Evangelical argues on FARMS Review
 

Michael Heiser argues against LDS usage of "Gods" in Ps 82. It's interesting to note that he chucks out the Evangelical argument that when Jesus referenced Ps 82, he was merely referring to human judges.

He backtracks and acknowledges that ancient Israel wasn't strict monotheism as believed.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf....&type=cmV2aWV3

I have skimmed through it and there is a lot that goes over my head. I think that one of the problems with Heiser's analysis (though it is not his fault) is that it is incredibly difficult to pin down what exactly LDS doctrine IS on many of this points.

For example, when Heiser wants to explain the LDS conception of the God Head to an audience he assumes will be at least partly evangelical and not familiar with what LDS believe, he appeals not to LDS scripture or anything the First Presidency has said, but a summary given by Daniel Petersen at a debate sponsored by the Society of Evangelical Philosophers. Peterson then quotes, though only in a very limited way, Packard and McConkie. You can guess on your first try where the McConkie quote comes from.

When I read Peterson's summary of the LDS conception of the God Head, I recognized a lot of it. For example:

"Third, even though an innumerable host of beings may be gods and though many more will become such, there is still only one God because all of them are unified in essentially the same way as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefor, the fact that the Father has a father and that his sons and daughters may be deified has no particular bearing on the question of whether there is one God."

" While we believe in the existence of many separate beings who are correctly termed "Gods", in a very real sense they are all one..."

And other things I didn't:

"Informed Latter-day saints see Elohim and Jehovah as divine name titles that are usually applied to specific members of the Godhead but can sometimes be applied to any or all of them."

That must be a pretty small population of "informed LDS", and I'm not so sure that many of the brethren would be included in that little group. While I incline toward agreeing with the statement, I think it is little more than conjecture. I'm not aware of any authoritative statement to that effect. And of course if there is we can have the debate we always have about whether it is authoritative or not.

Anyway, I guess my over all point is that LDS doctrine is too nebulous for an evangelical scholar to do more than take an educated poke at it. It will be interesting to see, as we find ourselves more and more in the mainstream and subject to these kinds of critiques, whether it might not prompt authoritative clarifications of some of these matters. I for one hope this is the case.

divine investiture?

I don't understand what you are asking. If it clarifies my point, however, it is the "any or all" that I don't think is doctrine. For example, I would be very surprised to learn that when we say Jehovah we mean God the Father or the Holy Ghost, or to learn that when we say Elohim were refer to the Holy Ghost. As I think about it, I believe there is clear instruction to the contrary.

I was saying that because of the doctrine of divine investiture we can use the Father and the Son's name interchangeably.

What is your authority for that?

Hmm. There are several steps between what Abinidi said and the conclusion you are drawing. Why don't you connect the dots for me.

In the first 4 Abinadi confounds the use of the titles "Father" and "Son," so Christ can be called both the Father and the Son.

This is why "Informed Latter-day saints see Elohim and Jehovah as divine name titles that are usually applied to specific members of the Godhead but can sometimes be applied to any or all of them."

I'm no great interpreter of scripture, but I read that to be an explanation of how Jesus is God, and that he is both Father and Son, for the reasons Abinidi states. I don't think I can take away from this that the Father is also the Son or the Holy Ghost that would be a step beyond what Abinidi is saying. Nor do I think it is saying that Elohim and Jehovah are interchangeable titles. It is saying that Jesus is everything the father is.

So while I think the scripture you are quoting lends support to that statement in part, I don't think it lends support to a much more expansive "any or all."