LDS Faith Monotheistic?

[Snow]

Snow, I've never heard of divinization or theosis. If you're talking about the ancient Christian church of the Bible, that was monotheistic and they didn't teach you could become a god.

Well that would be completely false.

1. The early Church was in fact monotheistic, but

2. Theosis or deification was the mainstream orthodoxy of the early Christian church believed and taught widely by the Christian farthers - from Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, to Justin Martry, Hippolytus, and Athanasius, etc, etc, etc. The best example of the concept is found in the theology of the great Athanasius... it was culmination of the salvific process.

"He, God, became man that we might be made God."

I assume you are Christian and so find it odd that you know so little about your own history.

I also assume that you are trinitarian. Are you aware that some people think it is impossible to consider trinitarians to be monotheist?

[bytebear]

How do you interpret the following verses:

D&C 20: 28

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

Alma 11

26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?

27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.

28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

29 And he answered, No.

30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?

31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.

Mosiah 15: 4

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

2 Ne. 31: 21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Alma 14: 5

5 And the people went forth and witnessed against them—testifying that they had reviled against the law, and their lawyers and judges of the land, and also of all the people that were in the land; and also testified that there was but one God, and that he should send his Son among the people, but he should not save them; and many such things did the people testify against Alma and Amulek. Now this was done before the chief judge of the land.

Morm. 7: 7

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

[pam]

John 10:34-36 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came

Joe J. Christensen

“Latter-day Saints have been criticized for believing that the Savior really meant what he said, and that becoming like our Father in Heaven and the Savior is a commandment—not just a suggestion. Over the years, many vindictive books and articles have been written condemning our beliefs as blasphemous. How dare we believe that we could and even should try to become like our Father in Heaven!

“We are attacked for these beliefs even though the Bible, which is accepted as scripture by all Christians, makes frequent reference to the fact that we are children of and should become like our Father in Heaven. Note the following small sampling of the many biblical scriptures on the topic:

‘What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour’ ("Ps. 8:4"Ps. 8:5Psalm 8:4-5).

‘I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High’ ("82:6; emphasis added). The Savior even referred to this idea: ‘Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?’ ("John 10:34)

‘Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device’ ("Acts 17; emphasis added).

‘And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together’ ("Rom. 8: emphasis added).” (One Step at a Time: Building a Better Marriage, Family, and You [salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996], 107.)

John A. Widtsoe

“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’ (Gen. 3:5Gen. 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. 8:51 ) 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.” (Evidences and Reconciliations [salt Lake City: Improvement Era], 54.)

Boyd K. Packer

“Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring? Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is.

“What is in error, then, when we use the term godhood to describe the ultimate destiny of mankind? We may now be young in our progression-juvenile, even infantile, compared with God. Nevertheless, in the eternities to come, if we are worthy, we may be like unto Him, enter His presence, ‘see as [we] are seen, and know as [we] are known,’ and receive ‘a fulness’ ("D&C 76:94D&C 76:94).

“This doctrine is in no way at variance with the scriptures. Nevertheless it is easy to understand why some Christians reject it, because it introduces the possibility that man may achieve godhood.

“Their concern centers on certain verses of scripture, for there are many references (at least twenty in the Bible alone) which speak of one God; for example, there is ‘one God and Father of all’ (Ephesians 4:6). But if you hold strictly to a too rigid interpretation of those verses, you create serious theological problems for yourself.

“There are many other verses of scripture, at least an equal number in the Bible, that speak in plural terms of ‘lords’ and ‘gods.’ The first chapter of Genesis states: ‘And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Genesis 1:26, italics added). Such references are found from Genesis to Revelation (Revelation 1:6).

“The strongest one was given by Christ himself when he quoted that very clear verse from "ps. 82:1"ps. 82:2"ps. 82:3"ps. 82:4"ps. 82:5"ps. 82:6Psalm 82:1-6: ‘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?’ ("john 10:34"john 10:35"john 10:36John 10:34-36, italics added.)

“The acceptance of this truth does not mean accepting the multiple gods of mythology nor the polytheism of the pagans, which was so roundly condemned by Isaiah and the other prophets.

“There is one God, the Father of all. This we accept as fundamental doctrine.

“There is only one Redeemer, Mediator, Savior. This we know.

“There is one Holy Ghost, a personage of spirit, who completes the Godhead.

“I have emphasized the word one in each sentence, but I have used it three times' Three is plural.

“Paul used the plural many and the singular one in the same statement: ‘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.’ ("1 cor. 8:5"1 cor. 8:61 Corinthians 8:5-6.)

“Anyone who believes and teaches of God the Father, and accepts the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, teaches a plurality of Gods.

“When the early Apostles were gone it was not long until those who assumed the leadership of the Church forsook revelation and relied on reason. The idea of three separate Gods offended them, for it appeared to contravene those scriptures which refer to one God.

“To solve that problem they took verses from here and there and ignored all else that bears on the subject. They tried to stir the three ones together into some mysterious kind of a composite one. They came up with creeds which cannot be squared with the scriptures. And they were left with a philosophy that opposes all we know of creation, of the laws of nature; and that, interestingly enough, defies the very reason upon which they came to depend.

“…What could inspire one to purity and worthiness more than to possess a spiritual confirmation that we are the children of God? What could inspire a more lofty regard for oneself, or engender more love for mankind?

“This thought does not fill me with arrogance. It fills me with overwhelming humility. Nor does it sponsor any inclination to worship oneself or any man.” (Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991], 290-292.)

Edited August 20, 2009 by pam

[Guest Believer_1829]

Or maybe I should have said His intent to add glory to Himself.

Same answer, I understood what you were asking.

[bytebear]

From a scientific point of view. If God is infinite, and we are added to God via deification, what is infinity +1?

[Snow]

Pardon my interruption... but did not Joseph Smith teach that God had glory added to Him when we become glorified? Wouldn't that be creating us to "aggrandize himself" (add glory to)?

The difference is that we do not believe that's God's "point" or purpose is to glorify himself, ie God exists that we might worship him. On the contrary we believe: “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”

That is: God exists for the benefit of others, not that others exist for the benefit of God.

[Traveler]

I've seen stated on at least a couple threads now by multiple members of the Church that they believe that the Church is monotheistic. I've also seen people say, " I'm not going to be 'like' God, I will BE a god." That is NOT monotheistic teaching. How do you reconcile these two opposing thoughts?

There is a problem with monotheism verses polytheism in Christianity and Judaism because many do not pay attention to scripture nor do they sometimes even care to understand truth. Prior to the fall of Adam all references to G-d are plural and all references to G-d after the fall is singular (note that this is consistent even when specific scriptures from a single source or author address both pre and post fall references to G-d) . The scriptures are clear that fallen man requires one (singular) G-d that is our Christ to mediate for all that is divine.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

In answer to the OP, President Hinckley gave a good answer when he said we don't really know much about that.

[Kawazu]

LDS FAQ: The Relationship Between Us, Christ, and God (Mormon Answers)

[Kawazu]

Polytheism - FAIRMormon

Contents

* 1 Question

o 1.1 Source(s) of the Criticism

* 2 Response

o 2.1 Are Christians monotheists?

o 2.2 Human deification and monotheism

* 3 Conclusion

* 4 Endnotes

* 5 Further reading

o 5.1 FAIR wiki articles

o 5.2 FAIR web site

o 5.3 External links

o 5.4 Printed materia

[pam]

From a scientific point of view. If God is infinite, and we are added to God via deification, what is infinity +1?

To quote Buzz Lightyear..To infinity...and beyond? Okay sorry. I couldn't resist.

[bytebear]

To quote Buzz Lightyear..To infinity...and beyond? Okay sorry. I couldn't resist.

Wow, Buzz Lightyear believed in Eternal Progression!

[lattelady]

Snow, is it GOD that you find self-centered and shallow for creating us for His glory? Wow...when see all He has done for me, I want to give Him glory. He alone is deserving of it. He is not arrogant or self-centered. He is humble and self-sacrificing. Scripture teaches me that I was made to worship! Cool! Isaiah 43:21 "The people whom I formed for Myself, will declare my praise." 1 Corinthians 10:31 "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." Psalm 86: 9 "All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worhip before thee, O Lord; And they shall glorify Thy name."

[pam]

That's not what Snow said. His comment concerned why God would create us with the purpose to bring Glory to himself. That's what he meant by shallow.

Not once did he say that he finds God self-centered and shallow.

[HEthePrimate]

Whoever said they would become a god, assuming they are correct, they will not be "my Lord and my God," and they will not be responsible for my salvation. There is only One God responsible for my salvation, and that is Jesus Christ. Whatever other gods are out there doesn't matter.

If one accepts that other gods exist, then one is by definition polytheistic. However, there are different types of polytheism, including henotheism, in which there is a chief god above the others, and monolatry, in which you choose to worship only one god out of many. I'm not sure the LDS Church has really come to grips with this question (but then, neither have other Christian churches, so we're in good company!). For example, I believe many LDS would feel uncomfortable with the statement "Jesus is God." And yet, the Book of Mormon says he is. In fact, the BoM sounds downright Trinitarian in places! The Muslims and Jews have a good point when they claim Christians are not monotheists because we believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.

HEP

[lattelady]

And Snow, is it deification now, or divinization?

[Snow]

Snow, is it GOD that you find self-centered and shallow for creating us for His glory?

No lattelady - let's keep our posts honest shall we?

I don't think that God is self-centered and shallow. I think YOUR idea of God is so self-centered and shallow that, as you say, the point of His existence is that we might worship Him.

[lattelady]

Moksha, "We don't really know much about that"? There's been much written, hasn't there?

Pam, that's why I asked if Snow was referring to God being self-centered instead of accusatory. Again, it seems to me that you feel the need to keep a close watch over me. While in other posts, I've noticed others get away with saying very unkind things toward people and it's allowed. I've said nothing unkind.

[pam]

For example, I believe many LDS would feel uncomfortable with the statement "Jesus is God."

He is God. He is just not God the Father.

[Snow]

And Snow, is it deification now, or divinization?

It's divinization, deification, or theosis. Take your pick. They are all words that describe the idea that man, through Christ, becomes god.

divinize - To make divine; to make godlike

deification - the elevation of a person (as to the status of a god)

theosis (Greek: Θεωσις, meaning divinization (or deification, or to make divine)

What is the purpose of the question?

[lattelady]

In what way is it self-centered?

[pam]

Moksha, "We don't really know much about that"? There's been much written, hasn't there?

Pam, that's why I asked if Snow was referring to God being self-centered instead of accusatory. Again, it seems to me that you feel the need to keep a close watch over me. While in other posts, I've noticed others get away with saying very unkind things toward people and it's allowed. I've said nothing unkind.

I watch you no more than I watch other posts and threads. If you feel that I am concentrating on you..that is of your own doing not mine.

[lattelady]

The purpose of the question was that the word changed and I wasn't aware that they were all the same word. I've never, as I said before, heard of any of them. That was the only purpose...

[Kawazu]

How do you explain Isaiah's statement that there are no other gods besides God?

The Hebrew word translated as "beside" or "besides" does not imply that there are no other heavenly beings or godly beings, but that there are none that are His equal or greater than Him. He is preeminent and He alone is our Father and source of life and salvation. As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:5,6, there are gods many and lords many, but to us there but one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. That is, for worship and salvation, there is only one Being. above all, to whom we look: God the Father, who truly is a God of gods (Deut. 10:17).

But don't you believe all the passages in Isaiah when God says that there is just one God, and that he knows of no others?

We agree with Isaiah! Now what did Isaiah mean? Let's first ask what Moses meant when he quoted God saying, "Let us make man in our own image." Who is the "we" that is talking? Just one divine being? Then why the plural?

It is commonly argued that this is the "royal plural" - like the affected language of some kings who use the first person plural as the subject of sentences instead of the first person singular. (A related phenomenon is found in the language or politicians who replace the first person singular with the phrase "the American people," as in "The American people want me as the next president.") But in Genesis 3:22, a plural appears that is not consistent with usage of the royal plural. Adam, having eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is said to have become like "one of us" - indicating that plural beings are being mentioned. And what kind of plural beings might that be? Divine beings - even gods.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 offers more evidence of a group of plural divine beings:

When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

Bible scholars now recognize that this should say "sons of God" instead of "children of Israel." (The New English Bible, for example, uses "sons of God" in this passage.) The Most High God thus gives an inheritance to the sons of God. The portion that goes to Jehovah, the Lord, one of the sons of God, is Israel. As McGregor and Shirts put it, "This is hardly 'pure monotheism.' In fact, the title 'most High God' is a comparison, and it really doesn't mean anything unless there are also less High Gods" (Russell C. McGregor and Kerry A. Shirts, "Letters to an Anti-Mormon," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1999, p. 123).

But let's deal with Isaiah specifically. Isaiah 43:10 says "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." McGregor and Shirts (p. 126) explain that idols are formed all the time, so the Lord is not referring to idols when he speaks of Gods who are not formed before or after Him. Since God is the first and the last and has always existed, actually nothing can be formed before or after Him. Literally, this verse does not rule out other godlike beings (such as the kinds that are mentioned many times in the Bible), but gives preeminence to the Originator of all, before whom no other being, divine or otherwise, was formed.

Isaiah 44:6-8 states that God is the first and the last, and "beside me there is no God.... Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." I think this is easily understood in the same sense as 1 Cor. 8:5. Toward that end, the word "beside" needs consideration. McGregor and Shirts explain that it "is used to translate a Hebrew word that could just as well be rendered 'apart from' or 'away from' or even 'not associated with' or 'in preference to.'" (p. 127) Thus, the passage can be taken to mean that all beings, even divine ones, are subservient to God (none are apart from Him) and that we should not have any god in preference to God the Father.

A more detailed explanation is given in the article, "Isaiah: 'None Beside Me'" from Lehi's Library (April 29, 2009), where we learn that "there is none beside me" is "an idiom essentially meaning 'I am the best,' or 'I am supreme.'" God is supreme, even if there are other godlike beings.

An important observation needs to be made in Isaiah 44:6-8, where we have the Lord, Jehovah, declaring that He is the first and the last, just as Jesus would later say (Rev. 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13). The LDS view is that Jesus was known as Jehovah prior to His mortal ministry, though the term Jehovah can also apply to the Father. Related passages in Isaiah include Is. 45:21 and 43:11, from which we learn that Jehovah is a Savior - indeed, the only Savior. The Savior, of course, is Jesus Christ - also known as Jehovah ("Lord") in Isaiah. Whether it is Jesus or the Father declaring that there is no God "beside" Him, this statement cannot possibly exclude the other as being divine. And when God says that He knows no other God, it can't mean that the Father doesn't know Jesus and vice versa. For logic and consistency, we have to interpret Is. 44 and related passages in a way that does not exclude other members of the Godhead. Otherwise, we are left with a Godhead of one person and one being, which is the doctrine of modalism that was rejected by the creeds (though mistakenly accepted by many Christians today in an attempt to explain the Trinity).

The Isaiah passages about one God (43: 10, 11; 44:5-8; 45: 18, 21-22) need to be read in their context. The Lord is contrasting His work and power with false gods or idols. Isaiah 44 mocks the idols made of wood, while Isaiah 46 condemns the pagan gods Bel and Nebo and Isaiah 43:12 speaks of a time when there were no strange gods among Israel. Genuine "gods" are not being rejected - there is no need to, for they have nothing to do with us and are not worshipped.

What of God and Christ? Are they two Gods, in contradiction to Isaiah? Clearly, God is one, but in what way? After all, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost can be in three separate places at the same time, as we learn from the story of Christ's baptism, recorded in Matt. 3:16-17. Christ in John 17 says He and the Father are one in the same way that Christians should be one with Christ - indicating a oneness not of substance but of heart and mind. The separateness of God and the Son is evident in many places, including Acts 7:55,56, where Stephen, like Joseph Smith, sees Christ on the right hand of God. That makes two beings - not just one. And of those two beings, the Father is one who is greater, as Christ Himself said in John 14:28: "My Father is greater than I."

Paul's comments in 1 Cor. 8:5,6 are relevant here. He explains that there are beings "that are called gods, whether in heaven or earth (as there be gods many, and lords many)," he clearly goes beyond a discussion of earthly idols alone. Idols are only on earth - you won't find any in heaven. Those that are called "gods" on earth are probably just pagan idols, but what of those that are called "gods" in heaven? There are such beings - in fact, many, as Paul says, along with many lords - but Paul explains that they have nothing to do with us, at least as far as worship is concerned, for "to us there is but one God, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things" (verse 6). That last passage indicates that God the Father is the One God, and yet there is another person, Jesus Christ, who is our "one Lord" - playing a role that is not the same as the Father's role. Paul speaks of Christ as a separate being from God the Father. For Paul to be consistent with Isaiah, what do they mean? In my opinion, the most logical and Biblically-based view is that there is one God the Father whom we worship, and He is one in many ways with a distinct person, Jesus Christ. And while there may be other heavenly beings that can be called gods and lords, we have no relationship to them, we do not worship them, and have no need to consider any god beside the One God, for He is supreme. There is none outside His dominion, none "beside" or "not associated with" or "having pre-eminence to" Him. We worship only the One, to whom all glory be due forever.

[Snow]

In what way is it self-centered?

Were posts 16, 31 and 41 unclear?

Your idea is of a god whose "point" or existence is to glorify himself by creating others to worship him and so bring him glory. That is, he exists, to better (glorify) himself, for himself.