Reference of "Gods"

[Vanhin]

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

That's interesting. Also it's worth noting, for trivia's sake if nothing else - that the Arabic word for God, "Allah" is a cognate of El, or Eloah. As is the Aramaic Elaha and the Syriac Alaha.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

To illustrate that the Bible is the first source for the doctrine concerning the plurality of Gods, here's a quote from a 2nd century church father.

These are the words: ‘And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.’ In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us,’ [Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God, (Justin Martyr comments to Trypho Chapter LXII)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Casper]

Elohim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the Hebrew word.

Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a plural formation of eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun il (אֱל, ʾēl [1]). It is the usual word for "god" in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning "gods".[2]

Wikipedia says that the true meaning of the Hebrew word Elohim is gods not god.

That to me says most times or at least some times when it says God in scriptures that can be taken as a time that is referring to more than one God.

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Rev 1:6

Now this is not really specific to what God and what Father, however whatever God it is talking about, has a Father which would say there are at least two.

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . as in when the queen says, "We are not pleased!"

You trinitarians with your faulty translations! The actual line was "We are not amused".

[bytebear]

I see Eloheim as an equivalent to the Godhead. The Godhead is a singular noun that describes a plurality. I also think when the Old Testament talks about "there is only one God" I simply replace the world God with Savior or Redeemer, and suddenly the understanding of the importance of Jesus Christ in our salvation. No other name under heaven can bring us back to the Father. Knowing that Jesus is Jehovah clarifies so much.

And to PrisonChaplain, I really think when Trinitarians and Mormons really get to the nuts and bolts of the doctrine of the nature of God, they are a lot closer than either side acknowledges. When a Trinitarian describes the relationship of the trinity: The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God, The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost is not the Father. I perfectly agree.

[MarginOfError]

Wikipedia says that the true meaning of the Hebrew word Elohim is gods not god.

That to me says most times or at least some times when it says God in scriptures that can be taken as a time that is referring to more than one God.

You could make this conclusion if Elohim were used throughout the scriptures, but to my understanding, it is only ever used in reference to the Creation.

[prisonchaplain]

I see Eloheim as an equivalent to the Godhead. The Godhead is a singular noun that describes a plurality. I also think when the Old Testament talks about "there is only one God" I simply replace the world God with Savior or Redeemer, and suddenly the understanding of the importance of Jesus Christ in our salvation. No other name under heaven can bring us back to the Father. Knowing that Jesus is Jehovah clarifies so much.

And to PrisonChaplain, I really think when Trinitarians and Mormons really get to the nuts and bolts of the doctrine of the nature of God, they are a lot closer than either side acknowledges. When a Trinitarian describes the relationship of the trinity: The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God, The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost is not the Father. I perfectly agree.

You are spot on. On the other hand, this closeness is somewhat like Catholics and Lutherans. The closer they get to reunion the more heated the discussions about differences gets. I actually see that there is a lot of agreement between the LDS Godhead, Trinitarianism, and Modalism. All three doctrines acknowledge that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God. Yet, we cannot just agree to disagree, and call ourselves united. Nevertheless, it surely is healthy and disarming to realize just how much we do concur on.

[LDSChristian]

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?

The interesting word there is "formed". Formed also means created which is interesting when you think about it.

[Nathan6329]

So we are all over the page now. So it all comes down to this.

Are we monotheistic or polytheistic? Are the father, son, and holy ghost one God or three Gods?

[prospectmom]

I now have a headache reading all this and am none the wiser

[Wingnut]

Are we monotheistic or polytheistic?

Neither. Mormons are henotheistic.

[Nathan6329]

What is henotheistic?

[bytebear]

Henotheism is a belief and worship of one God but an understanding that other beings may also possess the same attributes of God.

I don't really like the term henotheism because when you talk about polytheism or henotheism you think of a pantheon of various gods all doing different things and are disjointed (i.e. Greek or Roman gods) but God is not a God of chaos, and all beings who possess the attributes of Godhood are One. And isn't our goal to become One with God? So even if we become one with God, there is still only One.

And of course scripture is clear that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God. (Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants) so the Godhead is One God, even if we sometimes describe the three persons who make up God as "gods".

[Nathan6329]

Why does this always have to be so confusing? If they are three separate characters why couldn't they just have made them three separate Gods?

[Blackmarch]

Why does this always have to be so confusing? If they are three separate characters why couldn't they just have made them three separate Gods?

we can probably thank the greek philosophers for that...

In the LDS church we understand them to be three distinct individuals, but are united in thought and action to the point of where they can say they are one.

[Traveler]

Why does this always have to be so confusing? If they are three separate characters why couldn't they just have made them three separate Gods?

The primary reason for confusion is the difference between ancient and modern societies. Anciently it was believed that the governments created by kingdoms were patterned directly after the kingdom of heaven where G-d is the sovereign Suzerain or king. Throughout the history of mankind the human efforts to plagiarize divine overseeing of government bodies have all ended in various levels of disaster and tyranny. Thus we have democracies of which Winston Churchill said something to the effect that democracy is the worse form of government ever devised by men - that is excepting all the others.

The problem in understanding the nature of G-d all boils down to holes in understanding the structure of a kingdom and how servant-vassals related and operated under the king or Suzerain. The absolute fact is that there is only one Suzerain or king. But, interestingly enough a servant-vassal acting in the name of the Suzerain could and often would speak in the first person as the Suzerain king and carry all the titles of the Suzerain king. Anciently there was no confusion over this. In fact Josephus (who was not Christian) explains exactly this fact relating the Messiah as the creator under the direction of the Father or heavenly Suzerain.

In addition to all this - as I have pointed out in past posts. Man fell and lost citizenship in the grand kingdom of heaven. This is represented symbolically by the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the “Garden of G-d” that was called Eden. To govern fallen man a new kingdom was established as Jehovah being the Suzerain of that new kingdom. This new kingdom is differentiated from the “Kingdom of Heaven” with the name and title of “Kingdom of G-d”. Yet this separate kingdom being less was still subordinate to the greater kingdom of heaven.

The real problem between us LDS and other Christians is that living in our modern times we are the only ones to accept the modern explanations of G-d that are given to understand outside of the ancient societies of Kingdoms. We LDS must understand that other do not have the light that we do. That does not make us better than them - it only means that we must be more understanding and forgiving than them.

What I have learned from Prisonchaplin is that he is a better at what I ought to be than I am. He is more forgiving and understanding than I am concerning our differences in understanding of the nature of G-d. I guess that is the hardest pill to swallow. Prisonchaplin has made me a better person and better Mormon. He has done so without convincing me he is right - just in convincing me that we all need to be more understanding of others.

The Traveler

Edited January 14, 2011 by Traveler
added the final two words (of others).

[beefche]

The real problem between us LDS and other Christians is that living in our modern times we are the only ones to accept the modern explanations of G-d that are given to understand outside of the ancient societies of Kingdoms. We LDS must understand that other do not have the light that we do. That does not make us better than them - it only means that we must be more understanding and forgiving than them.

What I have learned from Prisonchaplin is that he is a better at what I ought to be than I am. He is more forgiving and understanding than I am concerning our differences in understanding of the nature of G-d. I guess that is the hardest pill to swallow. Prisonchaplin has made me a better person and better Mormon. He has done so without convincing me he is right - just in convincing me that we all need to be more understanding of others.

The Traveler

Amen, brother, amen.

[FunkyTown]

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.

Have you considered that having thin skin that makes you hate-filled and alienates you from the people you love and friends that you value hurts you far more than them?

It's childish to assume that nobody else will ever say something that offends you and I mean that in the very accurate way of: "Children are often incapable of understanding that others have different viewpoints to them. Because of this, they often are shocked and appalled when others disagree with them. How could they believe something so foolish?"

Only a fool takes offense where none is intended. Only a greater fool takes offense when it is intended.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

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.

Come on prisionchaplin, we just had this discussion on another thread!

The royal we is not an ancient Hebrew concept (you don't see Saul or David talking in the plural EVER) and this argument that the plural use in Genesis is a royal we, is rejected by most scholars, outside of the monotheist apologetics.

The Bible calls us joint-heirs of God and of Christ (Romans 8:17), it says we inherit all there glory. If God and Christ are exalted beings then we too can inherit this from thought the atonement of Jesus Christ. This state is called exaltation, we become a god, we DO NOT become the One True God (Which is God the Father).

The Father is and always will be the supreme God of all things, our godhood in not greater than his since we only attain it though his plan and the atonement of Jesus Christ.

The Bible says the faithful followers of God are gods (See Psalms 82:6), our God is called the King of gods and God of gods throughout the scriptures. All infers to our divine potential through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

In my humble opinion and through intense study of the Old and New Testament, the Hebrew people were not monotheist but henotheist. A henotheist (Mormons are henotheists) is a person who accepts the existence of many gods but only worships one supreme God of gods.

The nature of the Old Testament (heavily so in The Book of Genesis and The Book of Psalms) one can see that the Hebrews are henotheist.

Of course there are many that do not agree with this for various reasons (prisionchaplin being one) but there is valid scripture evidence pointing towards both interpretations and no one can honestly say that one can disprove the other.

In the end one has to study the Holy Bible intensely from front to back and pray to understand the message that is presented.

I hope that this response gives you more information and knowledge on the subject to make an informed study of the scripture, deeply ponder the message, and pray to God for a spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost of it's truth!

God Bless!