Then you’ll have to accept the idea that Israel was polytheistic and polytheism is the worship of the true Elohims/Gods of the Bible.

No I don’t. I just have to look at the 2 dz or so passages which explicitly teach monotheism.

Re: Elohim

This is from Dr. Richard Hess, professor of Old Testament and Semitic languages. He has done postdoctoral research at universities in in the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East. He is a member of the Committee on Bible Translation for the New International Version. He serves as Old Testament and archaeology editor for the forthcoming NIV Study Bible. Dr. Hess has also worked for the New International Version, the New American Bible, the Holman Standard Christian Bible, the English Standard Version, and The Common English Bible translations of the Old Testament. The man knows the Hebrew language.

"El” appears as a title in the Bible. Like the much more frequent “Elohim,” it derives from ancient Semitic words for “god/God.” It is true that “El” appears as the name of the chief god in the myths of Ugarit, a West Semitic (Hebrew is also a West Semitic language) city from the 13th century B.C. However, the word also appears there to refer to any deity or even a spirit. Therefore, “El” need not refer to the God of Israel.

 It is possible that Psalm 82 refers to the allotment of responsibilities for the management of different nations of the earth to members of the heavenly council, whom we would call angels. As a result of their failing to act with justice, God terminates their rule. Nevertheless, Yahweh is frequently identified with El (Numbers 23:22-23; 2 Samuel 23:5; Psalm 118:27; Isaiah 40:18; 43:12; 45:22; etc.). However, the Bible also recognizes El as a separate god in texts such as Ezekiel 28:2 where the leader of Tyre claims that he is El (but this is probably also another use of “El” as a title, “god”). Note that the term “sons of El” need not refer to physical sons of a god. It may refer merely to those who share the characteristics of the divine (in terms of authority and rule, for example). Compare the “sons of Belial,” in Deuteronomy 13:14; Judges 19:22; 20:13; 1 Samuel 2:12; 10;27; 25:17; 1 Kings 21:10, 13; etc. This expression does not mean that all these people had the same physical parent by the name of Belial. No, it refers to a common characteristic of all these people. There are other such examples, both within the Bible and in contemporary extra-biblical literature.

 By the way, the connection of Jacob with El is sometimes asserted on the basis of Jacob’s other name, “Israel,” where “El” is the last part of the name. Again, “El” is a title for god that is often used in other personal names in Israel (such as “Samuel”) and in neighboring nations. So in the Ammonite collection of personal names more than 150 contain the name “El”, but most would affirm that the chief god of Ammon was Milkom, and that “El” was a title of Milkom. One must be very careful about drawing lots of conclusions from a word that can be a title for any god in the West Semitic world.

 As for the statement that the God of the Hebrews had many names, one needs to distinguish between the personal name “Yahweh,” various titles of “god” such as “Elohim” and “El,” and epithets such as “Shaddai” (perhaps related to the divine council or hosts of heaven). “Elohim” does, indeed, appear by itself to be a plural form (with the -im ending). However, whenever it refers to the God of Israel, it always takes singular verbs and so is treated as a singular noun.

I conclude with the observation that ancient Israelappropriated the Hebrew language and many other cultural features, often transforming them in the Bible so as to conform to its distinctive theology. The same is true of various religious practices. So the name “El” may refer to the chief god in Ugarit of the 13th century B.C. However, this does not mean it must be the name of a god separate from Yahweh in the Bible. As a title for various gods inside and outside the Bible, it can be applied to Yahweh without proving anything about early Israelite beliefs.

The Holy Ghost is not an immaterial substance.

Okay, I now understand the LDS position on this

However in the Bible, Jesus said the Father was spirit (Jn 4:24) and that spirits do not have bodies (LK 24:39) So does one believe Jesus Christ or Joseph Smith on this matter?

I didn’t even understand the Trinity formula had this immaterial substances in it until a few years ago.

 Actually I’ve never read a explanation of the Trinity that spoke of “immaterial substances” That element usually would fall under the doctrine of God. But I can understand the confusion for someone who has never studied Christian theology.

I kept wondering how they thought these different gods of the trinity materialized inside of each other because I was trying to use my Mormon understanding to comprehend something that is incomprehensible.

First, there is no such thing as "gods of the trinity". Second, if you can comprehend that the Holy Sprit can dwell in a LDS why can’t you comprehend the interdwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

As far as the indwelling goes, what you've proposed is little more than an M. C. Escher painting; you're talking about three people simultaneously living inside of each other.

Jan 29, 2012 -- 9:31AM, Ironhold wrote:

As far as the indwelling goes, what you've proposed is little more than an M. C. Escher painting; you're talking about three people simultaneously living inside of each other.

So you can comprehand the HS indwelling but not the Father or the Son?

Posting yet another illustration of how badly you misunderstand the Trinity really does not answer the question of how one can comprehend the Holy Spirit indwelling a person but then be befuddled as to how the Father or Son can indwell.  

Jan 30, 2012 -- 6:29PM, Ironhold wrote:

Jan 30, 2012 -- 4:43PM, Joe68 wrote:

Posting yet another illustration of how badly you misunderstand the Trinity really does not answer the question of how one can comprehend the Holy Spirit indwelling a person but then be befuddled as to how the Father or Son can indwell.  

It's one individual person dwelling inside individual persons.

It's not a circular visage of three people each trying to cram themselves into each other at the same time.

Well it would probably help if you understood that Christians don't believe God is a physical being so there would be no need to "cram" anyone into anyone else.

And that certainly can't be any harder to understand than thinking that the LDS holy spirit is a physical being that is split up amongst millions of people throughout ther world.