Do Mormons Believe in More than One God?

It depends what you mean by the question. If the question is do Mormons worship more than one God, the answer is a definitive “no”. If the question is do Mormons believe more than one god exists, the answer is “yes”.

If Mormons believe that multiple gods exist, but they only worship one of them as God, does that mean Mormons are polytheists or that Mormonism is a form of polytheism?

Mormonism is certainly not polytheistic in the way the Hindu religion is. Mormons do not believe there is any being that can do anything for them other than God. Each individual Hindu might worship one god, but they believe they can change their allegiance to another god if they so desire (at least this is my understand of Hinduism, which is admittedly very limited). I know a bit more about the Greek gods such as Zeus, so perhaps it’s better to use them as an example. In ancient Greek society one might worship Zeus but then switch to Apollo or Hera, believing that each god could grant them favors. Mormons do not believe any such thing. Mormons believe there is only one God they can worship, and that no other god can do anything for them. merely defines polytheism as “the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.” Unfortunately, this definition does not define what is meant by “belief”. Belief in this context can mean “worship” or “belief in the existence of”. has a better definition that defines polytheism as “The worship of or belief in more than one god.” Mormons certainly don’t worship more than one God, so if we assume that this definition is using “belief” as a synonym for worship then according to this definition Mormons are not polytheists.

An appeal to an encyclopedic definition of polytheism is probably most helpful. What is described on that webpage is in stark contrast to Mormon beliefs.

Are there passages in the Bible that lead one to believe there is only one God, and no other can exist? Sure, but it depends on your interpretation and assumptions. But as long as we’re in the business of discussing such things, feel free to post all your opinions, thoughts, interpretations, and assumptions and let’s discuss them. As usual, I don’t expect anyone will convince the other, but I always welcome to opportunity to reach greater understanding over each others’ viewpoints.


  1. Here is part of a letter from an ex Mormon in 1993 to the Mormon Church requesting that his name be removed from the church membership rolls. One of the reasons he gave was that the Mormon Church teaches that there are many gods when the Bible teaches there is just one God and, ironically, even the Book of Mormon teaches that there is just one God and while I disagree with a lot of what the BOM teaches, I would agree with it on this one point.

    “I am concerned about discrepancies between what the Church teaches, and the teachings of the Bible. The Mormon church teaches that there are many Gods. The Bible teaches that there is one only. Joseph Smith taught “that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father,” and that “you may suppose that He had a Father also.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) Orson Pratt said, “If we should take a million worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds.” (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, page 345) The Bible teaches throughout it’s pages of there being only one God. Even the Book of Mormon teaches monotheism:

    “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 answered, No.” Alma 11:26-30

    “…I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.” 3 Nephi 9:18

    “so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:6

    ” …I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.” Isaiah 46:9

    “…Is there any God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Isaiah 44:8

    “Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein…” Nehemiah 9:6

    The God who made the universe says he is LORD alone. I believe he leaves no room for doubt. If God had a father wouldn’t he know of him? If there really were other Gods why is there no mention of them in the Book of Mormon or the Bible? The message God sends time and time again is that he is the only God.

    The Mormon Church teaches heretically that man can become a God, and that God was once a man. Joseph Smith taught, “First God himself who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret…. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity…. God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did,… You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves;…No man can learn you more than what I have told you.” This teaching is one of the root evils of Mormonism. Think about it- isn’t this very idea, that man can work his way up to being a God, a major tenant of humanism and new age belief? Think about it again- where is the first place in the Bible that one finds the idea of a man becoming like God? It was whispered by the serpent to Eve; saying eat of the apple and “…ye shall be as gods…”(Genesis 3:5) This was not whispered as a good thing, but as an enticement by the father of lies himself! The Bible does not teach about a changing God who once was a man, once died, and once sinned. It does not teach that a man can become a God. It teaches exactly the opposite. Again the Book of Mormon is in agreement:

    “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” Moroni 8:18

    “For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting,..” Moroni 7:22

    “Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them. For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?” Mormon 9:8,9

    “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” Hebrews 13:8

    “(God has)…no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James 1:17

    ” …I am God, and not man…” Hosea 11:9

    “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” Isaiah 44:6

    “God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind…” Numbers 23:19

    “O LORD are you not from everlasting?…” Habakkuk 1:12

    “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Psalms 90:2

    “I the LORD do not change…” Malachi 3:6

    “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD…before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Isaiah 43:10″

    Please, don’t just ignore what this man has to say just because, in your view, that he is an apostate. Please examine the points he makes about there being just one God and his other reasons why he left the Mormon Church in his letter that you can access through the link at the top of this post.

    Mormons, believe in Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross in our place and how He rose again on the third day and you will be saved, and not just from physical death with the chance to someday, maybe in the distant future, be in the presence of Heavenly Father, but you can be in the presence of Heavenly Father for eternity and good works will follow here on earth from that and you will do them because of your love for Him and not because you have to prove yourself worthy.

    John 6:28-29

    28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

    29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he

    hath sent.

    Again, saved from Romans 10 below means to be in the presence of Heavenly Father.

    Romans 10:9-10,13

    “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

    For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

    John 3:16

    “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

    Finally, everlasting life means what Mormons would consider eternal life so whoever believes in Him (Jesus) will be in the presence of Heavenly Father for eternity. So can know now, just have faith and call on the name of the Lord!

    Today is the day of salvation!

    • I have read all that you have written. I can understand were you are coming from. I grew up a baptist and then joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints. In your argument I can see where you are getting your information. I have been in the church for over twenty years now and have studied a lot. Now that I am getting older I see things that I did not once see. Your arguments are from a certain standpoint that sounds totally reasonable right now. However to me I see it like when I am talking to liberals about gun control or abortions. They to are looking trough a glass that has been build for them since they were a child. It's when you can step back and take it one step at a time, sorting is this true, does this make any since. Then you can come to the whole truth. Now I look back and I am so thankful that I was taught as I could understand. It's not an insult to say that I need to learn to walk before I could run. It's just the facts of life. Your argument comes from a limit view and a slight confusions on who God really is. I know you want to fall back on the "Mysteries of God" to help you understand it all. But you must first ask yourself "why do I believe this to be true. If you are still there and read this let me know. I would love to walk you through the answer that I came to understand. I don't want to go through it if nobody is listening but if you are let me know and I will break down and answer all of your questions. God Bless you. Jim

      • I asked that too, “why do I think this is true?” Answer…BECAUSE GOD SAID SO YOU MORON!!! If God said he does not know of a God except him, it is not going to change as I get older. The words will not suddenly say “now there ARE many Gods because your ready to hear it!” Stupid!!! My understanding has ALWAYS been God meant what he said. Sorry your in a pagan cult now. Since you are Adam is your God.

        Brigham Young taught that Adam was God.
        “Now hear
        it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When
        our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a
        celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped
        to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the
        Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken — He is
        our Father, and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.
        Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non professing, must
        hear it, and will know it sooner or later.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50).

        • Matt, have you ever heard that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? Or is it ants? Anyway, hopefully you get my drift. Calling people names doesn’t exactly make them inclined to see your point of view, nor does it endear any open-minded person to your cause. You only attract those who are inclined to agree with you already, and thus you aren’t accomplishing anything.

          “My understanding has ALWAYS been God meant what he said.”

          Well yes, but what did God say? That’s the question, isn’t it? Words are subject to interpretation. How do we know what interpretation is correct?

          As for Brigham Young, maybe he was wrong. So what? Since when did the Church ever teach that prophets are infallible?

  2. If it is so obvious in the Bible, and Book of Mormon to boot, that there is only one God and no others, and if Mormons profess to believe both the Bible and Book of Mormon, then how can Mormons openly declare that we are children of God, destined to "grow up" to be like Him, and that this process has already occurred and that there are indeed many Gods?

    The reason is because there is just one God, but there are many gods. Hence, if you ask a Mormon how many gods they believe in, he will answer "One." If you ask him how many gods he worships, he will answer "One." If you ask him how many gods exist, he will answer "Many."

    How do Mormons interpret a scripture like ” …I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.” Isaiah 46:9? Think of it this way. You have a job working for a company. That company has a CEO. It might be a bit strange for your CEO to say the following to you, an employee, but it would be factual: "I am the CEO, and there is no other. I am the CEO, and there is nobody else like me."

    What would the CEO be saying here? He would be saying that he's in charge. There is nobody else higher than him. There is nobody else like him. Nobody else has the power he does. But there a dot-dot-dot (…) that comes after this statement, and then this bit "…in this company."

    Of course if your CEO had an ego trip and was taking you down to size he might speak this way, and he would be correct. Within your role as an employee of the company, there is no one else who is the CEO. There's no one else to turn to. No one else who can decide whether you "live" or "die" at that company. Your fate is in the hands of this CEO, and this CEO only. Why wouldn't the CEO add "…in this company" to his statement? Because it's obvious what he means within the context.

    Likewise with the scripture from Isaiah (and pretty much all others) there is a … we have to add in there. You might call it a stretch, but it's perfectly reasonable for the … to be omitted when you understand the context. And so to paraphrase Isaiah, you might instead say ” …I am God, and there is no other you need to worry about; I am God, and there is none like me within the environment in which I operate.” Or in other words, as far as we're concerned, there might as well be no other gods. It matters in the sense that we are children of God, destined to become gods, but it doesn't matter in the sense that there is no other god we can turn to, no other god with a plan for us, no other god to pray to, no other god to worship, etc. There are other gods, but they are not our God, and therefore they don't matter to us.

    A follow up question might be, "If we really are destined to become Gods, isn't that a big deal? Shouldn't that be all over the scriptures, both the Bible and Book of Mormon?" I would say it is there, all over the place, but generally not in any explicit form. It seems to me that this idea may have been taken for granted by the early saints. If it was something everybody knew and understood, why focus on stating it explicitly? In addition, what difference does it make to our everyday actions? Are you going to keep the commandment to not steal differently if you know you are destined to become a god as opposed to if you're destined for something else? I can imagine one of us from this day and age traveling back in time to talk with Paul or Peter or some other prophet/apostle and saying "Hey, you need to explicitly write about how we are supposed to become gods" and he would say "Why? Doesn't everyone know that?"

    He might follow up by saying "Besides, it is all over the place in the scriptures. Matthew wrote in Matthew 5:48 that Christ said 'Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.' Christ wasn't commanding us to become perfect like God just because it's a nice thing to be, but because our ultimate destiny is to become gods, and we can't become gods unless we're perfect like God. In Galations 4:7 Paul said 'Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.' If you're an heir of God, what else does that mean but that you inherit what He has, which is godhood? And Paul again said in Romans 8:16 'The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.' What offspring or child of a plant or animal doesn't grow up to be like its parent? If we're children of God, how could anyone interpret that as anything other than that we grow up to be gods?"

    In other words, Mormons are well acquainted with all the scriptures cited above, but we don't see them as saying there are not many gods, or that we do not become gods, but that there is only one God we need to be concerned about. Thus there is no discrepancy between the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and other LDS doctrines. There are only discrepancies between the interpretations people have of those scriptures and doctrines. How people have arrived at those incorrect interpretations is easy enough to see. But they are incorrect, and an understanding of the truth removes all confusion.

    • That’s an interesting theory, but full of crap! Oh yes the old “for THIS earth” excuse. God DID NOT ask “is there a God for THIS earth beside me?” He asked is there a God beside me PERIOD moron! And he said NO! Here’s where your trapped. Smith said Jesus, Father and Holy Ghost are THREE GODS. As ex-mormon I know this to be fact. Mormons will say they “worship” Father AND Jesus, and they will also acknowledge the Holy Ghost. So, in reality according to their own founder, they have and worship three Gods for THIS EARTH!!!

      • “That’s an interesting theory, but full of crap! Oh yes the old “for THIS earth” excuse. God DID NOT ask “is there a God for THIS earth beside me?” He asked is there a God beside me PERIOD moron! And he said NO!”

        I told you my interpretation, and you’ve told me yours. Fair enough. There’s no way you can prove your interpretation is correct, nor can I prove that my interpretation is correct. Nor am I attempting to. I’m only explaining what my interpretation is.

        “Here’s where your trapped. Smith said Jesus, Father and Holy Ghost are THREE GODS. As ex-mormon I know this to be fact. Mormons will say they “worship” Father AND Jesus, and they will also acknowledge the Holy Ghost. So, in reality according to their own founder, they have and worship three Gods for THIS EARTH!!!”

        It seems to me you’re missing the forest for the trees, but I’ll respond regardless. What is worship? It’s imitation. What is God? He is perfection, in every sense. Thus we worship perfection, or we strive to imitate it, to be it. God is perfect, so yes, we worship God. Christ is perfect, so yes, you could say we worship Christ. But it’s all worship of the same thing. That is, we are imitating one perfection, not two perfections, because there is only one perfection. If there could be two, that would imply that one lacked something the other had, which would make it imperfect by definition.

  3. You could not make the case for the correct interpretation for there being only one God any better. You are correct, it only makes sense if there is a " … we have to add in there." There is a lot of fil- in-the blanks in Mormon doctrine. That is the essence of the Mormon belief system, belief in the add ons provided by Joseph Smith. What amazes me is how intelligent people can accept Mormon doctrine which is filled with contradictions even after the blanks have been filled in.

  4. "You could not make the case for the correct interpretation for there being only one God any better. "

    I'm not sure I understand…are you saying that because your interpretation of Biblical scripture is that man cannot become like God, and Mormonism teaches that man can, that therefore this is proof that your interpretation of Biblical scripture is correct?

    "What amazes me is how intelligent people can accept Mormon doctrine which is filled with contradictions even after the blanks have been filled in."

    Would you care to point out some examples of these alleged contradictions?

  5. You can't reason with an unreasonable person. I did not give my interpretation. I just pointed out that you admitted your interpretation is based on adding to the words of Isaiah.

    "Likewise with the scripture from Isaiah (and pretty much all others) there is a … we have to add in there. You might call it a stretch, but it’s perfectly reasonable for the … to be omitted when you understand the context."

    The passage in Isaiah makes no reference to what you claim is the context. It comes elsewhere from Mormon doctrine. As I said before, an add on. You are trusting what Joseph Smith added to God's word as presented in the Bible. What you call an interpretation is what Joseph Smith claims to be a revelation. God could have revealed to Isaiah that He is just one of an infinite number of Gods, but He is the one people on earth have to deal with. But he didn't , he just said He is the only God and he knows of no other. I really don't think God wants to confuse us. His gospel is quite simple. Here is some simple logic for you. If God is all-knowing and says that He knows of no other Gods, then there must be one God.

    As far as contradictions within the Mormon doctrine, how much time do you have? Let me start with the doctrine of polygamy. Joseph Smith reveals God's commandment of polygamy. The prophet Brigham Young expounded upon it. Years later, another prophet reveals that it is no longer to be practiced. In essence you could say that an eternal, unchanging God changed his mind. It only makes sense if you don't think about it.

  6. Oh, I never thought you were unreasonable :)

    "I really don’t think God wants to confuse us. His gospel is quite simple."

    I agree, I don't believe confusion comes from God, but rather from man misunderstanding the things of God. But the doctrine taught in the LDS Church, which perhaps seems confusing to some, seems simple, clear, and logical to me. I see no contradictions between Mormon doctrine and the Bible, at least not with my interpretation of the Bible, only with the interpretations others have of the Bible. What proof does anyone have that my interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and that their interpretation is correct? Yes, in order to arrive at the beliefs I have, I have relied on sources external to the Bible, but what is wrong with this approach as long as they are true and factual?

    As for polygamy, might we not also ask why animal sacrifice was required in the Old Testament, but not after Christ? And why adulterers in the Old Testament were executed, but Christ forgave them and merely told them to go their way and sin no more?

  7. How do other churches explain this scripture if there truly is only one God 1 Cor 8:5-6 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (for there are gods many, and lords many) But to us there is but one God, the Father of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

    Even the belief that we have the potential to become Gods ourselves is supported by Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

    What do others think these scriptures mean?

    The truth is, that if anyone cares to take a look, most of the "weird" Mormon beliefs are actually in the Bible. There are a few that are implied rather than said explicitly. The only thing I can't seem to find in the Bible is the Word of Wisdom, saying don't drink coffee, tea or alcohol, and don't smoke. However, that is common sense because these things are bad for you. My husband has never smoked a day in his life, but developed asthma because of second hand smoke where he works. The Word of Wisdom, however, came out before people knew that any of these things were bad for them.

    • The answer is simple. There is a Biblical rule within the Bible. Since Elohim is used to represent false gods, the system of upper and lower case “g” “G” was used so the reader would know when it’s false “gods” or the one and only true “God.” Psalm 82 has been taken out of context by Mormons. “gods” is used not “Gods.” Human rulers back then known as the judges were given divine tasks by God to solve matters for the people. They were given divine “titles” (gods) by the people, since they were his representatives on the earth. They however abused their authority and God was angry with them. God explains why in Psalm 82 and pronounced judgement. Though given divine titles vs6 “I said you are gods” or my representatives, but they were going to die like the men they were.

      Nowhere in the whole chapter is a man promised Godhood. Nowhere does it state they were true Gods. “g” was used, they were not true Gods only “gods.” false. 1 Cor 8:5-6 Paul call them “so-called” for a reason. The chapter heading is “food sacrificed to idols.” (if you have chapter names). Context is idols “gods” not “Gods.”

      Paul states the fact that there have always been many things man has worshiped and called gods, but have no real existence. There are gods all over the place “gods many lords many,” but are only so-called as Paul carefully chose his words. Christians KNOW there exists only one, and he was a Christian and that’s why he says for “us” there is only one, because he KNEW there was only one. Paul never said the gods he mentioned were “Gods” (true) but “gods” (false).

      Study note in my Bible says, “Paul is mentioning the obvious fact that many things have been worshiped and called gods, but have no real existence.”

      See, Mormons see the word “gods” and right away ASSUME they MUST be real or the word could not be used. Mormons miss the “g” every time!!! gods are idols. Obviously Mormons must not be aware of idols because they think when ever gods is used they are real. Mormons abuse scripture and ARE polytheists. Definition of polytheism is one who believes in the “EXISTENCE” of more than one God. You don’t have to worship them, just believe there is more than one at all. Mormonism is polytheistic paganism!!! I rebuke it in Jesus name, it’s Satanic dogma!!! or see my link

      • Hi Matt, what are your references for what you claim to be the proper interpretation of the Bible? What proof do you offer for this interpretation being the correct one? How can one know exactly what Paul meant with the words he said?

        Whether Mormons are polytheistic is a matter of semantics, I supposed. Do we believe there are many gods? Yes. Do we worship more than one God? No. You may call it whatever word you like. I don’t see anywhere in the Bible that says it’s wrong to believe there are many gods, only that one should not worship more than one God–the God.

  8. Elaine, you conveniently left out the context of Chapter 8 which is about eating foods sacrificed to idols. Idols (false gods), which Paul says "is nothing at all in the world", were common in his day, i.e. Greek mythological gods as well as idols from the Babylonian belief system. Surely you recall the story of how the Jews fashioned an idol of a golden calf in the book of Exodus. And you know what the consequence of that was. The phrase in verse 5 "for even if there are so-called gods" is a supposition. Paul is not saying there are multiple gods, he is saying there are multiple false gods, idols representing gods that do not exist. Honest analysis of scripture is always done by considering the context, the whole and not isolated parts that distort the meaning of the accompanying text.

  9. I liked as much as you'll obtain performed right here. The cartoon is tasteful, your authored material stylish. nevertheless, you command get bought an impatience over that you wish be turning in the following. unwell undoubtedly come further formerly once more as precisely the similar nearly very incessantly inside of case you shield this hike.

  10. Here we have another example of Mormon cherry picking of passages. I seriously cannot believe Mormons read the whole Bible in its context after reading some of this stuff, it would seem they have a Mormon-wide list of bible passages they pick out and twist to fit into their beliefs…read the rest of the book people! Don't just cherry pick one or two verses you got from your Sunday School teacher, then just take their word for what it meant.

    Off topic, but Joshua as for the animal sacrifice, that was a command for the Jews and it is still in affect for them, they just don't have a temple to do the sacrifice. Blood shed is needed to atone for sin. Jesus came and fulfilled the law and the prophets so animal sacrifice is not needed for Gentiles, Jesus was the final sacrifice. Old covenant fulfilled by New covenant. Blood was shed and Gods' wrath appeased. Unless you are Jewish it doesn't apply. If you read your bible you will see that the Jews will once again offer sacrifices to God when they have a temple again to do so…it is symbolic of Gods' covenants and promises with His chosen people. It is not the same thing as God stating you have to be polygamous to enter celestial heaven, then changing his mind and stating now you don't have to. That is a contradiction, not a payment being made to take care of the problem as with the animal sacrifice. He gave the solution for us to not need animal sacrifice anymore. What appeased God so that polygamy now isn't needed to enter into His presence by Mormons?? Because God doesn't change His mind, He only provides solutions and ways for us to be redeemed to meet His standards.

  11. LDS doctrine teaches a belief in "one God" in two senses. First, in a monarchistic sense that points to the Father as the "only true God," and second in a perfect social unity sense (between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) that allows us to refer to them as "one God" or "one Godhead."

    For more than 20 years Biblical and historical scholars have acknowledged that believing in "one God" meant something completely different to the ancient Jews/Israelites and the earliest Christians than it does to most of today's Christians. I look forward to the day that most Christians (and LDS folks as well) finally catch up with the scholarship. The original Israelite/Jewish/Biblical religion declared a belief in "one God" in a monarchistic sense. There were many beings called "gods" or "Gods" (they didn't have upper and lowercase letters)–but there was only one "most high God." It wasn't until around 600BC that "King Josiah's Reform" attempted to change the original Israelite/Biblical religion. Just as LDS doctrine does, the early Christians returned to the original Israelite/Biblical religion–and declared a belief in one God in a "monarchistic" sense, and in a "social trinitarian" sense. Don't take my word for it. Check out the writings of these numerous non-LDS scholars:

    Here's one example of monarchistic definitions of the "one God" from Irenaeus (? to 202AD):

    “This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the Apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the Apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all;–it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect.”

    I'll give Mike one other example that he might like (in light of his comments above). Origen (185-251AD):

    “Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods…[However], as, then there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 8:5-6).”

    I'll note that referring to saved men as "gods" was a core of Christian doctrine for 1000 years, and continues to be core among many non-LDS Christians today:

    However, just just as these Christians did/do, LDS doctrine maintains an eternal distinction between these other beings called “gods,” and the “only true God,” the “Almighty God.” He is and always will be the “only true God.” LDS doctrine specifically refers to Him as the “eternal God of all other gods” (D&C 121:32). We will always belong to Him (D&C 76:58-59), and always glorify and worship Him (D&C 76:21). Whatever our activities in the next life, they will be performed within a subordinate and vassal-like relationship with God. In short, we will be made gods by grace in that we will be made like God, but He is and always will be our God, the “only true God.”

  12. A few points for Lewis to think about:

    1. You conveniently left out the context of I Corinthians 8, which discusses eating food sacrificed to idols, i.e. "gods". The passage is about eating foods sacrificed to idols, not discussing the evidence that there are many Gods. True scholarship would not leave out the context.

    2. Mormon doctrine teaches there are an infinite number of Gods. That God himself was once a man, like we are and that he has a father. If you deny that teaching, I can provide numerous citations from Mormon doctrine. However, God proclaims in Isaiah that he is one God and knows of no other. If you accept the idea that God is all-knowing, yet he himself knows of no other God, how can there be an infinite number of Gods? The typical Mormon response is that He is the only God that we have to deal with. But that response does not explain how an all-knowing God does not know about other Gods.

    3. You cite the scholarly writings of men. Forgive me if I am wrong, but you appear to be passing yourself off as being appreciative of the scholarship of man. I wonder, do you also appreciate the scholarly findings that:

    a. there is no historical evidence supporting the existence of the civilizations mentioned in the Book of Mormon. How is it that scholars and everybody else acknowledge the existence of the Mayans yet not the Nephites.

    b. horses and pigs were not indigenous to the western hemisphere prior to the arrival of the Spaniards, yet they are mentioned in the Book of Mormon which claims to have been written before arrival of the Spaniards.

    c. metallurgy was also brought to the western hemisphere by the Spaniards, yet the Book of Mormon contains reference to metalwork.

    d. there is no indication of Jewish gene pools in central America.

    e. no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as in contrast to the Bible.

    f. no geographical evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as in contrast to the Bible. My bible has maps showing the locations of cities mentioned in it. Does the Book of Mormon have maps showing the locations of sites mentioned in it?

    I could go on and on, but I believe these examples make my point. You are being dishonest if you claim to believe in the scholarship of man as in support of anything that has to Mormonism. Your testimony would be much stronger if you stick with Mormon doctrine.

    I understand how you may be upset and feel that I am attacking. People respond that way when they are faced with truths that oppose their beliefs. My heart yearns for Mormons. God's way is simple, he does not require knowledge of secret passwords or handshakes. He does not require wearing special underwear and participation in strange rituals. All he requires is that we acknowledge the sin in our lives and that we believe in Jesus. Paul clearly says in Galatians we are righteous by faith and not by works. There is nothing we can do to add to the sacrifice of Christ. Any good work that we do is only in appreciation and love for what he has done for us. There is absolutely nothing that we can do to prove ourselves "worthy".

    I will be praying for you and am looking forward to hearing from you again.

  13. So it seems that your strategy here is to ignore the actual content of my post (which was actually related to the topic of this thread), and to instead try to change the subject to one of about 15 other random issues you've thrown out. Scholarship can be poorly done, or it can be well done. If your intent is to actually have a conversation about what I've posted, then I'd encourage you to actually evaluate the scholarship in question–and then to comment on it. We don't have to agree in terms of our Biblical interpretations–but I would propose that we should be able to at least agree that the ancient Israelites/Jews and the earliest Christians did not define their belief in "one God" in the same way that you do. Virtually all Biblical/Historical scholars will acknowledge that they were not Webster's dictionary definition "Monotheists" as your Biblical interpretation implies that they were. Rather, they believed in "one God" in a monarchistic sense, and in the sense of perfect social unity. Can we at least agree on this? If not, feel free to tell me why you believe these many scholars are wrong–but we're not going to have a productive conversation if you're going to ignore the core content of my post.

  14. Lewis, all I am saying is that I find it amusing that you cite biblical/historical scholarship supporting Joseph Smith's revelation concerning the nature of God which you call your interpretation. To be fair to you, I can understand how you may interpret that I was attempting to change the subject. Rather I am just asking a simple question. Do you place the same value on the scholarly work of men that clearly contradicts that which is stated in the Book of Mormon? I would be interested in hearing your response.

  15. So, just to recap, you definitely don't seem to have any intention of actually responding to the content of my post, or the questions I've posed to you–all of which are actually relevant to the content of this post.

    Instead, you are proposing that you can undermine my credibility and dedication to good scholarship by changing the subject to one of about 15 different issues (a ridiculous technique that not only attempts to change the subject, but also places an unrealistic demand on my time–because I don't have the time to write a 30 page response dealing with every topic you listed, or the ways in which you distorted LDS doctrine).

    I'll tell you what. You pick any one of the "issues" you listed, and I will briefly indulge your desire to change the subject by giving you a response, or directing you to information on the issue. To answer your question, I absolutely do place value on good scholarship. However, as I stated before, scholarship can be well done, or poorly done. In all forms of scholarship (even scientific), it is not uncommon for researchers to ignore or fail to recognize certain variables–skewing the outcome of their extrapolated conclusions.

    I'd invite you again to actually respond to the content of my post–but you seem to have no interest in anything but your own talking points.

  16. Lewis, you have a very poor argument.

    Mike is actually justified in attacking your doctrine. For if he can undermine the foundation on which you state any claims. then all the premises that follow from your assumption that the Mormon doctrine is correct would be unjustified.

    In fact we can show that Mormon Doctrine is false by translating the papyri that Joseph Smith bought off a traveling salesman. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what he “translated” for what is now considered your book of Abraham. Well, now that we can translate Egyptian (thank you Rosetta-stone) we know that he actually didn’t get anything correct. So, therefore, he was not telling the truth.

    I also believe, I may be wrong on this, but this is where you get the doctrine that we can become like Gods, is from you book of Abraham? If that were true, it would make your claims even more unjustified.

    The papyrus is a knock down argument against Mormonism. It concerns me that people in the LDS faith do not follow evidence at all. If I were you I would follow the evidence where it leads.

    • "Mike is actually justified in attacking your doctrine. For if he can undermine the foundation on which you state any claims. then all the premises that follow from your assumption that the Mormon doctrine is correct would be unjustified." Very interesting. This is not an attempt then to find truth or to evaluate the evidence but to find a way to undermine the argument as a whole. This is not good scholarship but a court room tactic to undermined the evidence of a prosecutor. Which means you have no interest in the truth just the argument for the sake of "Winning". How sad.

  17. So it appears that neither Mike nor Joel are willing to even begin to address the actual content of my original post from February 24th, which actually has to do with the topic of this thread. Both simply want to change the subject to other issues.

    I told Mike I'd be happy to address one of the 15 or so issues that he raised–so, with it understood that you are intentionally ignoring the topic at hand, and the actual content of my post, I'll go ahead and briefly indulge your desire to change the subject to the Book of Abraham.

    Regarding the Book of Abraham, if you're willing to actually hear the other side of the story rather than blindly accepting the propaganda you've been exposed to, this link will be helpful:

    Short summary: Joseph received numerous Egyptian scrolls. His wife Emma ultimately sold them. Many are missing, and many that found their way to the Chicago Museum burned in a fire in 1871. The propaganda you've blindly accepted makes an unfounded claim that the fragments which actually survived and were given back to the church (and then published by the church for all to see) are the exact fragments from which the Book of Abraham was translated. This claim is simply not supported. There were numerous fragments–and the one that was attributed to Abraham very well could still be missing, or could be one of those that burned in the Chicago fire. For a great deal more information, and for a more thorough investigation of various theories and claims, please see the link above.

    Joel, there is not a single place in our scripture that refers to men becoming "Gods" with a capital G. Our Doctrine & Covenants contains only a few references to the fact that saved men will be "gods" (always with a lowercase "g"). However, it is clear that this word "gods" is used in a limited sense–for example, it is specifically stated that God the Father is the "eternal God of all other gods." But you'd know this if you actually read my original post. Joel, I'll also invite you to become familiar with the fact that referring to saved men as "gods" has been a core part of historical Christianity (especially early Christianity), and that it is still a core tradition among many non-LDS Christians today. Please see here for direct quotes of historical Christians:

    Did you want to actually address the content of my original post now–or are you only here to try to change the subject to other issues that you think will better support your cause?

  18. Lewis,

    I did respond to the content of your posting. You cited I Corinthians 8 as text that supports your position of there being many Gods. I pointed out that you ignored the context of the passage. The context was Paul talking about food being offered to idols. You did not respond to the challenge I made of the content in your own post. You have judged me as guilty for what you yourself are guilty of, and you provided me with the evidence. You did not respond to the context of I Corinthians 8

    As for 15 random new topics I introduced, careful scholarship would count 6. Is this a case of miscounting or exaggeration? Either way I wound not deem it as "good scholarship".

    You said I could pick one of the "15" issues and you would respond. Ok, respond to this…there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as in contrast to the Bible. For example no evidence of cities.

    I can hardly wait for this one. I suspect I already know how you are going to respond. I already have my response prepared and will share it with you as soon as you post your response. So take your time and do a good job of scholarship and then I will immediately expose your folly.

  19. Mike, attempting rational conversation with you seems to be hopeless. Let me once again try to help you to actually respond to the content of my original post by posing two direct questions:

    1. Can we agree that the ancient Jews/Israelites did not believe in "one God" in the same sense that you do? (I have given a brief summary above of what it originally meant for a Jew/Israelite to believe in "one God," and provided more than enough non-LDS scholarship on the issue in the links given). I've directly posed this question to you multiple times now, and received no answer.

    2. Can we agree that Christians for the first 1000 years of Christianity regularly referred to saved men as "gods," and that many non-LDS Christians today continue to do the same? I'll post this again for you as well:

    I didn't cite Corinthians 8. The early Christian father Origen cited Corinthians 8, and I gave a direct quote from him that shows that he rejected your claim that the context is only about "idols."

    Honest readers will recognize that you did raise about 15 new issues–you just only listed 6 of them in letter format. For example, we could talk about "secret passwords and handshakes," "special underwear," the issue of "faith and works" and your distortion of LDS doctrine in that regard. There is also the fact that many of the issues you listed in letter format contain several other issues and false assumptions within them.

    The archaeology and history of the holy land and the surrounding areas is unlike just about any other archaeological subject. We're talking about the cradle of civilization and the most well documented history of any area in the world. We're talking about cities with large stone walls and buildings that have existed in the same locations for literally thousands of years. In the case of the Book of Mormon people, we're talking about a very small group of people who migrated to the Americas before then ultimately splitting up into various groups who seem to have lived in hundreds of different areas over the years. Given that this was a place which was loaded with trees, their housing would have been primarily made of wood–which does not stay preserved for thousands of years like much of the city of Jerusalem has. There was not one giant "holy city" made of stone as there was for the Jews, rather, there were scattered settlements throughout the land, and the location of the descendants of these people seems to have changed numerous times. It is well known that many other people from other areas of the world (especially asia) lived all over both the North and South American continents–but how many ancient "cities" can you name and identify from these numerous Native American people? Very few! Probably just the Mayans and the Aztecs. But that does not mean that there were not people living all over these continents, it just means that only the Mayans and the Aztecs stayed in one place long enough and built large enough stone monuments for us to be able to clearly identify the locations of their major cities even thousands of years later.

    Still, there is a great amount of evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. This link is a very good place to start:

  20. Lewis,

    I began a research paper in graduate school and set out to find sources that would support my thesis. I found many sources that did not agree with what I believed to be true. I did locate a few sources that I could use, yet still had to take citations out of context. I got a "D" on the paper. The instructor said the paper was mechanically sound and my attempt at supporting the thesis was enticing, however I ignored the vast majority of the research that was in opposition to my thesis.

    Lewis, all I am trying to point out to you is that you claim to be able to identify "good scholarship", yet you are ignoring the vast amount of scholarship that does not support your beliefs in Mormon doctrine. Now, if you say as Josh, that you know it is true because of a personal experience, i.e. I know its true because I know it's true–I would have no argument. I would disagree but would not be able nor willing to argue over your feelings.

    You keep asserting I failed to address your content. I did (you cited indirectly I Corinthians 8) and I then challenged your thought process on a larger scale. Think of it like this; you bring your car to me to repair a superficial paint scratch. I discover your drive train is about to fail, you have oil leaking, low oil pressure, and your crankshaft bearings are knocking in time with a Beethoven symphony. I alert you to the greater problem, yet you deliberately choose to ignore it and insist I only repair the paint scratch.

    In response to your explanation as to why there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, the Smithsonian Institute, a organization that a vast majority of people believe to be a reputable organization of historical scholarship, had this to say:

    " Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology.

    The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonian's position is contained in the enclosed "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.

    Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonian's name. Please address any correspondence to:

    Public Information Officer

    Department of Anthropology

    National Museum of Natural History

    Smithsonian Institution

    Washington, DC 20560




    1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

    2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World–probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age–in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

    3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

    4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

    5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

    6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near East.

    7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.

    8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland."

    I want to encourage you to visit websites that are not just Pro-Mormon. I think we can both agree a "honest scholar" will investigate both sides of an issue. I visit Mormon sites, including the LDS official church sites on a regular basis. I truly want to understand the Mormon belief system and point of view. I think we can both agree that any organization that discourages its members from accessing information from any source may be an indication that organization may be a cult. Remember, God is light and light exposes those things that men would like to keep hidden. Here are a couple of websites that you can visit to get a Christ-centered perspective. I will be forwarding this entire thread to cam-talk. Looking forward to hearing from you at that site. It is easy to stay in your comfort zone but my hope is that you venture out into the light.

    I would also like to ask your forgiveness in not being able to communicate with you in the Spirit of God's love. I confess my intentions were to satisfy my personal desire of sport and entertainment. I believe that this exchange in conservation will be remembered on the day of judgement. My hope and prayer is that we will both have fond memories of this moment in the eternal span of reality.

    Job 15:2-4

    New International Version (NIV)

    2 “Would a wise person answer with empty notions

    or fill their belly with the hot east wind?

    3 Would they argue with useless words,

    with speeches that have no value?

    4 But you even undermine piety

    and hinder devotion to God.

  21. Lewis, why will you not answer the questions I posed to you? You are making plainly clear that you have no intention of addressing the content of my original post (content that actually has to do with the topic of this thread). Let's try again:

    1. Can we agree that the ancient Jews/Israelites did not believe in “one God” in the same sense that you do? (I have given a brief summary above of what it originally meant for a Jew/Israelite to believe in “one God,” and provided more than enough non-LDS scholarship on the issue in the links given). I’ve directly posed this question to you multiple times now, and received no answer.

    2. Can we agree that Christians for the first 1000 years of Christianity regularly referred to saved men as “gods,” and that many non-LDS Christians today continue to do the same? I’ll post this again for you as well:

  22. Oops, previous post was supposed to be addressed to Mike. Pretty clear he's only here to change the subject of the thread, but maybe he'll come out of his "comfort zone" and rejoin the topic of the thread.

  23. I really enjoy the article post. Much obliged.

  24. I like this website and have learned a lot about the LDS church and its views. I will honestly say that I am a confirmed Catholic but no longer attend church because of a lack of faith, nothing that the Catholic church did or said. I am also a analytical thinker, not a person driven by feeling. Thus, I like to learn about stuff, especially the way humans rationalize their beliefs. So I open with my beliefs and wonder how much of what I believe and the facts I chose are just rationalizations to justify my beliefs.

    I do not believe that Mormonism can be considered 'Christian'. The Council of Nicea (325) was held specifically to try to figure out what a 'Christian' should believe; i.e. what is 'Christian' and what is not. At the time there were probably more varied beliefs about God and Jesus than there is now. At that council, they came up with a creed that opens with 'We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible'.

    To me, it seems clear that the Mormon belief in becoming a god, in all ways like the god they worship, violates the very first statement that all the Christians of the early Christian church agreed was something a Christian HAD to believe to call themselves 'Christian'.

    Ultimately, in day to day life, it really doesn't matter if you are a 'Christian' or not. There are good and bad Mormons just like there are good and bad Catholics, athiests, Jews, Muslims, Zoastrians, Buddhists, etc. But, I think it is clear that Mormons calling themselves 'Christian' is being dishonest.

    As a mathematician and logical thinker, I find theolgical discussions frustrating because of the human capacity to rationalize what we already believe. I liked the way this thread described the way a Mormon can get their head around saying they believe in one God and at the same time believing that they can become exactly like that God. I find it interesting how we can illogically have mutually incompatible ideas in our heads at the same time and feel comfortable.

    To give a non-Mormon example, a Protastant can believe in justification by 'faith alone' when the Book of James clearly states that works are important; that faith without works is a dead faith. The same people have a faith in the literalness of the bible. How they can have both ideas in their head at the same time is beyond me. A political example might be a politician who believes in the government getting out of commerce, then votes to give subsidies to a commercial venture.

    Unlike mathematics, discussions of theology and belief are hampered by language. The symbols of mathematics require we all agree on the meaning of the symbols. People of different faiths do not even agree on what words mean. So a Lutheran bible may translate a Greek word as 'enuch' where the Catholic may see 'celebate'. They choose the word that already meets their belief and reject alternate translations that might challenge their belief. Take, for example, Lewis's assertion on March 24 that Christians regularly referred to saved men as 'gods'. I have never heard nor read a Christian call another Christian a 'god'. Never, not once. Not in the present day, not in the stuff that was written 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, 1500 years ago. Not in the stuff written soon after Jesus died, not in the stuff written yesterday. I suspect it is a translation problem. I suspect that words that Christians translate to 'saint' Mormons translate to 'god'. I assure you, a Christian in the Nicean sense, sees a huge difference between 'saint' and 'god'.

  25. I found ALL the above post fascinating and I learned so much! Mike, you are obviously a very learned individual and I so appreciate your views and also how you kept your emotions out of your writings. It was clear to me that Lewis is writing and speaking from his heart. I also appreciated the fact that in the end, you respectfully extended the olive branch and showed him the love a true Christian would extend. You removed your ego and you sent peace and love to him. I will be praying for you both and I appreciate both of your posts for what I was able to learn.

  26. Hi guys. This is actually "Lewis" again. I created a new blog/website, and it already has me logged in under my username for that–so I'm going to go with that now. I actually came back because one of my first posts on my new site deals specifically with this issue of "monotheism" that is the topic of this thread. I wanted to share it here. I think it accurately defines our respective views, but I believe it also provides more than enough biblical and historical scholarship to support the claims I was making previously about what it originally meant for Jews and Christians to believe in "one God." I believe the evidence is extremely supportive of the notion that the LDS understanding of "one God" in monarchistic and social trinitarian senses returns to that of the ancient Jews and the early Christians. Here is a link to my post about "monotheism":

  27. A few thoughts in response to Jeff:

    You believe it's dishonest for me to identify myself as a Christian. Your assertion is that I must accept a 4th century creed to call myself a Christian. My response is that the creeds of the 4th and 5th centuries openly broke from some ideas that had previously been considered orthodox by essentially all Christians (which is probably why the creed was extremely controversial at the time–and why opponents of the creed actually temporarily regained power within 10 years–even exiling Athanasius). Point is, I don't think it's fair to claim that I can only call myself a Christian if I agree with 4th century creeds, rather than agreeing with earlier orthodoxy. Truth be told, although I enjoy theology, I think the real test of a "Christian" is how well we pattern our lives (or at least sincerely attempt to) after the actual teachings of Jesus Christ Himself–which were given 300 years prior to the creed that you claim defines His movement.

    You seem to indicate that we believe we will be "EXACTLY" like God. I would disagree with that. I would draw an eternal distinction between God and saved humans who are called "gods" in a limited sense. I clearly stated in my previous posts that the usage of the word "gods" to refer to certain saved beings is used in a limited sense. You said you've never heard of any Christian from any time period calling saved men "gods." The link I posted on the subject provides numerous examples from early Christianity up through modern times, and I really hope you'll read it. This is not a translation issue–as is made clear even in the context of the quotes. Also, these quotes were not translated by Mormons–all the sources are provided in the document. Look that up and see for yourself firsthand. Here is a link to these sources on my new site:

  28. As soon as I found this internet site I went on reddit to share some of the love with them. dkedadckbcba

  29. It’s regrettable that WebMD is chock stuffed with them.

  30. El asesinado mensajero tuvo tiemp Mens Jets Jersey o para decirle a una conocida que tomara diez mil peso 2015 New Nike NFL Oakland Raiders Elite Limited Game Jersey For Sale s que llevaba en sus bolsillos y se los entregara a Johenny Su rez, su esposa, para que pague la casa y el colegio de 2015 New Nike NFL Seattle Seahawks Elite Limited Game Jersey For Sale sus hijos Co chaired by Melissa Iserloth and Carolyn McHugh, the event attracted more than 650

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>