Back to Mormonism Researched Page

Plurality of Gods - The Elohim

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

When we analyze the LDS view of polytheism and plurality of Gods as well as the interaction within the theLDS scriptures and the Bible and the dynamics of the issues, we see an astonishingly insistent and consistent doctrine which in the overall picture is grand beyond measure. The ridiculing views of Christians against this magnificent doctrine only shows how little they understand the grandeur of the Plan of Salvation, in my opinion, which I exercise considerably around here. Consider from a few of the better LDS theologians the ideas of plurality of Gods and how much more there is in the Bible than is supposed. It is a most magnificent doctrine.

The prolific B.H. Roberts in his "Seventy's Course in Theology has expressed the overall view magnificently. (p. 194)

Had I taken such expressions from the lips of the pagan kings or false prophets, who are sometimes represented as speaking in the scriptures, you might question the propriety of making such quotations in support of the doctrine I teach; but since these expressions come from prophets and recognized servants of God, I ask those who criticize our faith in the matter of a plurality of Gods, to explain away those expressions of the scriptures. Furthermore, there is Paul's language, in his letter to the Corinthians, already quoted, where he says, "that there be Gods many and Lords many, whether in heaven or in earth." Had his expression been confined to those that are called gods in earth, it is possible that there might be some good ground for claiming that he had reference to the heathen gods, and not true Gods; but he speaks of those that "are Gods in heaven" as well as gods in earth. Right in line with this idea is the following passage from the Psalms of the Prophet David: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; He judgeth among the Gods." (Psalm lxxxii:l.) These, undoubtedly, are the Gods in heaven to whom Paul alludes, among whom the God referred to stands; among whom He judges. This is no reference to the heathen gods, but to the Gods in heaven, the true Gods.

In this same Psalm, too, is the passage which seems to introduce some telling evidence from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, viz.: "I have said ye are Gods, and all of you are the children of the Most High." You remember how on one occasion the Jews took up stones to stone Jesus, and He called a halt for just a moment, for He wanted to reason with them about it. He said: "Many good works have I shown you from the Father; for which of these works do ye stone me?"

Their answer was: "For a good work we stone Thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God."

What an opportunity here for Jesus to teach them that there was but one God! But He did not do that. On the contrary, He affirmed the doctrine of a plurality of Gods. He said to them: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods? If He called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of Him, Whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. But if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works."

Higher authority on this question cannot be quoted than the Son of God Himself. Further Evidence for a Plurality of Divine Intelligences: I find a word on the subject fitly spoken by the late Orson Pratt, in a discourse delivered in 1855, in Salt Lake City. He said: There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably it will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman, the greatest of all the parts of God, excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo-man." The revelation goes on to say that Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman, and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman and Ahman, showing that the angels are a little lower than man.1 What is the conclusion to be drawn from this? It is that these intelligent beings are all parts of God. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 342.)

Roberts further noted the Hebrew meaning of Elohim in the "Seventy's Course in Theology", Third year, p. 211ff - this was his famous debate with the Reverend Von Der Donckt at the turn of the century, cited as Mr.V in the text)

The Meaning of Elohim: The Reverend gentleman affirms that the first chapter of the Bible "reveals the supreme fact that there is but One Only and Living God." This I deny; and affirm the fact that the first chapter of the Bible reveals the existence of a plurality of Gods.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the word translated "God" in the first chapter of our English version of the Bible, in the Hebrew, is Elohim—plural of Eloah—and should be rendered "Gods"—so as to read, "In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth," etc.… The Gods said, "Let there be light."… The Gods said, "Let us make man," etc., etc. So notorious is the fact that the Hebrew plural, Elohim, is used by Moses, that a variety of devices have been employed to make the first chapter of Genesis conform to the "One Only God" idea. Some Jews, in explanation of it, and in defense of their belief in One Only God, hold that there are several Hebrew words which have a plural form but singular meaning—of which Elohim is one—and they quote as proof of this the word maim, meaning water, shamaim, meaning heaven, and panim, meaning the face or surface of a person or thing. "But," says a Christian Jewish scholar, "if we examine these words, we shall find that though apparently they may have a singular meaning, yet, in reality, they have a plural or collective one; thus, for instance, 'maim,' water, means a collection of waters, forming one collective whole; and thus again 'shamaim,' heaven, is also, in reality as well as form, of the plural number, meaning what we call in a similar way in English 'the heavens'; comprehending all the various regions which are included under that title."

Other Jewish scholars content themselves in accounting for this inconvenient plural in the opening chapter of Genesis, by saying that in the Hebrew, Elohim better represents the idea of "Strong," "Mighty," than the singular form would, and for this reason it was used—a view accepted by not a few Christians. (The argument on the plural Elohim continues through eight more pages in "Mormon Doctrine of Deity," from p. 139 to p. 147. It is too elaborate to be reproduced here.)

Of the Father Alone Being God: Referring to the admission in my discourse that conceptions of God, to be true, must be in harmony with the New Testament, Mr. Van Der Donckt proceeds to quote passages from the New Testament, in support of the idea that there is but one God:

"One is good, God (Matt. xix:17). Thou shalt love the Lord thy God (Luke x:27). My Father, of whom you say that He is your God (John viii:54). Here Christ testified that the Jews believed in only one God. The Lord is a God of all knowledge (1 Kings ii). ("Mormon" Catechism V. Q. 10 and 2, 11). Of that day and hour no one knoweth, no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone (Matthew xxiv:36). No one knoweth who the Son is but the Father (Luke x:22). Therefore, no one is God but one, the Heavenly Father. In another form: the All-knowing alone is God. The Father alone is all-knowing. Therefore, the Father alone is God."

In the conclusion of the syllogism, "Therefore, the Father alone is God," Mr. V. himself seems to have become suddenly conscious of having stumbled upon a difficulty which he ineffectually seeks to remove in a foot note. If it be true, as Mr. V. asserts it is, that the Father alone is God, then it must follow that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is not God; that the Holy Ghost is not God: Yet the New Testament, in representing the Father as addressing Jesus, says—"Thy throne, O God, is forever and forever" (Heb. i:8). Here is the positive word of the Father that Jesus, the Son, is God; for He addresses Him as such. To say, then, that the Father alone is God, is to contradict the Father. Slightly paraphrasing the rather stern language of Mr. V., I might ask: If God the Father so emphatically declares that Jesus is God, has any one the right to contradict him by affirming that the Father alone is God? But Mr. V. insists that the Bible contradicts the Bible; in other words, that God, the author of the Bible, contradicts himself: "To say such a thing, is downright blasphemy!" But Mr. V. will say he has explained all that in his foot note. Has he? Let us see. "Therefore, the Father alone is God," is the conclusion of his syllogism; and the foot note—"To the exclusion of another or separate divine being, but not to the denial of the distinct divine personalities of the Son and the Holy Ghost in the One Divine Being." But that is the mere assumption of my Catholic friend. When he says that the Father alone is God, it must be to the exclusion of every other being, or part of being, or person, and everything else, or language means nothing. Mr. V.'s foot note helps him out of his difficulty not at all.

"The All-Knowing Alone is God": The creed to which Mr. Van Der Donckt subscribes—the Athanasian—says: "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God." Now, if the quality of "all-knowing" is essential to the attributes of true Deity, then Jesus and the Holy Ghost must be all-knowing, or else not true deity.

But what of the difficulty presented by Mr. V's contention: "The All-knowing alone is God, the Father alone is All-knowing, therefore, the Father alone is God?" Mr. V. constructs this mighty syllogism upon a very precarious basis. It reminds one of a pyramid standing on its apex. He starts with the premise that "The Lord is a God of all knowledge:" then he discovers that there is one thing that Jesus, the Son of God does not know—the day and hour when Jesus will come to earth in his glory—"Of that day and hour no one knoweth; no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone (Matt. 24:36)—therefore, the Father alone is God!" In consideration of facts such as are included in Mr. V's middle term, one is bound, in the nature of things, to take into account time, place and circumstances. In the case in question, the Twelve disciples had come to Jesus, and among other questions asked him what should be the sign of his own glorious coming to earth again. The Master told them the signs, but said of the day and hour of that coming no one knew, but his Father only. Hence, Jesus did not know, hence Jesus did not possess all knowledge, hence, according to Mr. V., Jesus was not God! But Jesus was referring to the state of matters at the particular time when he was speaking; and it does not follow that the Father would exclude his Son Jesus forever, or for any considerable time, from the knowledge of the time of the glorious advent of the Son of God to the earth. As Jesus rose to the possession of all power "in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28:18), so also, doubtless, he rose to the possession of all knowledge in heaven and in earth; "For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that he himself doeth" (John 5:20), and, in sharing with the Son his power, and his purposes, would doubtless make known to him the day and hour of the glorious advent of Christ to the earth.

The Mormon Doctrine of God has always been ridiculed, yet Roberts noted how very biblical it is in his lengthy books "Defense of the Faith and the Saints", Vol. 2, p. 310ff)

First, as to God having a body of flesh and bone--being a material personage. I want to find out what there is wrong, unscriptural, unphilosophical or immoral about that doctrine. And for the purpose of this discussion, I am going to put in contrast to our belief, that God is a spirit inhabiting a body of flesh and bone--an exalted, a perfected man, if you will--the statement of the belief of these reviewers as to the nature of God. And, by the way, they are so nearly at one upon this doctrine, that the Church of England's creed, the statement of the Episcopal church on the doctrine, will be acceptable, I doubt not, to them all. On this subject these gentlemen hold: "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body"--and that term "body," by the way, does not mean to deny that God has a body in fashion like man's; but it means that he is not matter, not material. Continuing then--"without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Of Jesus the creed says:

"The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ very God and very Man."

Again:

"Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature; wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the last day."

Mark what is said here of Jesus. You say that "the Godhead and manhood" in Jesus "were joined together in one person," that is, his spirit and his body are united, never to be severed or disunited. Now I put to you this question: Is the Lord Jesus Christ God? Yes, you must answer. Then is not God an exalted man according to your creed? Listen--and this is your belief as expressed in your creed--"Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature; wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the last day."

According to this statement of the matter, Jesus has not been dissolved into some spiritual, immaterial essence, and widely diffused throughout the universe as some spiritual presence. No; he is a substantial, resurrected personage, a united spirit and body; and "The Godhead, and Manhood" that are united in the Christ--the humanity and the divinity--are "never to be divided." He is recognized and worshiped by you, gentlemen, as "very God and very man." This, of course, scarcely meets the description of the first paragraph of the creed used here, where God is declared to be not matter, that is "without body, parts or passions." But then that contradiction is your affair, your trouble, not ours. It is enough that I call your attention to the fact that the second part of your creed leads you closely to the "Mormon" doctrine that God is an exalted, perfected man, since Jesus, according to your creed, is God, and yet a resurrected man sitting in heaven until his return to judge all men at the last day.

And now as to there being more Gods than one. We believe the Scripture which says that Jesus was the brightness of God's glory, "and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). And as we know what kind of a person the Christ is, who "possessed all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" and who, when he declared that all power in heaven and in earth had been given unto him, and he was in the act of sending his disciples into all the world to teach and baptize in the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--was a resurrected, immortal man, of spirit, flesh and bone. And since, I say, the scripture teaches that the Son was the express image of the Father's person, we conclude that the Father must be a personage of spirit, flesh and bone, just as the Son, Jesus, is. Indeed your Athanasian creed says that "such as the Father is, such is the Son;" and of course, it follows that, such as the Son is, such is the Father; that is, the Father is a personage of spirit, flesh and bone, united in one person, "very God and very man, just as Jesus is. And there are two separate personages, each distinct from the other in person, two individuals, but both of the same divine nature; and if two separate personages, individuals, may participate in the one divine nature, it logically follows that a larger number than two or three may participate in that nature. And hence the Scriptures represent in many places the existence of a plurality of divine personages, how many we do not know, and it does not matter. But we hear of God saying, "Let us make man in our image; the man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil;????

God standeth in the congregation of the Mighty, he judgeth among the Gods. * * * I have said Ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the most High." The last a passage of the Pslams, quoted and defended by the Savior as a justification of his own claim to sonship with God. And now, if the great archangel, Michael, or Adam, is among that number of exalted, divine souls, what more fitting than that the father of the human race shall become the great, presiding patriarch of our earth and its redeemed inhabitants; and the one with whom our race would most immediately have to do? What sacrilege is there in this thought? Is it not reasonable that it should be so?

Of your nonsense of one being three, and three being but one, we will say nothing, except to remark that you must reform your arithmetic, if you expect sensible people to pay attention to your doctrines.

One other item in which we offend these reverend gentlemen is that we believe Jesus had a Father as well as a mother. Now, gentlemen, honestly, is it any worse for him to have had a Father than it is for him to have had a mother? You concede that he had a mother; that his body grew as yours did, in the womb of his mother; that he came forth of the womb by birth pains; that he suckled at the breast of woman; that through the months and years of infant weakness he was watched and guided by the hand of a loving mother. Tell me, is it true, that in your philosophy of things it is all right for Jesus to have a mother, but a terrible sin and blasphemy to think of him as having a father? Is not fatherhood as sacred and holy as motherhood? Listen, people, there is something else. Having objected to our idea of Jesus having a father, these peculiarly pious gentlemen turn now and object to our faith because we believe that we have for our spirits a heavenly mother as well as a heavenly father! They quote, in part, that splendid hymn of ours on heavenly motherhood, the great throbbing hunger of woman's soul, and which was given to this world through the inspired mind of Eliza R. Snow; the hymn is known to us as "O My Father."

Later in his book, Roberts noted how the philosophical teachings were coming in line with the Mormon ideas of God.

B. H. Roberts, "Defense of the Faith and the Saints", Vol.2, p.407

The trend of teaching by professors in universities of America is supporting the ideas expressed by Joseph Smith in relation to Deity; not by direct affirmation, of course, but by natural implication, they sustain his doctrines in relation to Deity. Let me call your attention to what the prophet taught on the subject of Deity, by quoting one paragraph from a discourse delivered by him in 1844. I think this one paragraph presents in one view the essential things the prophet had to say about God:

"What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth. * * * God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret. If the veil was rent today, and the great God who upholds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and things by his power, was to make himself visible--I say if we were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form, like yourself in all the present image and very form as a man: for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instructions from and walked and talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another."

This doctrine met with the cry of "Blasphemy!" even more pronouncedly than the Prophet's doctrine respecting the divinity of man. The general conception of orthodox Christendom in relation to God was that he was an incorporeal being, that he was without body; by which they meant that he was not matter; that he was immaterial and without form. They adopted the old pagan idea that God was without parts, without passions; that he was without quality, as a matter of act, if these other descriptions of him were true.

What is the inevitable outgrowth of the doctrines of these professors in our universities, from what was said in part II, of this treatise? It is that there is in man a divine spirit: that man is "God manifested in the flesh." From this, the question very naturally arises: Do men as such become immortal? Are there any means by which men may become eternal entities--as spirits and bodies inseparably connected--immortal individuals? If so, would they be any less incarnations of a divine spirit in their immortal state than they are now as mortals? The answer is obvious; and if only it be admitted that man, as man, may become immortal, then the doctrine of Joseph Smith respecting God receives strong support by necessary implication from the aforesaid teachers of the universities; for if it be true, as we now are assured it is by these teachers, that "man is God made manifest;" that "focused in the mind of man are all the dynamic forces of the universe"--then truly it is that such doctrines cannot be far removed from the bold announcement of Joseph Smith, that "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens." To make complete the support of Joseph Smith's doctrines from the teachings of the universities, it only becomes necessary to say that the individual man persists; that he becomes as man, body and spirit, immortal. Let these declarations be made: The spirit in man is divine--he is an incarnation of God; man will become immortal. Say this and then the whole doctrine of Joseph Smith, both as to man and as to God, receives perfect support from the trend of university teachings, as represented by Mr. Bolce's papers here being discussed; and there is no escaping that conclusion. Hold to the first proposition, namely, that the spirit of man is divine, then the question resolves itself merely into this: Is there such a thing as resurrection from the dead for man? The Christ answers, Yes; and proclaims himself to be the "resurrection and the life;" and the "first fruits of the resurrection."

Paul most eloquently argues for the reality of the resurrection from the dead; indeed, his whole ministry had this as its foundation. You will remember how he argues the question in the 15th chapter of First Corinthians; wherein he masses the Christian testimony for the resurrection of the Christ; and after massing it he then declares that if Christ was not raised from the dead then the faith of the Saints was vain, anti men were still in their sins, and were without hope in the world; for it is 'only through Christ that men might hope for the resurrection from the dead. Not only does the Christ and Paul argue for this great fact yet to be realized in man's experience, but you will find very many Christian philosophers who are contending today for the same truth. Among these is one who is among the first scientists of the English speaking people of today, Sir Oliver Lodge who, in speaking upon the subject of the resurrection, in his recent work, Science and Immortality, says:

"It is clear that Christianity, both by its doctrines and its ceremonies, rightly emphasizes the material aspect of existence. For it is founded upon the idea of incarnation; and its belief in some sort of bodily resurrection is based on the idea that every real personal existence must have a double aspect, not spiritual alone, nor physical alone, but in some way both. Such an opinion, in a refined form, is common to many systems of philosophy, and is by no means out of harmony with science."

That is the declaration of one of the foremost scientists of our day. Continuing he says:

"Christianity, therefore, reasonably supplements the mere survival of a discarnate spirit, a homeless wanderer or melancholy ghost, with the warm and comfortable clothing of something that may legitimately be spoken of as a "body;" that is to say, it postulates a supersensually appreciable vehicle or mode of manifestation, fitted to subserve the needs of terrestrial life; an etherial or other entity constituting the persistent 'other aspect,' and fulfilling some of the functions which the atoms of terrestrial matter are constrained to fulfill now. And we may assume, as consonant with or even as part of Christianity, the doctrine of the dignity and sacramental character of some physical or quasi-material counterpart of every spiritual essence."

In other words, Sir Oliver evidently believes in something equivalent to the resurrection of man; that there will be some sort of quasi-material substance that shall form the future clothing of man's spirit, suitable to the future states of its existence and experiences.

Now, my friends, the point is this: If our professors, as we see they do, insist that there is incarnate in man a divine spirit, and we get men through the veil of death, and they become immortal men, possessing immortal tabernacles, what have you here but the "superman" of the professors, or the "exalted man" of Joseph Smith's doctrine? And if we postulate for these immortals, as both Joseph Smith and the professors do, a limitless opportunity for progress and development, then indeed it is not impossible that man may approach, somewhat even to the excellence of his Father, and of his eider brother, Jesus Christ.

This brings me to the consideration of another thought in connection with Joseph Smith's doctrine, namely, the doctrine that there is a plurality of divine intelligences in the universe--"Lords many and Gods many," as Paul would say.

It was supposed that Joseph Smith was guilty of great blasphemy when he announced to the world that in the great vision of God, given to him, he beheld two personages, each resembling the other, and that they spake to him; and one said to the other, calling the prophet by name, "This is my beloved Son; hear him." Since Joseph represented that there were two divine personages--Father and Son--separate and distinct, one from the other, he was charged with having uttered a great blasphemy. Such a statement was at variance with the orthodox conception of Deity. It had been held in the creeds of men--notwithstanding they professed belief in God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit--that somehow or other the three persons of the Godhead were but one essence or substance; were but one entity, and not three separate and distinct personages or individuals. But if the doctrine considered in part II of this treatise be true as to the spirit in man being divine; and if that spirit goes through the resurrection and becomes an immortal personage--still divine--what is the result? The result must be that there are a multitude of divine intelligences; which is only another way of saying with Paul, and Joseph Smith, that there are "Lords many and Gods many." And so the inevitable result of the teachings in our universities leads to the support of this doctrine that was 'announced' to the world by the Prophet Joseph Smith, that there are a multitude of divine intelligences in the heavens -spirits and angels and arch-angels; and Gods who meet in solemn councils--David's "congregation of the mighty," where God "judgeth among the Gods" to generate the wisdom that is present through the universe that has been brought from chaos into cosmos by the wisdom and power of these di-vine intelligences. But as "pertaining to us," there is one Godhead appointed to preside from among these intelligences--the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And this Godhead, or grand presidency, does preside over our world and the spheres that are associated with it: with our earth and its heavens.

And again, B. H. Roberts, in his set of books "New Witnesses for God" in the First volume, pp. 463fff, expounded on more of the biblical usage of the plurality of Gods theme as only B.H. Roberts could.

These conceptions of man's origin and future development and glory involve the idea of a plurality of Gods--a doctrine somewhat startling, perhaps, to modern ears, since men in our times have been taught to look upon it as sacrilege to speak or think of more than one God. But since modern Christianity finds itself so far separated from other truths of the gospel, may it not find itself wrong in this? What means that expression in Genesis where, speaking of the creation of man, God is represented as saying: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness?" Is it not a fair inference that he addressed himself to other divine personages who were present? In the account of the creation given in the Book of Abraham the plural is used throughout--"And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creatures." "And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said, 'Let us go down and form man in our image, after. our likeness,'" etc.

Passing by many other expressions in the Old Testament that convey the idea of the existence of a plurality of Gods, I take up the preface to the gospel according to St. John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." It is generally conceded that the "Word" here spoken of as being with God in the beginning is Jesus Christ. If any doubt existed that Jesus referred to, it would be dispelled by the fourteenth verse of the same chapter, in which the preface occurs: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth."

Here, then, at least is an account of two Gods--one of which dwelt with the other in the beginning, and one--the Word--afterwards came to earth, was made flesh and dwelt on earth with men and was known as Jesus of Nazareth.

When Jesus--the Word--was baptized in Jordan, as he came out of the water, the heavens opened, the Spirit of God descended upon him, and lo, a voice from heaven said: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Here there appears on the scene again two Gods--the "Word" and doubtless the God with whom the "Word" had dwelt in the beginning. In other words here was God the Father and God the Son, both present, yet both distinct and separate--two personages--two Gods.s

In the greeting to the seven churches of Asia, which John embodies in his preface to the Apocalypse he says: "Grace be unto you * * * from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness. * * * Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." I call special attention to the words written above in Italics--"unto God and his Father," which can only mean God and the Father of God, which certainly conveys the idea of a plurality of Gods.

I have not space here to consider such expressions--with which the scriptures abound--as "The Lord God is God of Gods and Lord of Lords;" "The Lord, God of Gods, the Lord, God of Gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know if it be in rebellion" etc.w"O give thanks to the God of Gods * * * O give thanks to the Lord of Lords." "And shall speak marvelous things against the God of Gods." "The Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of Lords and king of kings."

Such expressions I know would be worthless as evidence in the matter under discussion if found in the mouths of heathen kings and prophets who are sometimes represented as speaking in the Bible; but the expressions here carefully selected are found on the lips of Moses, of the children of Israel, David, Daniel, and the Apostle John; and coming as they do from recognized and divinely authorized servants of God, they are important as not only upholding but proclaiming the idea of a plurality of Gods.

"I and my Father are one," said Jesus on one occasion. "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him:"--

Jesus--"Many good works have I showed you from my Father, for which of those works do ye stone me?"

The Jews--"For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Jesus--"Is it not written in your law, I said ye are Gods? If he [that is, God who gave the law] called them Gods unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because I said I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father believe me not."

Let it be observed that in the above conversation when Jesus was accused of making himself God, he did not deny the charge; but on the contrary, called their attention to the fact that God in the law he had given to Israel had said to some of them--"Ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the Most High." And further, Jesus argued, if those unto whom the word of God came were called Gods in the Jewish law, and the scripture wherein the fact was declared could not be broken, that is, the truth denied or gainsaid--why should the Jews complain when he, too, who had been especially sanctified by God the Father, called himself the Son of God?

On another occasion the following dialogue took place between Jesus and the Pharisees:

Jesus--What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?

Pharisees--"The son of David."

Jesus--"How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying--The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till I make thy foes thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?"

The Pharisees could make him no answer, nor dared they question him further. All that concerns me in the passage is to note that one God is represented as saying to another--"Sit thou upon my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool"--and that clearly proves the existence of more than one God.

No higher authority than this can be cited in support of any theological doctrine. These conversations of Jesus with the Jews so completely prove that Jesus himself taught the existence of a plurality of Divine Intelligences, that there can be no questioning it.

I shall be told, however, that Paul expressly says: "There is none other God but one." That statement taken alone would seem conclusive; but considered in connection with its context, which explains it, it will be found in harmony with all the passages here produced to prove a plurality of Gods. The single statement quoted above is immediately followed by these words: "For though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be 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."

John A. Widtsoe, one of Mormonism's premier scientists discussed this idea in his book "Evidences and Reconciliations", p. 53ff: Notice his interesting analysis of the Adam-God Doctrine that Brigham supposedly taught.....

The supreme, personal intelligence and power in the universe is God. That is his name in the English tongue. He is the Organizer of the universe. He is the one and only God to whom we pray and whom we worship.

We speak of Jesus Christ also as God. He is frequently referred to in sacred writ by that term. On the title page of the Book of Mormon he is called the "Eternal God." The personage known as the Holy Ghost is also called God. Thus there are God the Father; God, the Son; and God, the Holy Ghost; the two latter are under the direction of God the Father.

It is evident, therefore, that since the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct personages, the word "God" is not only a name, but may be used also as a title describing an attainment or office. Such application of titles is not unusual. In the Book of Mormon it is stated that the Redeemer of man shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning." (Mosiah 3:8.) These are titles that refer to Christ's relationship to the Father and to his mission under the Father.

In the same manner the title "God" may be applied to anyone who has attained to Godhood, that is, who has risen so high as to partake sufficiently of the essence of divinity.

Joseph Smith the Prophet declared that there is a plurality of gods. An indication of such plurality runs through the scriptures, ancient and modern. In the very beginning of time Adam and Eve were promised that they should "be as gods" (Genesis 3:5); and Jesus reminded the Jews that in their scriptures it was written "ye are gods." (John 10:34.) Paul spoke of "lords many and gods many." (1 Cor. 8:5.) Modern revelation presents the same truth when it says according to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was." (D. & C. 121:32)

This implies that many personages may have attained the power and place of Godhood. This does not make them in any sense coequal with God, or with his Son, or the Holy Ghost. Those who are denominated gods have a rank in the eternal councils, with corresponding power to help foster the purposes of the Father. There may be many generals in an earthly government, but only one commander-in-chief. Even so in the government of heaven.

This doctrine is familiar to Latter-day Saints. The gospel teaches that the hosts of intelligent beings here and in the spirit world may progress forever. The condition is obedience to eternal law. These personages are in various stages of progression, some beginning, others far on the way. Some, through the eternities, may already have won sufficient of the attributes of divinity to be spoken of as gods. The destiny of all who are faithful is godhood. Modern revelation makes the promise to all who comply with certain requirements "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." (D. & C. 132:20)

The conditions under which Godhood may be attained have not been set forth fully. Necessarily so high a place can be obtained only by rigid obedience to God's laws. Those who aspire to such exaltation must be sealed as man and wife for time and eternity. Then they may continue the work of the Father in behalf of the waiting intelligences in the spirit world. Their "glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." (D. & C. 132:19)

This doctrine explains why the word "god" is applied in the holy scriptures to various personages. There is no need to stumble over such use of divine titles, if this is understood.

The word "father" is also applied to different personages. God is the father of the spirits of all men. They were begotten spiritually by him in the pre-existent state. The relationship between God and man as father and son is real. Jesus Christ himself was the First Begotten of the Father. (D. & C. 93:21) Therefore, we speak of God, the Father, to distinguish clearly among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But, the title "Father" is used also in behalf of Jesus Christ who was commissioned by his Father to create the earth and all things on it. Mosiah, a Book of Mormon prophet, speaks of Jesus Christ as "the Father of heaven and earth" because he was the creator of "all things" as pertaining to the earth. (Mosiah 3:8; also Helaman 14:12; Ether 4:7; 2 Nephi 25:12) Adam likewise, being the first man, has been called the father. (D. & C. 29:34) This is not an uncommon use of the word. George Washington is called the father of his country. A man who creates a great business is called the father of the institution. The Indians are said to speak of the great father in Washington. The leader of any cause is frequently referred to as its father.

Some students, noting this use of the word "father," have become confused. They have thought that Jesus is really God the Father. Others have attempted to identify Adam with God, the Father, or with Jesus Christ. That these are distinct personalities is made clear in numerous passages in holy writ. For example:

But God ... called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh. And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you. (Moses 6:50-52.)

If God, the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, and Adam, irrespective of their titles, are not distinct personages, the above words become meaningless and absurd.

Readers should distinguish carefully between specific and general meanings of words, as may appear in the sacred books or in gospel discourses. If this is not done, much confusion of thought may arise. In fact, many who have failed to do so, have been led astray from the truth.

A good example of the unfounded foolish notions that may arise from careless reading is the famous discourse of Brigham Young, used by apostates and enemies of the Church. (Journal of Discourses, 1:50) In this address, Brigham Young spoke of Adam as our father and our God. Reference to the preceding and following paragraphs of the sermon makes clear the intention of the speaker. President Young used the words as titles. The apostate world had long taught that Adam and Eve were the basest and most sinful of the human race. They had brought sin into the world. President Young, in contravention of this false teaching, pointed out that Adam, a son of God of high degree, was called to be the progenitor of the human race. What he did was in harmony with a preordained plan. Adam was in reality the noblest of mankind and would ever stand at the head of his earth family as the presiding officer and patriarch, even as a god. These were the clear ideas of Brigham Young. Every contemporary commentator, and there were several, speaking from personal knowledge of President Young, made this intention and doctrine clear. (See Millennial Star, 15:801)

In the sermon referred to, President Young places Adam unequivocally as a separate character, "Michael," under the dominion of the Trinity. "The earth was organized by three distinct characters, Elohim, Yahovah, and Michael." There was no substituting of Adam for the God to whom we pray. Likewise, the term "father" was constantly applied by Brigham Young to Adam, because Adam was associated with Jesus Christ in the making of the earth; and also in a more literal sense, because, as the first man, he was the father of the race. Yet there are those who have nursed the irrational conclusion that President Young implied that Adam and God, the Father, are one and the same individual.

Brigham Young's much-discussed sermon says that "Jesus was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden and who is our Father in heaven." Enemies of the Church, or stupid people, reading also that Adam is "our father and our God." have heralded far and wide that the Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was begotten of Adam. Yet, the rational reading of the whole sermon reveals the falsity of such a doctrine. It is explained that God the Father was in the Garden of Eden before Adam, that he was the Father of Adam and that this same personage, God the Father, who was in the Garden of Eden before Adam, was the Father of Jesus Christ, when the Son took upon himself a mortal body. That is, the same personage was the Father of Adam and of Jesus Christ. In the numerous published sermons of Brigham Young this is the doctrine that appears; none other. The assertion is repeatedly made that Jesus Christ was begotten by God, the Father, distinct by any stretch of imagination from Adam. This is a well-established Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Absurdities of the first order may arise unless the meanings of words are carefully sought. And any statement in doubt should be compared with other statements on the same subject by the same speaker. Then the true meaning will be revealed.

Again, the warning: Read the scriptures with care; do not become mystified by words; remember that the same word is often used in several ways; and defeat the evil one who is the lover of confusion. And there is no profit in dealing with those who deliberately and usually unscrupulously "wrest" the scriptures. They do not love the truth.

Under the heading "Elohim", the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" (Vol. 2), Keith Meservy gives the LDS understanding of this wonderful Hebrew word as used in the Bible and Mormonism:

Elohim

Elohim (God; gods; Heavenly Father) is the plural form of the singular noun 'eloah (compare Arabic Allah) in the Hebrew Bible, where it is used 2,570 times as compared to 57 times for its singular. But as one commentator has noted, why this "plural form for "God' is used has not yet been explained satisfactorily" (Botterweck, Vol. 1, p. 272).

SINGULAR USAGE. Elohim appears in the Hebrew Bible as a common noun identifying Israel's God: "In the beginning God ['elohim] created [singular verb] the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). It was also frequently used interchangeably with Jehovah, the proper name for Israel's God: "And Jacob said, O God ['elohim] of my father Abraham,…the Lord [Jehovah] which saidst unto me, Return unto thy country" (Gen. 32:9; see also Jehovah, Jesus Christ).

Latter-day Saints use the name Elohim in a more restrictive sense as a proper name-title identifying the Father in Heaven (see God the Father). The First Presidency of the Church has written, "God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title "Elohim,' is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race"

PLURAL USAGE. Ancient Israelites used 'elohim also as a proper plural form to refer to gods of nations other than Israel. At such times, the accompanying verbs and adjectives used were also plural. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3; here "other" is a plural adjective).

Occasionally, Latter-day Saints use Elohim in its plural sense as a common noun to refer to the plurality of gods known to exist (TPJS, pp. 371-74). However, despite their belief that many lords and gods exist in addition to Elohim, Jehovah, and the Holy Ghost (D&C 121:28-32), they follow the example of Jesus and Paul, who worshiped the Father in Heaven (Matt. 19:17; 1 Cor. 8:4-6).

Bibliography

Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren, eds. "Elohim." In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, rev. ed., Vol. 1, pp. 267-84. Grand Rapids, Mich., 1977.

And finally, I find an interesting little discourse from Ben E. Rich, "Two Letters To A Baptist Minister", in "Scrapbook of Mormon Literature", the 2nd volume, p.128 that again shows the very biblical basis for this doctrine.

We solemnly plead guilty to believing in many Gods. If this is a crime it is time for a new translation of the Holy Scriptures. Does not the good book say "and God said, let us make man in our own image?" What arc you going to do with the words "us" and "our"' in this Scripture? Does this not prove a plurality of Gods? Ex. 15-11 says "who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods?" Deut. 10-17: "Lord, your God is God of gods and Lord of lords." Paul also refers to the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, 1 Tim. 6-15, also see 2 Chron. 2-5, Psalms 86-8, Dan. 2-47, Dan. 4-8, Dan. 11-36. If you desire any more Scripture on this subject we will be pleased to give you chapter and verse. Notwithstanding we believe that there are many Gods, we worship only one God, the Father of Jesus Christ. Our enemies do not put it in this light, do they?