Mormon Trinity

[Cow Poke]

This is simple Sparko.

No fair minded person, who has studied all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, will ever believe that Joseph actually thought he was greater than Jesus.

Simply not true. I know a number of ex-Mormons who DID believe as you, but the more they studied, the more they saw what a self-serving egotistic narcissist Smith was.

It is contrary to everything that the prophet taught everywhere else. The context here was giving those people in the audience, who had violently attacked him and his family, something to chew on.

Who WERE "those people in the audience", Seven?

In retaliation, Joseph did not attack them back in a violent way, but instead entered into a description of "vain" and "foolish" boasting.

The point of quoting Paul's boasting "in folly" as an introduction to this, was to set up Joseph's own boasting "in folly". The bottom line was that , like Paul, he was telling them that he was going to accomplish what God had sent him to accomplish, no matter what they tried to do to him, because God was with him, albeit "in a still small voice".

Pretending that Joseph actually had an ego to the extent that Joseph supposedly believed that he was better than Jesus , is an argument that will never be taken seriously. There are too many facts that contradict such an accusation.

-7up

Smith DID have a huge ego. In every sense... Grand PooBah of the Masons, President of the United States, "General" of the Militia prancing about on his horse.... he was a HUGE egotist.

[Cow Poke]

Smith DID have a huge ego. In every sense... Grand PooBah of the Masons, President of the United States, "General" of the Militia prancing about on his horse.... he was a HUGE egotist.

Source: LDS.org

Joseph wasted little time in preparing a platform for his campaign. He met with William W. Phelps and dictated to him the headings for a political pamphlet titled , the foundation document for his presidential platform.

© Copyright Original Source

[seven7up]

Why was my post to Bill removed?

[Cow Poke]

Wow, I didn't even KNOW this part....


So, as President*, Smith wanted unfettered control "an army" to intervene in states.... if THAT isn't ego, what is? I can't make this stuff up!



*praise God, it never came to that!

[Bill the Cat]

Why was my post to Bill removed?

It was moved by me. I explained it in another thread.

[seven7up]

7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

First, I apologize for implying you "lied", but that's the feeling I get when you just keep repeating the same thing, even after being told that's NOT what we think... That just makes you look like a kool-aid drinking script reader. "if they say X, respond with Y".

You are implying that Joseph Smith SHOULD have known that the Father had a tangible embodiment from the very beginning. I am simply responding to that. I explained, from the words in our conversation, how I arrived to the conclusion that was what you were implying.

The fact that you do not understand the Trinity does not prove that it was not taught in the early Mormon Church.

The fact that you think that the Mormon Church taught the Trinity (as taught in Creedal Trinitarianism) proves that you do do not understand the Trinity. The Trinity teaches that God is literally omnipresent. The Trinity teaches that the Father and the Son are the same being/substance. Joseph Smith was not teaching that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Yes, he couldn't keep his stories straight -- even though he had, allegedly, the "Urum and Thummum", the golden plates, and the power of translation, he couldn't keep it straight.

I see. So, Joseph Smith was teaching Creedal Trinitarianism before 1835 , except when he wasn't.

The power of translation was a way to translate what was on the plates into English. You cannot blame the prophets that Joseph Smith was translating from for not having a complete understanding of the Godhead, when the Israelites did not have a complete understanding of the Godhead either.



-7up

[seven7up]

We simply pay attention to CONTEXT, both textual and historical. Those verses fall under category 4 in this list:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

(1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
(2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
(3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
(4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Really? a "community?" - Then you are calling YHWH a liar, because he said there was no God formed before him, nor after him.

Again, the context you refer to falls under category 4 above. The idol worshipers were "forming" and "creating" statues and worshiping them.

HE ("I" - note the singular, not "we") is the only God.

Only in that context, compared to false idols. In another context, God DOES say "us" and "our" and God IS plural (Elohim). And obviously, in another context, we see in the New Testament subject and object distinctions in reference to Jesus and the Father. Are you saying that this Old Testament verse you are referring to should be considered as evidence against the Trinity, because there is no subject/object distinction between Father and Son made here? If you want to misunderstand the context of that statement and try to apply it to other aspects of theology in the Godhead, then you should realize that it would go against your understanding of the Trinity as well.

If Jesus was once a man who "joined the community" then the community existed BEFORE he was God. Yet he specifically says that is not the case.

Technically, the LDS position is that Jesus was Deity BEFORE entering mortality, and even before the creation of the universe, before time even existed in this universe. However, that is obviously outside the scope of the statement you are referring to, which again, is about people making false idols of wood, stone, metal, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

Yes I can imagine the Father with Jesus beside him. They are one God revealed as two persons. Your lack of the understanding of the trinity is the problem here.

That wasn't the question. The question is this. Knowing that Jesus Christ refers to the Father as greater than him and knowing that Jesus refers to the Father as his God would Jesus stand at the right hand of the Father and say "there is no God beside me"? No, the context is entirely different.

If Jesus is YHWH and the creator (Genesis, John) then the Father did nothing. He is no "most high God" - he didn't do squat. He is no God at all.

I didn't say the Father did nothing. It was a joint effort. They worked together as a team. It is a Plural noun and a singular verb. Also, that is why it says "Let US create..."

Yet the bible says he is God. It also says Jesus is God. And the Holy Spirit is God. Yet only one God.

In one sense they are three, and in another sense they are one.

Well if Jesus is YHWH and the Father is not, as the LDS teach, then it must be Jesus' house huh?

It becomes Jesus' house by inheritance. If Jesus and the Father are the same being, as Trinitarians claim, then Jesus would not have to be "given" authority and Jesus would not have "inherit" anything because it would already be his.

You realize that Elohim is a plural word. But that plurality doesn't extend to number of beings. It is like Sheep. The "we" used in Genesis is there because of grammar, not because of number of Gods. sheesh.

Yes. I am fully aware that Elohim is a plural word. The Singular is El or Eloah. It is the -im ("-eem") on the end which makes it plural. It is like water (Hebrew mayim). A body of water has multiple "waters" which are gathered together and those "waters" act as one.

Again, you don't understand the trinity at all. At least try to understand what we believe before burning down a straw man.

Nobody understands it or can understand it because it is contradictory. The doctrine was created in order to appease both sides of a controversy, and each side of the controversy argues for different sides of a position. So, all you have are straw men.

TWO persons, one divine nature: God. Also Jesus ... is a different person from the Father, yet shares the same divine nature with him.

I can agree with you on this part here.

However, that is not what defines Creedal Trinitarianism or separates us theologically. The difference between us is when you attempt to claim that the Father and the Son are the same substance/Being. That never was a part of LDS doctrine and never will be.

-7up

[Cow Poke]

7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

You're really being dense, Seven.... NOBODY is saying that. This is really getting old.

[seven7up]

One God and gods

I love how you like to take things literally that are obviously figurative in order to support your LDS doctrines, yet when something is clearly literal, but it disproves your doctrine, all of a sudden, and for no reason and with no support, it becomes "figurative"

I provide support AND reason. I have done it every time. Why do LDS take the concept of "oneness" figuratively? Because the Bible clearly does.

"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21*that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22*I have given them the glory that you gave me,"

Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul

Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ

2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind

Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ

Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together

LDS use and understand the words the way they are used elsewhere in the Biblical text. Meanwhile, you use vocabulary and definitions derived from the man made creeds. That is why I said this to Bill"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Noel Freedman explained this way:

"The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed new and untraditional and unscriptural terms."
http://www.vdebooks.com/divine-commi...i-PDF-3166905/

The reason why I brought in Ex Nihilo into this discussion, is because the idea of creation "out of nothing" is one of the factors that helped overthrow "subordinationist" views of the Godhead, which were in the majority prior to the formation of Creedal Trinitarianism. If Jesus Christ was made or begotten "out of nothing", then how can He be eternal? Therefore, Trinitarians had to invent concepts like Jesus being constantly issued forth from the Father, who sustains the Son's existence from all eternity and thus is called "eternally begotten". This was a ploy to change the meaning of the language and what it actually means to be "begotten". Don't expect LDS to buy into it. You have to come up with silly things like "functional subordination" , whereby Jesus has to act like he is subordinate to the Father, but he really isn't because they are actually the same being/substance. All of that is nonsense and unBiblical.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -

This is not a figure of speech, 7up. It is exactly what it says. Yes, it means that there is no peer to the person, but that is exactly what it means literally too. God has no peer! No one, nothing is God besides him! There is only ONE God. Not a "community of Gods"

Paul covers this topic as follows in 1 Corinthians and I will insert the letter designated above to indicate which kind of "god" he is referring to:

"we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world (D), and that there is no God but one (A). For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords (could be B or C ... B for ones in heaven and C for ones on Earth), 6yet for us there is but one God (a member within A), the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; AND one Lord (a member within A), Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

The word Elohim which is translated "God" can mean "God" or "Judge" - it is the context that matters.

I agree that context matters. That is what I have been saying this whole time. The "Most High God" is the "God of gods" and the "Lord of lords". There are "gods" which actually exist; that is who Paul refers to when he says "indeed, there are gods many and lords many".

Also please note, that most of the New Testament writers, when referring to the "one true God" are referring to the Father ONLY, just as Paul did here. He says, " there is but one God , the Father ... AND one Lord , Jesus Christ. Numerically they are two - God the Father is the "one God" and Jesus Christ is not the same Being, but instead the second, who has inherited the title "Lord" from the Father.

In another context, the critics of Jesus accused him of claiming to be equal to God. In response, Jesus referenced the scripture in the Old Testament which says "ye are gods". Were those men just accusing Jesus of claiming to be a "judge"? No, they were trying to argue against the Deity of Jesus. The response of Jesus is to say that anybody who is given divine authority is a god according to the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament). Divine authority is one of the keys of godliness, even if those men were still mortal, and very flawed individuals. So, the argument from Jesus is that if God made them gods, then how much more Jesus deserves the title of God , because his authority is only second to the authority of the Father.

You make a mistake of thinking that "gods" "angels" and "men" are all ontologically different kinds of beings. That is incorrect. They are all the same kind of being. That is what makes the incarnation possible. If there was truly an "ontological divide" between Deity and man, then Jesus could not have been both Deity and man.

I have a yes or no question for you. When the "Most High God" is called the "God of gods", do you really think that it is meant to refer to the Almighty as the "God of (false idols)"? I don't think so.

Isolated verses? LOL. Please 7up, don't try that crap on us. The bible is FULL of God telling mankind he is the creator, and God and that there is only him and no other God. If you were to chop out all those verses you would end up with a bible half the size it is now. Which is why I am guessing the LDS had to add their own "bible" and even then, Smith had to attempt to rewrite the bible we already have.

Again, I explained this:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jesus Christ (who was Yahweh/Jehovah) in these passages was being compared to the false gods/idols of other nations. He is the one who would pay the penalty for sin, and is the true Savior. The other "gods" of the other nations were figments of their imagination and did not exist, until they "created" and "formed" them from wood, stone, metal, etc. That is the CONTEXT.

Were the other members of the Godhead capable of performing the atonement? Maybe. But they didn't. Did God the Father suffer for my sins? No. Did the Holy Spirit suffer for my sins? No. They have a different role than Christ has. But you are missing the point. The Old Testament passages comparing the Lord God of Israel to the "gods" of other nations is NOT meant to be comparing Jesus Christ to God the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Again, Jesus would not say "there is no god beside me" or "there is no other god" while standing at the right hand of the Father. In that context, it would be blasphemy.

In fact, we know this because Jesus DID say things in this different contexts, such as:


and
"If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-7up

[Cow Poke]

You are implying that Joseph Smith SHOULD have known that the Father had a tangible embodiment from the very beginning.

Well, GEE, since he was supposedly hearing DIRECTLY FROM "the Father", yeah... I think that's a pretty significant detail to get totally WRONG. But, NO, that is NOT what I am implying... I am flat out STATING that Smith said whatever he felt he needed to say to get whatever it was he wanted... like plural marriages, his own bank, Grand PooBah at the local lodge, General of his own army... the guy was an egotist who just made up whatever worked for him.

I see.

No, you obviously do not.

So, Joseph Smith was teaching Creedal Trinitarianism before 1835 , except when he wasn't.

YOUR words, but, OK!

The power of translation was a way to translate what was on the plates into English.

The plates were imaginary, and so was the Urim and Thummim... Smith used seer stones - the same ones he used for money digging.

You cannot blame the prophets that Joseph Smith was translating from for not having a complete understanding of the Godhead, when the Israelites did not have a complete understanding of the Godhead either.

I don't blame the prophets -- I blame the con man, Joseph Smith, for not being able to keep his stories straight.

[Sparko]

This is simple Sparko.

No fair minded person, who has studied all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, will ever believe that Joseph actually thought he was greater than Jesus. It is contrary to everything that the prophet taught everywhere else.

In this case, Smith was very emotional and felt like he was being betrayed and persecuted, not only by the world but by many in his own community. His emotions got the better of him, and his narcissism showed clearly. It is evident in a lot of his writings, but this example of him spewing angrily at everyone that he was better than Jesus was an emotional release that showed his inner self to the world more clearly than previously.

Wake up!

[seven7up]

Jesus - Chosen from among the "sons of God"

I wanted to address something previously being discussed with Bill, because it is important in the "Trinity" discussion.

Hebrews chapter 1
4 Having become so much better than the angels, as (Jesus) hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

7UP: All of them are "sons of God" in the spiritual sense.

Then to every one of them, He can say that they are His sons, and that makes a mess of this entire chapter.

No it doesn't. We have God being the Father in a spiritual sense, and then we have God being the Father in a new and unique sense; unique to Jesus only. There are many "sons of God" in a spiritual sense, of whom Jesus Christ is the Firstbegotten among the other "sons of God". As Paul explained in Col 1:15, Jesus is "the first-born of all creation". This is true of Jesus BEFORE mortality, when all of creation was made subject to Him. This term "first born" is the same Greek term which is in Hebrews chapter 1, and it is also the same as used in Luke 2:7, referring to Jesus being Mary's first child (in mortality). It is the same concept.

By right in the Monarchy, this gives Jesus the position of power and authority. God the Father spiritually begat this unique Son into a position of "pre-eminence" which is his "inheritance" because Jesus is the First born (firstbegotten). All that the Father was given to the Son as the creation, and then it is to be glorified/resurrected and presented again in the "new creation". The correct rendering of verse 4 is given above. Jesus was elevated and "became" better than the angels and "by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." This is clearly comparing Jesus to the other angels.

The LDS position is that, by nature, Jesus Christ had the inherent characteristics of Deity. In other words, Jesus was a perfect/flawless intelligence from all eternity. However, as the firstbegotten in spirit, power and authority had to be bestowed upon him, and it was. He was chosen and called by the Father a to be the Creator of the physical Universe, and to become the Only Begotten Son according to the flesh Also, Justin wrote

All of it makes Biblical sense, especially when you consider the two scriptures that I provided for you, where Jesus is called a "Morning Star / Son of the Morning". This is an angelic title. As you and I both know, Lucifer was an angel who is also called a 'son of the morning' or 'morning star'. Indeed there were many, many "sons of the morning" who are the "sons of God".

You attempted to imply that only those who do God's will can be considered the "sons of god", whether the the title is applied to humans or spirits (angels). However, we see in the book of Acts, "all the nations" are considered to be God's offspring (Greek - genos). GENOS kindred , offspring, family, stock, (the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort). Also, we see that Lucifer is still considered a "son of the morning" after he had fallen from heaven. "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" (Isa 14:12) So, we can conclude that all spirits and all men are "sons of God" and the "offspring of God", in the original sense and even when "fallen". We can lose the rights and privileges associated with our sonship due to disobedience. I will explain further.

Adam is a "son of God" as are all the rest of the human family in the ultimate sense. It is true that with sin, we become alienated from the Father, and in that sense, that we lose our position and the rights that sons would have, but that is not an ontological change (it is not a change of what kind of being we are). In fact, the only reason that we are capable of obtaining "Eternal Life" is because, through Christs atonement, it brings us back to a kind of position before God which we had in paradise, which was previously lost - only now we are as God said to the other gods, "man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil". That is the story of mankind in the Garden of Eden - children of God within God's presence who left that place in order to enter mortality. Again a Biblical story providing a picture of LDS theology; a premortal existence in the presence of God.

No. He is the only begotten son, period. 1 John 4:9 says "9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him." Notice it says He SENT His ONLY BEGOTTEN INTO the world, meaning that Jesus was the only begotten BEFORE coming here.

He is also called the "Firstbegotten" who is brought into the world (Hebrews 1) and also the "first born of all creation". Both titles are appropriate BEFORE the incarnation. You are referring to a "foreordination" to become the "Only Begotten Son".

"We affirm, on the authority of Holy Scripture, that the Being who is known among men as Jesus of Nazareth, and by all who acknowledge His Godhood as Jesus the Christ, existed with the Father prior to birth in the flesh; and that in the preexistent state He was chosen and ordained to be the one and only Savior and Redeemer of the human race. Foreordination implies and comprises preexistence as an essential condition; therefore scriptures bearing upon the one are germane to the other;" (Talmage - Jesus the Christ)

Hebrews verse 9 says the following: "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

From your position, you have to pretend that Jesus was not chosen or anointed until AFTER he became mortal. We know that this is not true. Look how reasons are given for why the God of Jesus anointed him from among his fellows - namely Jesus loved righteousness and hated iniquity. This must be true before mortality, for Jesus, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world my elect/chosen one in whom my soul delights"

(Bill posted Deuteronomy 18)
from your brothersfrom among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

That is correct. We are ALL brothers. Jesus included. We were brothers before this life and we are brothers in mortality. And we are all created by God in the image and likeness of God. There are many sons of God according to the spirit, but Jesus Christ was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be the Only Begotten according to the flesh. You and I both know that "sons of God" or "children of God" is a title applied to both spirits in Heaven (ie angels), AND it is applied to humans on Earth. Humans are simply spirits (spiritual sons - angels) placed into physical bodies, and our memory is veiled so that we can live in mortality by faith, rather than a perfect knowledge. If God wanted us to have a perfect knowledge of his existence, he could have revealed Himself in glory to the whole world at any time. The idea that angels and humans are different species of beings is an error.

7UP: The writer of Hebrews is EQUATING angels and humans, just like Latter Day Saints do.

No he is not. He is telling the Jews, who were hyper-reverencing angels (as obvious from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho), that they needed to be worshipping their King, because even the angels do.

I agree that Jesus should be worshiped, and other angels should not. Again, this is because the "scepter" of the kingdom was passed from the Father only to the first born Son. That is the imagery of the Hebrews 1 passage. This is the Divine Monarchy. The Father is the King and the first born Son of God "obtains" his inheritance by "becoming" the new King - a perfect profile of LDS doctrine.

Only superficially.

Not superficially. It matches LDS doctrine in a very deep and rich way. I will tell you what DOES NOT match the text: the idea that the Father and Jesus are the same being/substance. That does not match the text at all.

I'll trust Jesus over Joseph Smith's lies any day.

It is not a matter of you trusting Jesus. You are trusting a faulty an uninspired interpretation of the text. Consider 2 Peter 1:

"For he (Jesus) received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

What you have in the creeds Bill, are documents formed "by the will of man". Those councils which formed the creeds were full of "private interpretation" and then forced into a vote, and in the case of Nicea, forced by Constantine so that he could consolidate power over the Christian world. Those men in those councils were not holy men speaking as moved by the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, but you are trying to apply the Deuteronomy prophecy to angels. You are wrong. His "fellows" were the Jews, over whom He was to rule as King and High Priest.

I am applying it to the "sons of God", who are both angels and men. They are the same kind of being, only in a different state: one state is a glorious one in the presence of God, and another is a temporarily lower state, as a mortal, subject to infirmity and death and limited in our knowledge of God.

7UP explained that in Genesis 48, the text calls Jesus, the God of Israel, "the Angel who redeems me from all evil".

Sorry, but the Hebrew word "malak" is not a description of a species, it is a description of a function that one serves in to take a message from one person to another.

Thank you for agreeing with me. I agree that the term "angel" does not describe an ontologically different kind of being. In the Old testament, it often simply refers to a spirit son of God, acting as a servant of God before mortality, who is serving as a messenger. This is the case for Jesus as well, who was known as God the Father's mouthpiece in the Old Testament, as Jehovah/Yahweh, "the Word of God", the "Angel of the Lord's presence".

-7up

[seven7up]

In this case, Smith was very emotional and felt like he was being betrayed and persecuted, not only by the world but by many in his own community.

The Mormon community was in the audience as he spoke, but also people like those who dragged him from his home and tarred and feathered him. They were there too. I agree that he had an emotional response, and understandably so. The Lord even had to calm Joseph, and in a certain sense rebuke him, in these kinds of situations, because Joseph obviously became impatient and frustrated:

The word of the Lord to Joseph Smith the Prophet, while a prisoner in the jail at Liberty, Missouri.




-7up

[RBerman]

And, I have to add... it AMAZES me the extent to which Mormons have to go to downplay the significance of their "Prophet" in order to excuse his foibles.

As more information about his life and the inconsistencies of his teaching come to light, that seems inevitable. A very different social dynamic is at work today than when people were giving up their homes and moving cross country to be with him and let him "marry" their wives, daughters, and servants.

[RBerman]

This reminds me. Back when I had a lot of time to be clever, I was on a forum where a Trinitarian debated a Oneness theologian (essentially Modalist) in one thread, and that same Trinitarian debated a Latter-Day Saint on another thread. I went through both threads and then posted, in the Trinitarian's own words, a debate against himself. Very amusing.

You can certainly make someone seem foolish by taking words intended for one context and applying them to another context. How you ever seen Weird Al's fake interviews with celebrities? Amusing stuff, indeed, but not a reflection of what they actually believe.