Joseph Smith Did Not See God the Father

I had a little debate with some Mormons in the comments on a Youtube video. The Mormons I’ve talked to elsewhere on the internet, and in real life are usually very nice people. These Youtube Mormons weren’t nice at all. I think it may be because Youtube is even more anonymous than other internet sites. It inspired me to make a quick video on the topic.

The way the Youtube Mormons decided to deal with my objection was to say that since I believe in one God, and people have seen Jesus, then people have seen God, and my objection is moot.

I hope that they think that through a little more. Hopefully this video will lead to more discussions with Mormons, either here or on Youtube.

16 Responses to Joseph Smith Did Not See God the Father

  1. MacGregor says:

    Debating Truelogic is a joke, and sadly probably a lost cause. Read my last two comments, they echo your questions posed, and instead of rational decent answers, i received vile, arrogant, God hating rants.

  2. Bill says:

    Hi MacGregor,

    I’d tend to agree with you. With some people, all you can do is warn them about hell.

    I’ve had several experiences with atheist who can seemingly type without end. Sometimes you’ll see a homeless person ranting and raving all day, and that kind of reminds me of these atheists. It makes me think they’re demonic or something.

    Thanks for trying.


  3. MacGregor says:

    Ill be sure to check your site periodically, ive been very interested in getting the different religious/anti-religious points of view lately. If you really want to get yourself in a tizzy, check out this site,
    The funny thing is, i just answered someone who honestly asked me if ive ever seen or heard any religion hating from Christians, he told me its 100% the other way aroun. I mean geez, if you cant have an intellectually honest debate, or you live entirely inside of a liberal bubble, the debate renders pointless…

  4. Bill says:


    I post way more often on and there are a lot of good articles there on Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.


  5. Dear Bill, please allow me to play the logical devil’s advocate. You say at the end of the video presentation that “Joseph Smith contradicts Jesus Christ — and that only one of them can be right.” This is not logically valid. It is possible that both Jesus of Nazareth and Joseph smith were wrong; this would be the answer of a Jew or a Muslim or an Atheist.

  6. Bill says:

    Hi homophilosphicus,

    You are technically correct. However, this video was addressed to Mormons. They are unwilling to say Jesus was a liar as their salvation is dependent on Him.


  7. Well if I am technically correct, there is no certainty apropos the necessity of their salvation through Christ.

  8. Bill says:

    Hi homophilosphicus,

    Are you assuming this is the only argument I have for faith in Christ? Do you think I would use this same argument for a Muslim, atheist, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Satanist?

    Do you think Jesus was correct? Do you think it’s possible to see God the Father? Was Jesus lying? Are there many interpretations?


    • Bill I believe you have very many arguments for faith in Christ, what I am pointing out is that you do not need them. You believe in Jesus Christ, as do I. We do not need ‘arguments’ for this faith as it is personal to us. If a Mormon wishes to believe that their prophet Joseph Smith saw God the Father, sure they can believe this, and you don’t have to. I know I don’t, and this is my faith. Someone can believe in the great spaghetti monster. We must trust that people have reason enough to come to sound conclusions on their own. For me this is Jesus Christ. For another it might be Lord Krishna or Allah. We all equally lack sound scientific proof — this is why I choose to call it faith.

      • Bill says:

        I don’t see how anyone who would claim to be a Christian can say the things you say. It seems as though you haven’t even read the New Testament, much less believed it. The gospels and the book of Acts is almost entirely Jesus and the apostles going to the lost to give them the gospel. They weren’t content to let people believe whatever they wanted. They went into the whole world to make disciples, and commanded us to do the same.

        Since you don’t see the need to go to the whole world and reason with the lost, it is a good indication that you don’t have the same belief system that Jesus and the apostles had. Our beliefs lead to action. If their beliefs lead them to different actions, you should consider the strong possibility that they had different beliefs.

        What is your source for spiritual truth? That is, if something you believe contradicts the Bible, how do you decide whether the Bible is right or you are right?


  9. Nothing of what I believe Bill contradicts the Bible, but you disagree with this. That is fine with me. I do indeed ‘go to the whole world,’ only not with an insistence that everyone believe what I believe but with LOVE. God is love and Christ is made present in that love. My words are just my words. My actions are the Gospel. I have read the New Testament. I have read the New Testament in the language it was written in. Have you? Look, it’s okay that we believe different things. You will have to please understand that I am not a literalist – I believe in the Word made flesh, not the word made print. We may have to just disagree. This is theology.

  10. Bill says:

    Dear homophilosophicus

    You said, “I do indeed ‘go to the whole world,’ only not with an insistence that everyone believe what I believe but with LOVE.”

    Love requires us to proclaim the gospel with words. What you espouse is loving people into hell. If they don’t believe in Jesus, you apparently won’t warn them that God’s wrath abides on them (John 3:36). Do you do what Jesus did?

    You said, “Look, it’s okay that we believe different things.”

    We don’t just believe different things. We believe contradictory things. Is it really OK for us to believe contradictory things? Do you think we could hold contradictory beliefs and both be correct?

    You said, “You will have to please understand that I am not a literalist…”

    Neither am I. The Bible should be read as literature. It is literal sometimes, and it is symbolic or poetic or apocalyptic sometimes. However, there is one correct interpretation. I would never say I’m 100% correct, but there are some issues where the Bible is abundantly clear, and you reject the clear teaching at your own peril.

    You said, “I believe in the Word made flesh, not the word made print. We may have to just disagree.”

    What do you know about the Word made flesh apart from the Bible? If you reject the clear teaching of Scripture for your own interpretation, you will end up with an incoherent, self-refuting world view.


  11. Bill, you have suggested that I will end up with a self-refuting world view. I will point out that you have already reached that point. Read over what you have said above. The scripture is to be read as literature — but there is only one ‘correct’ interpretation! Okay, from this I can see that you do not have a Literature Degree. You would never say that you are 100% correct. Okay, understand that the moment you say this, then you have opened up the gap for dialogue. There are things you do not know. You do not know my relationship with God in Christ.

    It is not right to tell people about Jesus? What about the deaf mute, or the mentally disabled? Should they go to hell for not telling of Jesus? Are they not Christians? Should slaves really obey their masters? What should I do with my mother for wearing a garment of two different threads? May I ask what you do in the real world Bill? What is your day job?

  12. Bill says:

    Dear homophilosophicus,

    There are certain things all Christians must believe. Not because they’re so smart and they’ve studied the Bible, and gained enough knowledge to become Christians, but because the Holy Spirit has opened their eyes to the gospel, and raised them from the dead.

    These are:

    1. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone (Gal 3:10).
    2. There is one God (Ex 20:3).
    3. Jesus is God (John 8:24).
    4. Jesus rose from the dead (1 Co 15:14).
    5. The gospel (Gal 1:8-9).

    If someone opposes these things, they are not a Christian. It isn’t me saying that, but the Bible says that if you don’t believe Jesus is I AM, you will die in your sins (John 8:24).

    If you want to disagree on prophecy or infant baptism or something, we can disagree. That is what I mean when I say I’m sure I’m not 100% correct. I may be wrong on some of those non-essential things.

    What will happen to Tāṇḍava if he or she dies a Hindu? What is your interpretation of John 3:36 in regards to Tāṇḍava?

    As far as your editing my comment on your blog, it’s your blog, and you can do what you like. However, it strikes me as hypocritical. On a post about the value of dialog, you edit religious dialog. Personally, I value free thought and communication, and even the angriest of atheists on this blog has never been edited (except for deleting cuss words). I don’t know why there would be so much fear of proselytizing, unless there is sneaking doubt about Hinduism or conviction of the truth of the Bible.

    When a Muslim comes to me and says I’m going to be tortured in hell for eternity, I find no reason to edit them, because I know their religion is false. I’m not scared of something I know is false.


    • Hello again Bill. There was no hypocrisy in editing what you posted. You were in clear breach of the rules. I did make this clear — you are more than free to contribute, but I would suggest that you read over the “The criteria for interfaith dialogue.”

      I am truly sorry that our conversation has taken a turn to the hostile, I would like to make things more peaceable — please. I will not be able to speak further on Tāṇḍava as he is not here to speak for himself. Please feel free to repost this comment on the ongoing Interfaith dialogue – you are welcome, and I do not wish for your voice to be excluded.

    • Please feel free to state ‘your’ faith on the Interfaith project. The theme is “the importance of dialogue.” Please understand that it simply is not the forum for proselytising. In order that ‘everyone’ feel comfortable, we have jointly decided to make homophilosophicus a place to present different view-points on current themes, and not the benefits of Jesus over Buddha. There are plenty of other places where you can find to do this. I hope that you understand where I am coming from.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: