As an example of how inconsistent and sloppy anti-Mormons can be, note the following from one critic in an attempt to disprove the thesis that early Israelites believed in the ontological (“real”) existence of plural divine beings/gods:
Famous scholar and professor William F. Albright writes, Thanks to archaeology we can see, more clear that the prophets of Israel were neither pagan ecstatics or religious innovators” (Josh McDowell, More Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 59). Hebrew scholar Dr. T.J. Meek further comments that: “Deuteronomy 6:4 . . . is usually translated, ‘Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one,’ whatever that may mean. If it makes any sense at all, it seems to mean that there was only one Yahweh and not many as there were of the Baals” (Cited by Roger Cook, “Hebrew, Early Judaic, and Early Christian Thought”).
According to conservative scholar, Jacob Hoschander, the words,
. . . express the unity of the Lord as far as Israel was concerned, and do not imply the doctrine of an absolute Monotheism, which denies the very existence of all other gods. Against the popular rendering both grammar and syntax require the translation, “Hear, O Israel; Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone.” But even so there is again nothing to suggest anything more than monolatry. (Ibid.)
Traditionally, Israel is seen as monolatry, i.e. originally monotheistic and became compromised as polytheistic influences introduced new pagan gods. Dr. Lowell K. Handy of University of Chicago Divinity argues: “There is no reason to assume, though it often is, that the prophets, priests, or rulers of these two kingdoms in the first half of the first millennium were essentially monotheists” (Ibid.). (Matthew A. Paulson, Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship Regarding Classical Christian Theology and the Book of Mormon [Livermore, Calif.: WingSpan Press, 2006, 2009], 71-2)
In light of all of this, Paulson then (amazingly!) concludes in the very next sentence:
Polytheism was an outside infliction upon the biblical monotheism of Judaism and not vice versa. (Ibid., 72)
Ignoring the evidence for belief in the ontological existence of other divine beings than Yahweh! Amazing!
Elsewhere we have this claim about Arianism:
In AD 313 Arius of Alexandria began to teach that Jesus did not exist before his incarnation (Ibid., 62)
While I am not an Arian, this is simply false and cannot stand—Arius did not believe Jesus came into existence at the incarnation; both Arius and his theological opponents agreed that Jesus personal pre-existed his conception; the debate was whether Jesus personally pre-existed eternally or, as Arius would put it, “there was a time when he [Jesus] was not.”
For a full refutation of the claim that LDS theology is "Arian," see:
The chapter itself (pp. 49-82) is an attempted critique of LDS theology and deification. I am sure that D. Charles Pyle's forthcoming book will blow Paulson out of the exegetical and patristic water, so be sure to check it out when it becomes available to purchase.