 24:36-40). Christians of all stripes affirm that this event really occurred. It did not happen spiritually or figuratively—a solid body was literally transported through a solid wall and nothing happened to the wall! How did Jesus do it? Here, most Christians will stop short and look puzzled. It was a miracle, after all, and it seems a little silly to ask how Jesus did it. It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out why many Latter-day Saints stop short and look puzzled when anti-Mormons tell us how we must believe the miracle of Jesus' conception and the virgin birth were accomplished. No matter what they may have personally speculated,the modern prophets have never explicitly, and certainly never authoritatively, stated what Isaiah Bennett says they have.

Endnotes for the Above

[97] I thank Russell McGregor for this exceptionally clear explanation.

[98] The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 7.

[99] The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996),14.

[100] McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 822. I find it significant that Bennett uses quotations rather than paraphrases in every other instance in this section of Inside Mormonism. Did he know that McConkie's words did not quite go as far as he would have liked?

[101] James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 77.

[102] Talmage defined miracles in these words: "Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. . . . The operation of a higher law in any particular case does not destroy the actuality of an inferior one." James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984), 200. See Paul C. Hedengren, "Miracles," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:908: Miracles are "a beneficial event brought about through divine power that mortals do not understand and of themselves cannot duplicate."

With respect to the Father being the “father” of Jesus (not the Holy Spirit), this is biblical, although much of Evangelicalism debates this issue, and that of the humanity of Jesus vis-à-vis his conception and the annunciation.

Consider the following from Wayne Grudem:

[W]e should not say we say that Jess got his “male humanity” from Mary. If Jesus’s human nature had been derived solely from Mary’s physical body, he would have been her clone, and therefore he would have been a woman. The doctrine of the virgin birth must be understood in a way consistent with Matt. 1:20, which says, “That which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirt.” What was conceived in Mary’s womb was a human baby, and it was “from the Holy Spirit,” which suggests that half of the genetic material that Jesus received was miraculously created by the Holy Spirit, and half was from Mary. (Wayne Grudem, “Doctrinal Derivations from Evangelical-Feminist Arguments about the Trinity,” in One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Person, Implications for Life, eds. Bruce A. Ware and John Starke [Wheaton, Illin.: Crossway, 2015], pp.17-45, here, p. 26 n. 18; emphasis in original).

I agree with Grudem to claim that there was no genetic contribution from another person other than Mary results in a perverted understanding of the humanity of Jesus; the New Testament, after all, emphasises the true, full humanity of Jesus Christ, and condemns those who reject such (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). Of course, in LDS theology, it is the person of the Father, not the Holy Spirit, that is the “father” of Jesus vis-à-vis His humanity. With respect to Matt 1:20, such has to be read in light of the parallel text in Luke 1:35:

And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the child be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (NRSV)

The term translated as “Most High” is ὕψιστος which corresponds to the Hebrew עֶלְיוֹן which is a title of God (the Father) in the Old Testament and intertestamental literature. This is further strengthened by the fact that Luke is borrowing language from the LXX that speaks of God's glorious presence at work:

Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Whenever the cloud was taken up from the tabernacle, the Israelites would set out on each stage of their journey. (Exo 40:35-36 NRSV)

The term translated as "settled upon [the tent]" is επισκιαζω, the same verb translated as “overshadow” in the Lucan text.

The same holds true of Psa 91:4 (90:4, LXX):

He will cover (επισκιαζω) you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness is a shield and buckler. (NRSV)

Some, such as James Dunn (Christology in the Making) and Raymond E. Brown (The Birth of the Messiah), among others, have argued that the person of the Holy Spirit is to in view in Luke 1:35, but it is to be understood as a form of parallelism, with “holy Spirit” and “Most High” being synonymous with one another, and the locution, “holy Spirit” to be interpreted as the operational presence of God, not the person of the Holy Spirit. In light of the Bible’s penchant of synonymous parallelism, as well as other types of parallelism, such is more than plausible an exegesis of the text.

The person of God the Father is presented as being the one who “overshadows” Mary, through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirt, no doubt, in part, to allow Mary to withstand the presence of deity (cf. D&C 67:11); in that respect, it is plausible to also understand God the Father as being the “father” of Jesus, vis-à-vis His humanity, with the same “genetic contribution” from the Father as Mary, Jesus’ biological mother (without going into “how” such genetic material was created [ex nihilo or some other means]).

For more on LDS Christology, see my article, “Latter-day Saints Have Chosen the True Biblical Jesus.”

4. Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones.

True or False?

True. See Doctrine and Covenants, Section 130. The Bible, as usual, disagrees with both Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church (John 4:24, Luke 24:39, Jeremiah 23:24).

It is true that LDS theology teaches that the Father is embodied. However, (1) none of the texts Cheryl references are contrary to such and (2) there is strong biblical support for this doctrine.

On the topic of John 4:24, perhaps the most popular “proof-text” against LDS theology on this point, such can only be used against “Mormonism” by engaging in eisegesis.

One must note the irony that most critics who raise this verse are Trinitarians. Why? In this verse, there is a differentiation, not just between the persons of Jesus and the Father, but between Jesus and God (θεος)! Notwithstanding, there are some elements on this verse that are often overlooked by critics.

Firstly, the Greek of this verse is:

πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν

The phrase, often translated, “God is spirit” is in bold. In Greek grammar, this is a qualitative predicate nominative, which deals with, not composition, but one's qualities. Furthermore, from the context, this refers to man’s worship of God, not the composition of deity. Jesus is addressing a Samaritan, whose theology privileged Mount Gezirim, while the Jews privileged Jerusalem, one of the many disputes between them. Jesus, instead, echoing the universalism of the New Covenant, states that proper worship of God will not be localised in one place. In other words, this verse does not address God's physiological nature--only the means by which men communicate with God. Such must be done spiritually (i.e., spirit to spirit), and must develop a spiritual nature.

Furthermore, taking the absolutist view of this verse to its "logical" conclusion, one would have to state that it is a requirement that men are to shed their physical bodies in order to worship God--if God is only spirit and this passage requires men to worship God "in spirit," then men must worship God only in spirit. Thus, to cite John 4:24 against the teachings of Mormon theology is to claim that men cannot worship God as mortal beings, which is ludicrous. It would also akin to absolutising 1 or 15:45, and stating that Christ currently exists in an unembodied spirit, notwithstanding Christ's corporeal ascension (Acts 1:11) and His being depicted as embodied in post-ascension visions of Jesus (e.g., Acts 7:55-56).

A related criticism that has been raised by some opponents (e.g., Craig Blomberg in How Wide the Divide?) is that if God were to possess a physical body, this would make divine omnipresence impossible as God would be rendered "limited" or "finite" by that body. Therefore, God, in LDS theology, could not be omnipresent, something required by this verse. However, Latter-day Saints affirm only that the Father has a body, not that his body has him. The Father is corporeal and infinitely more, and if a spirit can be omnipresent without being physically present, then so can a God who possess a body and a spirit.

Indeed, the Bible affirms that, though the Father has a body (e.g.,Heb 1:3, discussed below), His glory, influence, and power fills the universe (Jer 23:34). He is continually aware of everything in the universe and can communicate with, and travel to, any spot instantaneously (Psa 139:7-12).

Furthermore, a question that is begged is that “spirit” is immaterial. However, many early Christians believed that “spirit” was material (e.g., Origen, On First Principles, Preface 9 and Tertullian, Against Praxaes, 7), something consistent with LDS theology (D&C 131:7).

Another related verse is Luke 24:39. However, as with John 4:24, this is another example of eisegesis. What Evangelical critics fail to note is that the converse of the statement is not true. A living physical body most definitely does have a spirit. In fact, it is physically dead without one (James 2:26). A spirit alone does not have a physical body. But if God has a physical body, he also has a spirit. Therefore, even though God is corporeal, it is appropriate to say that God "is spirit" (as in John 4:24), for spirit is the central part of His nature as a corporeal being.

Moreover, it would not be appropriate to say that God is only a spirit based on this verse--here, Christ clearly has a spirit and a physical body. His spirit had just been recombined with His perfected and glorified physical body in the resurrection, a point He took great pains to demonstrate (Luke 24:41-43). He was not, however, "a spirit" in the sense of being only a spirit.

Additionally, in unique LDS Scripture, we find something similar to John 4:24 echoed in D&C 93:33-35:

For man is spirit, The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy. And when separated man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

Finally, consider the following comments from three exegetes on the Gospel of John:

Commenting John 4:24, New Testament scholar, C.H. Dodd wrote:

It should be observed that to translate 'God is a spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning. 'A spirit' implies one of the class of πνευματα, and as we have seen, there is no trace in the Fourth Gospel of the vulgar conception of a multitude of πνευματα. (C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: 1958], 225 n. 1)

On the absurdities of understanding John 4:24 as teaching the ontological nature of God, Origen wrote:

Many writers have made various affirmations about God and His ουσια. Some have said that He is of a corporeal nature, fine and aether-like; some that he is of incorporeal nature; others that He is beyond ουσια in dignity and power. It is therefore worth our while to see whether we have in the Scriptures starting-points (αφορμας) for making any statement about the ουσια of God. Here [1 John i.2] it is said that πνευμα is, as it were, His ουσια. For he said, πνευμα ο θεος. In the Law He is said to be fire, for it is written, ο θεος ημων πυρ καταναλισκον (Deut. iv.24, Heb. xii. 29), and in John to be light, for he says, ο θεος πως εστι, και σκοτια εω αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια (1 John i.5). if we are to take these statements at their face value, without concerning ourselves with anything beyond the verbal expression, it is time for us to say that God is σωμα; but what absurdities would follow if we said so, few realise. (Origen, Commentary on John xiii.21-23, as cited by Dodd, ibid., 225-26).

This is mirrored by the comments of Raymond Brown in his magisterial 2-volume commentary on John's Gospel:

[This verse is] not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" ( 1 John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16). (The Gospel According to John (i-xii), vol. 29 of the Anchor Bible [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966], 167.)

On Hebrews 1:3, a text clearly teaching divine embodiment, a careful, succinct exegesis of this text from the Greek was presented by D. Charles Pyle in his FAIR Conference paper from 1999, "I have said, 'ye are gods': Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text"

There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.

Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., the present state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.

Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek kai kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα aapaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.

Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”

In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.

5. Mormonism teaches that God the Father was once a man.

True or False?

True. Joseph Smith, prophet and founder of the Mormon Church, taught this in the "King Follett Discourse," his last major address, and the Mormon Church teaches it to this very day (Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, page 5 and 6). This is a violent contradiction with not only the bible, but with the Book of Mormon as well ( Moroni 8:18, Mormon 9:9).

It can only be a violent contradiction if one engages in eisegesis of biblical and uniquely Latter-day Saint texts.

 Christologically, if one follows the New Testament, one is in the same "problem." We know from Phil 2:5-11, for instance, that Jesus emptied Himself of divine attributes (kenosis) to become truly human; that this is the case can be seen in Mark 12:32 (cf. Matt 24:36; see also Luke 2:52) where Jesus did not know when the parousia (his coming in glory/"second coming") would be. I know some Trinitarians (e.g. James White; Sam Shamoun) argue that this was the "human will/nature" of Jesus speaking or that Jesus "veiled," for a mysterious reason, his own omnipotence this one moment, but to claim such, and divorce such from the person of Jesus is actually counter to Trinitarian understandings of the hypostatic union and/or to make Jesus deceptive; furthermore, it results in Nestorianism, where the humanity and divinity of Jesus are, for all intents and purposes, two people, not one, again, antithetical to Trinitarian (as well as Latter-day Saint) Christologies. The temptation scenes in the gospels (esp. Matt 4:1-11, the fuller version of this scene in Jesus' life) portrays Jesus as truly suffering and being truly tempted by the tempter; if one holds to traditional Christologies, Jesus was not truly tempted, as there was no real chance of him sinning, which, however way one cuts it, is docetic (i.e., Christ appearing to be human; but in reality [at least with respect to being tempted] was not)--again, such runs in the claims of Heb 2:17-18, which necessitates Jesus' temptations to be real, but ones that he overcame sinlessly. Interestingly, in Phil 2:5-11 [cf. D&C 93:1-20 in the LDS canon], after the ascension, Jesus is exalted and given a name above all other names (Yahweh [Phil 2:9]). However, if Trinitarian Christology is true, this is nonsensical, as Jesus was "fully divine" a la the Trinitarian understanding of this concept, merely "veiled" his divine attributes during mortality while still retaining them, and "unveiled" them post-ascension.

As for passages such as Moroni 8:18 and Psa 90:2 that speak of the eternality of God, consider the following:

1. The attributes of deity have always existed, having no beginning and will have no end, regardless of who holds or shares these attributes.
2. The ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins did not understand such terms in the same way as we do today. Our ideas on the meaning of "eternal" and its cognate terms are wholly modern ideas which were not believed as they are before the fourth century; indeed, the term we often translate as eternity (Hebrew: עוֹלָם Greek: αιων/αιωνιος) and related terms, alongside having a qualitative meaning, meant an undetermined and unspecified period of time to the ancients. They were forced to use such words in repetitive phrases to come near the concept, but even then the meaning still had inherent time constraints. If we understand such phrases in the Book of Mormon as ancients understood them, the conflict vanishes. Our concepts of eternity and time are wholly modern concepts which ancient Semites and others did not hold to; they are later, post-biblical constructions. [1]
3. The Book of Mormon (and biblical) authors cannot be speaking of metaphysical natures not being changed; if such were the case, this would contradict the claim that Jesus Christ emptied himself to become a man like us (cf. Heb 2:16-18 and Phil 2:5-11 where Jesus experiences a kenosis), notwithstanding Heb 13:8 stating that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
4. In Latter-day Saint theology, intelligences, and all the attributes inherent within intelligence (e.g., personality) have existed throughout all eternity (e.g., D&C 93:29); God the Father has existed in like-manner, according to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith[2]
5. Note the language of D&C 132:20: “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting . . .”

As for Psa 90:2, the Hebrew reads:

בטרם הרים ילדו ותחולל ארץ ותבל ומעולם עד עולם אתה אל

The 1985 JPS Tanakh renders the verse thusly:

Before the mountains came into being, before You brought forth the earth and the world, from eternity to eternity You are God.

The Hebrew phrase אתה אל (“you are” and “[a] god”) appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible:

And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God [NRSV: You are El [god] Roi] seesth me . . .(Gen 16:13)

Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. (Isa 45:15)

And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshiah: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil. (Jonah 4:2)

The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "you are a god." Latter-day Saints can reconcile this biblical passage with our theology of God the Father having experiencing a mortality of his own under the premise that, once he was perfected/exalted (similar to how Jesus was--Phil 2:5-11; Luke 13:32; Heb 1:4; 5:9, etc) to being "[a] God," he remained "[a] God" "from everlasting to everlasting" (cf. D&C 132:20, quoted above and the discussion regarding the ancient understanding of "eternity").

Notes for the Above

[1] For a thorough study of the meaning of the αιων/αιωνιος and their ancient meanings, see Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aionios and Aidios in Classical and Christian Texts (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2007). For the difference between Semitic and post-biblical Greek concepts of "time" and "eternity," see Thorleif Bornan, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek (New York: Norton, 1970).

[2] As representative examples, taken from The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Centre, 1980), ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook; spelling errors in original text retained: "God was a self exhisting  being, man exhists upon the same principle. God made a tabernacle & put a spirit in it and it became a Human soul, man exhisted in spirit & mind coequal with God himself . . . Intelligence is Eternal & it is self exhisting" (p. 346); "Intelligence exists upon a selfexistent principle" (p. 360); "I believe that God is eternal. That He had no beginning, and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end. I believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning; it can have no end” (p. 33)

6. Mormonism teaches that we can become gods, and rule over our own planets.

True or False?

True. This is what the Mormon temples are for (see reference cited in answer 5 above; see also Doctrine and Covenants, section 132 in order to understand the direct connection between Mormon godhead and the practice of polygamy in the LDS Church prior to 1890.)

Firstly, I would recommend one read the recent essay, endorsed by the First Presidency, on the doctrine of exaltation here.

Secondly, there is much biblical evidence for the doctrine of theosis and us, not just being glorified, but being exalted in the same way the Father exalted Jesus. Due to the length of this article, I will keep the discussion brief.

Note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21:

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy eet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I am also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one (cf. Testament of Job 32:3, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).

As for Rev 3:9, believers are said to be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, all other instances it is used elsewhere in the book of Revelation, it is always used within a religious context (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question-begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9 (cf. my discussion on whether Jesus receives λατρευω in the New Testament).

One could go on, but I think the following is enough evidence that this critic, as with many other critics of the LDS Church, that they are grossly ignorant, not just of Latter-day Saint theology and Scripture, but the Bible which they claim to respect and reverence as the ultimate authority. In reality, Cheryl Schatz is unable to engage in any meaningful exegesis of the Bible let alone scholarly research into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.