Ok. Your misunderstanding that the points Rob was discussing in that exchange are not, in fact, important aside; Rob does also engage in scholarly debates with Mormon theologians in addition to teaching.
And while debates may not be beneficial to the propagation of Mormonism, they certainly are a valuable vehicle for educating people why Mormonism is a heretical false worldview.
Rob's metaphor was appropriate as Mormonism heretically rejects and redefines the Christian understanding of the triune nature of God (e.g. Trinitarian monotheism), which is fully accepted by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
The historical orthodox Christian view of the Godhead is that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and they are the personal, unique, infinite, Creator God. They are not three beings or three Gods, because Trinitarianism firmly embraces monotheism—the belief that there is only one true God. According to orthodox Trinitarianism, there are three distinct persons in one indivisible substance together as one being: God.
Now Mormonism, on the other hand, heretically teaches the heresy that there are three totally separate gods in the Godhead—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three separate gods are one only in purpose, not one in being or nature. Latter-day Saints reject the Christian belief that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence.
As Dr. Stephen Robinson makes clear in his book Are Mormons Christians?:
"If by the doctrine of the Trinity' one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils—that God is three coequal persons in one substance and essence—then Latter-day Saints do not believe it. The LDS understanding of the Godhead is not Christian Trinitarianism but Mormon tritheism, that is, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three totally separate gods that progressed and developed into individual deities at different times prior to creation."
Dr. Bruce McConkie writes:
"Three separate personages—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists [in Mormonism not reality]. In fact, the LDS Church describes the Godhead—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—more as the supreme heavenly presidency of three gods than as the historically and universally accepted Christian doctrine of the eternal triune nature of one God."
On what authoritative basis does Mormonism teach this misunderstanding of the Godhead? Dr. Stephen Robinson explains:
"We believe this not because it is the clear teaching of the Bible but because it was the personal experience of the [false] prophet Joseph Smith in his first vision and because the information is further clarified for us in modern revelation."
As Dr. Andrew Jackson states:
"Mormonism’s doctrine of the Godhead has absolutely no precedence in the history of the Christian church. For example, during the in-depth theological discussions among Christians concerning the internal nature of God, they never promoted a doctrine of tritheism or belief in three separate gods, as taught in Mormonism today. Early Christians were at all times strict monotheists, believing in one absolute eternal God."
Mormonism's blatant heresy about who God is underpins their blatant heresies with respect to human deification. You're being disingenuous if you falsely assertion that the LDS does not teach the heresy of human deification. In fact, I can direct you to the very LDS dot org webpage that acknowledges it and then deconstruct it point by point and refute it.
It is a fact that the heresy of Mormonism teaches that God was once a human being, and that human beings can become gods. This was explained by Lorenzo Snow (fifth Mormon President and false prophet) in this way, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become” (some Mormons even speak about humans as “Gods in embryo.” [doctrinal restoration]). Mormon heresy clearly teaches polytheism affirming and teaching a plurality of gods derived from the deification of men.
My apologies regarding my words about Rob. More than likely, born out of frustration at the attacks and unfounded accusations being hurled at me. My intent was not to preach heresies, or to convince anyone of the validity of my faith. I game an on point response to the topic that someone else started. If Maxwell hadn't entered into the discussion, my first post in this thread would have probably been my only one, and no one reading this would have even known of my religious affiliation.
I respect that Rob is well learned, but that doesn't really impress me that much. I saw the exchange, and I didn't feel his arguments were convincing. Part of the reason for his perceived success was because the two missionaries were not very well learned in apologetics. They are specifically cautioned against that, because their message is one of unity and of developing a relationship with God. Rarely do debates result in conversion. I wasn't bothered by his arguments because they weren't very convincing to me.
Admittedly, I only saw about the first six minutes, and skipped the last three, so maybe I missed some things he said, but he kept arguing against the missionaries about the relationship between Jehovah and Elohim. It was a question the missionaries were not equipped to answer, for they did not understand that the current usage of these words in modern Mormonism is a rather recent construct. The two terms were used interchangeably in the 1800s.
The missionaries were on the right track when attempting to refute the Trinitarian notion of God, by citing "The Father is greater than I." To be honest, I didn't understand Rob's rebuttal that Obama is greater than he is, but they are still both humans. To accurately render this metaphor, one would have to assume that both Obama and Rob, despite one being greater than the other, were both equal in authority and were both President of the United States. Had I been discussing this, I would have cited John 20:17 in which Christ specifically refers to the Father as His God. If Christ is God, co-equal with him, how can God have a God? Maybe he'd have a good rebuttal, but so far, I've never heard one.
Then he attempted to explain away the Mormon belief that others were present at the creation. He cited a scripture (which I can't remember off hand) that talked of God's hand stretching out and creating everything...? Something like that. The point he was making was that God alone created everything. I would have cited the creation story wherein we read, "let US make man in OUR image." Clearly there were at least two beings present.
Then, in order to explain away our beliefs about the deification of man, he cited numerous scriptures that talked of God's supreme rule, and how there are not gods beside him. Mormons agree with this. Deification does not mean we will be equal with God or replace him. It means only that we will inherit a life similar to what he lives, glorified, perfected and holy.
Again, sorry about my actions. I get that way from time to time, and sometimes regret what I post later. I'm sure Rob is a very intelligent man who loves the Lord. I just had some particular issues with his arguments.