Reference of "Gods"

[Nathan6329]

There is one thing I've always been confused about. The Pearl of Great Price commonly makes reference to the "gods" creating this earth but I thought we were under the belief that there is only one God as it says in the Bible. Isiah chapter 43 has a quote from God that states "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." It is also believed which I'm not sure where it is from exactly that we are told that we'll become Gods someday after we inherit the Celestial Kingdom so wouldn't that again conflict with the teachings of the Bible?

[MarginOfError]

I guess this depends on your definition of 'god.'

Let me pose this question: can the word 'god' take on different meanings depending on context?

[mightynancy]

Also, we believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate beings. Is Jesus Christ not God?

[Nathan6329]

On LDS.org it says the three make up one godhead. I am not saying anyone is wrong I am just asking so I can defend my beliefs better against people instead of just swearing at them like I usually do.

Isiah he says that he is the only God and there were none before and will be none after, but then in Psalms it says something like ye are Gods and children of most high. So if they are gonna say that we are wrong because we say we will become Gods, than they are wrong too because they contradicted their own beliefs, they can't have it both ways.

However, that is not really what bothers me. What is bothering me is that the book of Abraham uses the word Gods like every verse when talking about the creation of the world when we believe God the father is the supreme creator. Now if I am not mistaken, Christ was one of us until he stepped up to be the savior over Lucifer's plan of forcing people to choose the right. So how was Christ still always a God even before we had known who the savior was going to be? Or was the world not yet created?

[MarginOfError]

Abraham isn't the only place that uses the term "gods." Genesis uses it, too, but it was masked by a translation to English. In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew word that was translated to god was Elohim. When you see an -im tacked onto the end of a Hebrew word, it acts like an -s in English...that is, it makes the word plural.

This is ambiguous in Hebrew, actually, since the plural suffix could indicate a plural, or a sign of greater respect to something, or that it is an abstract concept (if I remember my reading correctly). What it boils down to, however, is that there is a case to be made the the Creation was a collaborative effort, and not strictly one being employing mystical power to do all the work himself. In LDS doctrine, some subscribe to the idea that Christ directed the Creation, and that many beings were involved in carrying out his direction.

[Blackmarch]

There is one thing I've always been confused about. The Pearl of Great Price commonly makes reference to the "gods" creating this earth but I thought we were under the belief that there is only one God as it says in the Bible. Isiah chapter 43 has a quote from God that states "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." It is also believed which I'm not sure where it is from exactly that we are told that we'll become Gods someday after we inherit the Celestial Kingdom so wouldn't that again conflict with the teachings of the Bible?

According to my understanding:

This depends on how one defines God, and our relationship to him. Over the centuries the context and concept of God and man's relation has changed to what we are generally familiar with today... and generally it is somewhat misleading, and is quite a bit different from context and concept of God that the ancient hebrews were familiar with.

Let me provide a different one, possibly a little closer to the ancients understanding in this case;

A god is a being that has intelligence (and from such knowledge), will, the power to act, and to act upon.

In the preexistence there were many beings who had these qualities to different extents, but there was only one who had these qualities to such an extent that they were absolute and infinite. We know this being as God, these others that he had taken under him are called gods.

Fortunately for them he had compassion for them, and in his love for them saw that they could be made and improved to the point of being like him.

So he gathered them in as his family and formed them as his children, taught them, and improved them as much as could be done to them in the state that they were in, to get us further than that he implemented what we in the lds church call the plan of salvation.

We understand from the writings of abraham that we were part of these that were under God, and that we or at least some of us had a hand in the creation of this world in some way.

When God says that there are no Gods before or behind him, he is teaching our relationship to him- that there is no substitute for him nor will ever will be, nor that there will be another God over us as our God in the way that God the Father is. Quite possibly this is one reason we pray to god the Father and not to Jesus Christ.... doesn't matter to what level we get to, or what we obtain, that will always be the same.

[Vanhin]

There are three individual persons in the Godhead. Each is a God, and they are "one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth" (see Mosiah 15:1-4). I believe in all three, and I worship the Father and the Son, in Spirit and truth.

And after they have been scattered, and the Lord God hath scourged them by other nations for the space of many generations, yea, even down from generation to generation until they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind—and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name, with pure hearts and clean hands, and look not forward any more for another Messiah, then, at that time, the day will come that it must needs be expedient that they should believe these things.

...

And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out. (2 Ne. 25:16,29)

The following link is a good reference as well.

Guide to the Scriptures: God, Godhead

And this gospel classic is so full of inspired insight.

The Father and the Son - Ensign Apr. 2002

Regards,

Vanhin

[prisonchaplain]

Abraham isn't the only place that uses the term "gods." Genesis uses it, too, but it was masked by a translation to English. In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew word that was translated to god was Elohim. When you see an -im tacked onto the end of a Hebrew word, it acts like an -s in English...that is, it makes the word plural.

This is ambiguous in Hebrew, actually, since the plural suffix could indicate a plural, or a sign of greater respect to something, or that it is an abstract concept (if I remember my reading correctly). What it boils down to, however, is that there is a case to be made the the Creation was a collaborative effort, and not strictly one being employing mystical power to do all the work himself. In LDS doctrine, some subscribe to the idea that Christ directed the Creation, and that many beings were involved in carrying out his direction.

I would suggest great caution with ascribing any kind of plurality to God, in Genesis. Some trinitarians also suggest that the "Let us make man in our image," might hint at the Trinity. My Hebrew knowledge is nil, but I've been told by those wiser than me that this is a very weak argument. It might simply be a version of the "royal we," as in when the queen says, "We are not pleased!" Ancient Jews often fell into the pagan polygamy of their surroundings, but the Torah is adamantly monothesitic. Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Isaiah bolsters that monotheism. So, however the PoGP is to be understood, using Genesis to suggest some ambiguity on the matter would seem very tenuous.

[Nathan6329]

I don't understand a word of what you just said. No offense

Edited January 12, 2011 by Nathan6329

[beefche]

May I suggest that you stop "defending" the church? No need to defend anything. If someone is "accusing" me of believing something, then that person isn't ready to listen to a word I say. If someone has genuine questions about my beliefs, then I will calmly and (try to) clearly explain what I believe.

If you have questions about doctrines of the church, then do as you are doing--which is trying to find the answers for yourself.

[Nathan6329]

Well excuse me for asking other people questions. I just like to get more than one perspective.

[Blackmarch]

I don't understand a word of what you just said. No offense

which person or persons?

[Nathan6329]

Prisonchaplin.

[beefche]

Well excuse me for asking other people questions. I just like to get more than one perspective.

Why are you so defensive to my suggestion? If you don't like it, then don't follow it. This is an open forum--I am giving my opinion and experience on how "defending" beliefs isn't very useful.

[Nathan6329]

I get defensive about everything. That is why I have family members and some past friends that I won't speak with to this day.

[HiJolly]

I get defensive about everything. That is why I have family members and some past friends that I won't speak with to this day.

Sounds to me like you shouldn't be 'defending' the Church. If you can't do it with love for the people you are talking with, then you do the Church and the Gospel a disservice.

HiJolly

[Vanhin]

Hey Nathan6329,

You are welcome here, and you are welcome to ask questions. Just relax. You don't even have to worry about the comments that you don't like. Read them if you wish, or not, and just move on.

beefche was just making the point that in her opinion we shouldn't feel the need to defend our faith. That's just her opinion and suggestion, nothing to get upset about.

I'm sure there are others who disagree with her. :) The whole idea about lds.net, for example, and the More Good Foundation is based on the call to not let others define our faith. In a way, to engage in this endeavor in the slightest, means we are "defending" the faith.

Now that doesn't mean we need to be "defensive", and we shouldn't be. We can be more useful when we listen to one another, and practice tolerance and respect towards the beliefs of others. If we do it in the spirit of love and respect, we can actually help correct false information about us, and build understanding with those of other faiths.

Regards,

Vanhin

[prisonchaplain]

Prisonchaplin.

Okay...I was responding to the suggestion that Genesis could be said to speak of gods creating the world, because the word Elohim is plural. I said that Genesis chapter one--and indeed all the writings of Moses, can hardly be used to argue for either a plurality of gods, nor even for a plurality in the Godhead. Moses' message over and over again is that God is one. Then I agreed that the Isaiah passage you quoted reaffirms Moses' belief that God is one.

Whether LDS are explaining the Godhead as being three separate beings, or trinitarians are showing that the one God is three persons, there is little Moses can do to help.

[Vanhin]

Okay...I was responding to the suggestion that Genesis could be said to speak of gods creating the world, because the word Elohim is plural. I said that Genesis chapter one--and indeed all the writings of Moses, can hardly be used to argue for either a plurality of gods, nor even for a plurality in the Godhead. Moses' message over and over again is that God is one. Then I agreed that the Isaiah passage you quoted reaffirms Moses' belief that God is one.

Whether LDS are explaining the Godhead as being three separate beings, or trinitarians are showing that the one God is three persons, there is little Moses can do to help.

Unless, of course, we utilize the book of Moses from the PoGP. :)

And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. (Moses 1:33-34)

Though thekabalist did not accept the book of Moses as authoritative to Jews, he did accept it as an ancient Hebrew volume that bore similarities to the relatively recently discovered book of Enoch. I wish he was still around.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited January 12, 2011 by Vanhin

[MarginOfError]

Okay...I was responding to the suggestion that Genesis could be said to speak of gods creating the world, because the word Elohim is plural. I said that Genesis chapter one--and indeed all the writings of Moses, can hardly be used to argue for either a plurality of gods, nor even for a plurality in the Godhead. Moses' message over and over again is that God is one. Then I agreed that the Isaiah passage you quoted reaffirms Moses' belief that God is one.

Whether LDS are explaining the Godhead as being three separate beings, or trinitarians are showing that the one God is three persons, there is little Moses can do to help.

And I'll acknowledge that you make really great points. What's interesting to me is that the use of Elohim is prevalent in the early chapters of Genesis, but disappears rather quickly (again, if I remember correctly). I also seem to remember something about different authors, etc. I'm not sure how that plays in or if it does. Someone who knows more about the authors could feel free to enlighten me.

But I'll also clarify that my intent of bringing up the issue of plurality of gods was not to say plurality of Gods (if that makes sense). That also relates back to the question of the context of the word god.

[MarginOfError]

Unless, of course, we utilize the book of Moses from the PoGP. :)

And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. (Moses 1:33-34)

Though thekabalist did not accept the book of Moses as authoritative to Jews, he did accept it as an ancient Hebrew volume that bore similarities to the relatively recently discovered book of Enoch. I wish he was still around.

Regards,

Vanhin

You could do that, but since his comments go back to my statements about Genesis, doing so doesn't have much relevance. It also isn't helpful to invoke the Pearl of Great Price when trying to establish precedent among a group of people who don't accept that book as divinely inspired.

In fact, there's a strong argument to be made that the LDS favor the interpretation of Elohim that I provided earlier not because it is consistent with the Bible, but because it is consistent with a paradigm introduced in our scriptures. Essentially, we're trying to force the Bible to fit our latter-day revelation even when doing so causes us to make claims that are not very well supported.

[Backroads]

Would anyone mind posting particular PoGP scriptures so we can get a better look at them?

Anywho, one way I always interpreted it was that Jesus Christ created the earth through instruction of God the Father. That seems fairly plural to me.

I also like the point of the meaning of "god". It can be a rather general word, no? Especially when all lower-cased like that?

I remember someone saying (and I have no references to back this up, just memories of hearing this) is that the creation of the world was something of a committee effort.

[prisonchaplain]

I tried to find some expert description of Elohim, and alas, many of the sites are apologetics ministries, with anti-LDS sections. However, going deeper, I found that the trunk of the Christian tree was able to help me out. Yes, our theological friends over at that little denomination known as the Roman Catholic Church, produced some pretty decent research on the word. :-)

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Elohim

[Backroads]

I think I prefer that research.

[Vanhin]

You could do that, but since his comments go back to my statements about Genesis, doing so doesn't have much relevance. It also isn't helpful to invoke the Pearl of Great Price when trying to establish precedent among a group of people who don't accept that book as divinely inspired.

In fact, there's a strong argument to be made that the LDS favor the interpretation of Elohim that I provided earlier not because it is consistent with the Bible, but because it is consistent with a paradigm introduced in our scriptures. Essentially, we're trying to force the Bible to fit our latter-day revelation even when doing so causes us to make claims that are not very well supported.

The paradigm found in our scriptures, was introduced in the Bible first. From an LDS perspective the book of Moses validates the precedent set by the original text of Genesis, that plainly establishes a plurality of Gods. Just like the book of Moses reaffirms the plainly established doctrine found in Genesis that man, both male and female, was created in the image and likeness of God.

So it cannot be said that there is little Moses can do to help from an LDS perspective. Perhaps the case could be made that there is little Genesis can do to settle the matter, but not Moses. Or that there is little anyone can do to settle the matter without resorting to modern revelation.

Logic and reason alone will not convince the hearts of our sectarian friends. We should rather use the tools God prepared for that purpose, such as the Book of Mormon, and our other scriptures. It's far more important to establish the authority of those works first, before trying to convince them of the doctrines peculiar to our understanding of the Bible.

Regards,

Vanhin