Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of deity

[chris2009]

chris2009,

With all due respect sir, you copy&pasted most of that response from somewhere else. You should at least provide a link to where you’re getting this info.

Maybe you can tell us the truth about the Brigham Young/sun idea… w/links.

Oh sorry, link for #78 above:
lightplanet.com/response/answers/moon.htm

The Brigham Young thing I believe is a mixture of false ideas and rumors from the same Joseph Smith rumor above I believe. It gets better and better the more it spreads.

 

[chris2009]

As I said, you don’t know your own history.

I just answered your Quaker/moon statement. It took me a total of 5 minutes to find the answer with a Google search. Just as I said – anyone who REALLY wants answers to their concerns can find them if they try.

So will you admit now that this is unfounded and stop spreading this false rumor?

 

[chris2009]

Dear TheosisM, this is my understanding of Theosis.

From the link you provided:

orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis
emphasis mine

We should really start another thread with this new topic. But regarding becoming like God, here is one of my favorite scriptures in the Bible:

“31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 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 10:31-36)

AND it was written in their law. See Psalms 82:1,6:
"1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. "
“6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”

The Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) originally uses the word Elohim for “gods”. Elohim is the plural form. We are gods – it says it right in the Bible. We are children of God. God’s seed. God’s embryo. We are baby gods. We are heirs and joint-heirs with Christ to the throne. We will be kings and queens in the next life.

“21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Rev 3:21)

“11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:” (Ephesians 4:11-13)

Shall I keep going? I’ve got plenty more…

 

[Answersplease]

mrm.org/moon-men

(Color red, underlining, and bold type, added to highlight the original text.)

to outright reject Dibble’s and Huntington’s claim, one must join Mormon apologists in questioning their integrity as well as the judgment of the Mormon editors

of the Young Woman’s Journal for including Huntington’s account in this Church-published magazine.
…
…a disagreement between modern Mormon apologists and the testimony of Dibble, a revered early Mormon who was a close associate of Joseph Smith.
…
the idea of moon men was commonly held among Mormon leaders, many of whom had intimate acquaintance with Smith. It even showed up in patriarchal blessings, which are supposed to include "an inspired and prophetic statement of the life possibilities and mission of the recipient"6

6 Information and Suggestions for Patriarchs [1970], 3–4. Quoted by Richard D. Allred in “The Lord Blesses His Children through Patriarchal Blessings,” Ensign, Nov 1997, 27

Note the plural “patriarchal blessings” which shows that more than one included moon men.

How nice of you to cast doubt on revered early Mormon leaders like Dibble, Huntington, and the editors of the Young Woman’s Journal.

Let me give you some clues on how to tell good from evil:
Righteousness will always try to build up, while evil will always tear down.
Righteousness will build faith, while evil will cast doubt.
…
Righteousness will seek the pure truth, while evil will be full of falsehoods.

 

[Answersplease]

mrm.org/moon-men

(Color red, underlining, and bold type, added to highlight the original text.)

to outright reject Dibble’s and Huntington’s claim, one must join Mormon apologists in questioning their integrity as well as the judgment of the Mormon editors

of the Young Woman’s Journal for including Huntington’s account in this Church-published magazine.
…
…a disagreement between modern Mormon apologists and the testimony of Dibble, a revered early Mormon who was a close associate of Joseph Smith.
…
the idea of moon men was commonly held among Mormon leaders, many of whom had intimate acquaintance with Smith. It even showed up in patriarchal blessings, which are supposed to include "an inspired and prophetic statement of the life possibilities and mission of the recipient"6

6 Information and Suggestions for Patriarchs [1970], 3–4. Quoted by Richard D. Allred in “The Lord Blesses His Children through Patriarchal Blessings,” Ensign, Nov 1997, 27

Note the plural “patriarchal blessings” which shows that more than one included moon men.

How nice of you to cast doubt on revered early Mormon leaders like Dibble, Huntington, and the editors of the Young Woman’s Journal.

Let me give you some clues on how to tell good from evil:
Righteousness will always try to build up, while evil will always tear down.
Righteousness will build faith, while evil will cast doubt.
…
Righteousness will seek the pure truth, while evil will be full of falsehoods.

Are you going to cast doubt on Brigham Young too?

(Color and emphasis added to highlight the original text.)

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, And Extraterrestrial Quakers!

watchman.org/lds/moonmen.htm

What about Smith’s successor Brigham Young

? … On July 24, 1870, he made the following statement in a sermon:

“Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening called the moon? …when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain,” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 217).
…

It should be pointed out that the preceding statement was in the context of a sermon and that Brigham Young considered his sermons to be scripture:

“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon and it is as good Scripture as they deserve” (Ibid, p. 95).

Brigham Young thought his sermons were scripture and if he corrects ANYONE’s sermon, that too becomes “as good Scripture as they deserve”.

It is clear and the context plainly evident, that Brigham Young said his sermons were scripture so he is clearly acting as a prophet in his sermons, although a false prophet.

 

[chris2009]

I’m sorry, my friend. I can’t accept the credibility of one who uses a ‘seer stone’ to divine the word of God.

Hi campeador,

What do you believe the Urim and Thummim were in OT times? Can you accept the credibility of one who uses a Urim and Thummim to divine the word of God?

1 Sam. 28:6
“6 And when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.”

Exodus 28:30
“30 And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the Lord: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually.”

Lev 8:8
“8 And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.”

Num 27:21
“21 And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation.”

Deut 33:8
“8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;”

Rev. 2:17
“17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.”

If you read the OT you will find that Aaron and the priests of Israel used the Urim and Thummim to obtain direction from the Lord. David and other leaders in Israel would make it a habit of always inquiring with the priest before going to war. The priest would inquire of the Lord through Urim and Thummim. Sometimes they would inquire of the Lord by casting lots. This was completely normal to them and the Lord even instructs it in the OT.
(Read 1 Samuel 14 for one example)

In addition, the OT is full of seers.

1 Samuel 9:9
"9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.) "

Isaiah 30:10
“10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:”

What exactly is a seer to you? What do they see? How is Joseph Smith any different than the prophets in the OT?

 

[why_me]

I just answered your Quaker/moon statement. It took me a total of 5 minutes to find the answer with a Google search. Just as I said – anyone who REALLY wants answers to their concerns can find them if they try.

So will you admit now that this is unfounded and stop spreading this false rumor?

she won’t admit it. In fact, I have been on this forum for quite some time and I have seen the same quotations cut and pasted, answered by mormons, only to see the same quotations again a month or so later. People like Rebecca need to believe in their world view about mormonism and mormons. And it really does not matter to them, if mormons can contradict them or give them an answer. It goes in one ear and out the other. Trust me, this quotation about quakers will show up again on this forum.

 

[why_me]

With all due respect to pinay, he is incorrect. Maybe he misunderstood. Smith saw the Father and the Son from the very beginning. Joseph may not have fully understood things until later, but after the First Vision he knew the Father and Son were two seperate personages.

You need to read this. I am afraid that the critics read the anti stuff and go with it. Unfortunately, they do read from mormon sources which usually have the answer to the critic problem. For your pleasure:

en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision/Accounts/1832/Only_one_Personage_appears

 

[RebeccaJ]

The 1832 historical narrative from the prophet Joseph mentions that he received “the testimony from on high” when describing the First Vision. Later Joseph provided more details of the First Vision with the Father saying, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” From “on high” is used in other scriptures in reference to the Father. This testimony from on high shows Joseph knew the Father was there from the very beginning even though Joseph gave a brief description in the first account with his poor grammer.

Equivocation and speculation.

In addition, the Book of Mormon does not teach a modalistic Godhead as you suppose. I’m asking you to provide evidence I am wrong.

mormonwiki.org/Modalism

 

[T_Hope]

Hope, with all due respect, that’s baloney. I’m a fifth generation Mormon, grandaughter of polygamists, born in southern Idaho and raised there and in northern Utah. Nobody has attempted ever to ‘sidestep’ any issues with me, nor am I, nor is any other Mormon I know, “unaquainted” with LDS history…

And the fact that you yourself have just had to admit that our history is ‘clearly printed in the official history of the church’ tells me that if you didn’t know the history, it’s not OUR fault.

In fact, you remind me of one of my students last year who came to me, extremely upset, because he didn’t know that ‘the test was today’ and that his essay was due. He said “but you didn’t TELL us!”

No, I didn’t. I posted signs all over the website. I sent e-mails. I posted announcements on the course web page. I posted due dates and test dates in the syllabus—but it’s true. I didn’t walk up to the kid and TELL him. Of course, the fact that I’m in California and he was in Maryland made that a little difficult…

The thing is, you can’t HAVE this both ways. Either we “keep it protected” OR it is “clearly printed in official church history.” I don’t know what irritates me more; that you can actually post both of those phrases in the same post, or that nobody called you on it until now!

You are correct, I did not know enough about LDS history to make a sound judgment before joining the Mormon church.

However, I am not in any way angry with anyone because they did or did not tell me something that may or may not have made a difference in the choices I made.

Further, I do not want to argue about what is or is not taught, or side-stepped (ignored) in Sunday School classes in Idaho and Utah or anywhere else. Two teachers in two different states can be given the same manual to teach from and their lessons will be quite different.

On the matter of doctrine taught clearly to members of the church - I remember when I was assigned to teach a lesson to the Relief Society sisters on the King Follett sermon years ago. What was contained in that sermon about the nature of God was news to me at the time. I studied long and hard. I struggled with that lesson. And I prayed fervently for help to understand and to be able convey the message. When the day arrived and I approached the subject in front of a combined stake class (and therefore, as it turned out, a large group of nearly 100 women) I became keenly aware that the doctrine I was presenting was news to most of the women in the class too.

I am not saying that particular incidents in church history or doctrines are hidden from members. It never is. It is there for the one who seeks it out. What I am saying is that in my nearly 30 years of active participation in the church, it has become quite apparent that there is a lot that has not been openly discussed in my neck of the woods.

More recently another episode from church history was asked about in Sunday School while we were discussing the Doctrine and Covenants last year. The teacher changed the subject soon as she could. I’ve been in classes several times when that has occurred. I don’t know if it is because the teachers themselves do not know the answer to the questions being asked or because they don’t want to change the subject of the discussion to something less spiritual such as the “apostasy” of several founding members of the church. Perhaps in the two wards I’ve been in throughout my adult years the teachers have not been scholars as you seem to be. In the Mormon church anyone can be called to teach when there is a need. And they do their best, as I did.

These are of course observations from my perspective which you are free to take issue with if you choose. I mean no disrespect. These are observations made of situations experienced within a group of people that I love very personally.

Hope

 

[T_Hope]

… the LDS church doesn’t keep our history a secret. If there are some LDS out there who don’t know as much as they should, it’s not because there is any deliberate attempt to keep the history a secret; it’s because of laziness.

…and not on the part of the church.

I agree, the LDS church doesn’t keep church history a secret. But I disagree that laziness is the cause of some Mormons not knowing their history. Mormons are the least lazy people I know! But after all they are asked to do … including scholarly things like reading the scriptures, i.e., Book of Mormon everyday, how many of them have actually read and studied the Bible? THAT is Mormon church history too!

And btw, I do confess to only having gotten through volume III of the VII of History of the Church. Not because I was lazy. On the contrary, I got side tracked by all the other church literature out there complete with scriptural footnotes, etc. particularly Talmage’s books.

Just a thought.

Hope

 

[dianaiad]

You quoted the following from the Journal of Discourses…

“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon and it is as good Scripture as they deserve” (Ibid, p. 95).

I note that you took your own words, without the above quotes, and put them on another thread. I responded to them there.

By the way, you really should do your own research, instead of believing the anti-sources you so love. The cite you give is actually to a short speech by Parley P. Pratt.

However, at least here you have SOME of the context that you insist supports your claim that Brigham Young said that his sermons were scripture—in support, I suppose, of insisting that WE take his “I rather suppose there are…” claim that there are inhabitants in the sun" as scripture right up there with anything that Peter or Paul wrote.

The problem, of course, is that “I rather suppose there are…” isn’t exactly a ringing proclamation of “Thus saith the Lord…” no matter WHO is looking at it. Then you get the part even YOU had to include, the one about 'let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon…" and you have a problem right there. Remember, none of the speakers whose words are found in the Journal of Discourses had a chance to ‘correct,’ or even SEE, the words that found their way into publication.

Then you forgot the other rather important bit of context to this claim of BY’s…part of the context that you have taken this claim so completely OUT of…that he not only needs to ‘correct’ (go over and confirm with the Lord whether they are, indeed, scripture) his sermons, but that they be DECLARED as scripture…“thus saith the Lord.” That’s more than just saying the words.

Indeed, sir, for you to make this claim the way you did is like me claiming that Athanasius said that Catholics are not Christians because they believe in the Nicene creed, which states in its first line :

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

Context, my friend, is EVERYTHING. Try paying attention to it.

 

[Stephen168]

With all due respect to pinay, he is incorrect. Maybe he misunderstood. Smith saw the Father and the Son from the very beginning. Joseph may not have fully understood things until later, but after the First Vision he knew the Father and Son were two seperate personages.

I think you are both right, it is just a matter of timing. At first he was a monotheist, then he wanted to make himself a god, so he became a polytheist. It was then he took his followers into total apostasy.

 

[pinay]

I think you are both right, it is just a matter of timing. At first he was a monotheist, then he wanted to make himself a god, so he became a polytheist. It was then he took his followers into total apostasy.

How do you define polytheist?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Indeed, sir, for you to make this claim the way you did is like me claiming that Athanasius said that Catholics are not Christians because they believe in the Nicene creed, which states in its first line :

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

Context, my friend, is EVERYTHING. Try paying attention to it.

Not really. Mormons at the time BY was their prophet listened to him as a prophet. It would be more like you saying that you can ignore what Monson tells you today. Of course, I am assuming you don’t, or aren’t.

 

[lax16]

We should really start another thread with this new topic. But regarding becoming like God, here is one of my favorite scriptures in the Bible:

“31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 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 10:31-36)

chris - This scripture may be one of your favorites regarding becoming like God, but you are incorrect in your scriptural interpretation.

The New American Bible tells us that:
“This is a reference to the judges of Israel who, since they exercised the divine prerogative to judge (Dt 1,17) were called “gods”; cf Ex 21,6, besides Ps 82,6, from which the quotation comes.”

 

[lax16]

We should really start another thread with this new topic. But regarding becoming like God, here is one of my favorite scriptures in the Bible:

AND it was written in their law. See Psalms 82:1,6:
"1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. "
“6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”

chris - from the Douay-Rheims commentary:

PSALM 82

Psalms 82:1-8 . Before the great Judge, the judges of the earth are rebuked, exhorted, and threatened.

1. congregation–(Compare Exodus 12:3 , 16:1 ).
   of the mighty–that is, of God, of His appointment.
   the gods–or, “judges” ( Exodus 21:6 , 22:9 ), God’s representatives.
2. accept the persons–literally, “lift up the faces,” that is, from dejection, or admit to favor and communion, regardless of merit ( Leviticus 19:15 , Proverbs 18:5 ).

3, 4. So must good judges act ( Psalms 10:14 , Job 29:12 ).

1. poor and needy–(Compare Psalms 34:10 , 41:1 ).
2. By the wilful ignorance and negligence of judges, anarchy ensues ( Psalms 11:3 , 75:3 ).
   out of course–(Compare Margin; Psalms 9:6 , 62:2 ).

6, 7. Though God admitted their official dignity ( John 10:34 ), He reminds them of their mortality.

1. fall like, &c.–be cut off suddenly ( Psalms 20:8 , 91:7 ).
2. As rightful sovereign of earth, God is invoked personally to correct the evils of His representatives.

once again, “gods” meaning representatives

 

[lax16]

We should really start another thread with this new topic. But regarding becoming like God, here is one of my favorite scriptures in the Bible:

(John 10:31-36)

chris - once again, Dhouay-Rheims commentary:

1. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him–and for precisely the same thing as before ( John 8:58 John 8:59 ).
2. Many good works have I showed you–that is, works of pure benevolence (as in Acts 10:38 , “Who went about doing good,” &c.; see Mark 7:37 ).
   from my Father–not so much by His power, but as directly commissioned by Him to do them. This He says to meet the imputation of unwarrantable assumption of the divine prerogatives [LUTHARDT].
   for which of those works do ye stone me?–“are ye stoning (that is, going to stone) me?”
3. for a blasphemy–whose legal punishment was stoning ( Leviticus 24:11-16 ).
   thou, being a man–that is, a man only.
   makest thyself God–Twice before they understood Him to advance the same claim, and both times they prepared themselves to avenge what they took to be the insulted honor of God, as here, in the way directed by their law ( John 5:18 , 8:59 ).

34-36. Is it not written in your law–in Psalms 82:6 , respecting judges or magistrates.
Ye are gods–being the official representatives and commissioned agents of God.

35, 36. If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came . . . Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest–The whole force of this reasoning, which has been but in part seized by the commentators, lies in what is said of the two parties compared. The comparison of Himself with mere men, divinely commissioned, is intended to show (as NEANDER well expresses it) that the idea of a communication of the Divine Majesty to human nature was by no means foreign to the revelations of the Old Testament; but there is also a contrast between Himself and all merely human representatives of God–the one “sanctified by the Father and sent into the world”; the other, “to whom the word of God (merely) came,” which is expressly designed to prevent His being massed up with them as only one of many human officials of God. It is never said of Christ that “the word of the Lord came to Him”; whereas this is the well-known formula by which the divine commission, even to the highest of mere men, is expressed, as John the Baptist ( Luke 3:2 ). The reason is that given by the Baptist himself between those “to whom the word of God came”–men of the earth, earthy, who were merely privileged to get a divine message to utter (if prophets), or a divine office to discharge (if judges)–and “Him whom (not being of the earth at all) the Father sanctified (or set apart), and sent into the world,” an expression never used of any merely human messenger of God, and used only of Himself.
because, I said, I am the Son of God–It is worthy of special notice that our Lord had not said, in so many words, that He was the Son of God, on this occasion. But He had said what beyond doubt amounted to it–namely, that He gave His sheep eternal life, and none could pluck them out of His hand; that He had got them from His Father, in whose hands, though given to Him, they still remained, and out of whose hand none could pluck them; and that they were the indefeasible property of both, inasmuch as “He and His Father were one.” Our Lord considers all this as just saying of Himself, “I am the Son of God”–one nature with Him, yet mysteriously of Him. The parenthesis ( John 10:35 ), “and the Scripture cannot be broken,” referring to the terms used of magistrates in the eighty-second Psalm, has an important bearing on the authority of the living oracles. “The Scripture, as the expressed will of the unchangeable God, is itself unchangeable and indissoluble” [OLSHAUSEN]. (Compare Matthew 5:17 ).

 

[TheosisM]

Justin Martyr, in Dialogue With Trypho, chapter 124, interpreted Psalm 82 in this way:

“But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve. Now I have proved at length that Christ is called God.”
newadvent.org/fathers/01288.htm

The NAB commentary also provides some interesting views on Psalm 82:
*
1 [Psalm 82] As in Psalm 58, the pagan gods are seen as subordinate divine beings to whom Israel’s God had delegated oversight of the foreign countries in the beginning (Deut 32:8-9). Now God arises in the heavenly assembly (Psalm 82:1) to rebuke the unjust “gods” (Psalm 82:2-4), who are stripped of divine status and reduced in rank to mortals (Psalm 82:5-7). They are accused of misruling the earth by not upholding the poor. A short prayer for universal justice concludes the psalm (Psalm 82:8).

2 [5] The gods are blind and unable to declare what is right. Their misrule shakes earth’s foundations (cf Psalm 11:3; 75:4), which God made firm in creation (Psalm 96:10).

3 [6] I declare: “Gods though you be”: in John 10:34 Jesus uses the verse to prove that those to whom the word of God is addressed can fittingly be called “gods.”

4 [8] Judge the earth: according to Deut 32:8-9, Israel’s God had originally assigned jurisdiction over the foreign nations to the subordinate deities, keeping Israel as a personal possession. Now God will directly take over the rulership of the whole world.*
usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm82.htm

 

[lax16]

We should really start another thread with this new topic. But regarding becoming like God, here is one of my favorite scriptures in the Bible:

The Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) originally uses the word Elohim for “gods”. Elohim is the plural form. We are gods – it says it right in the Bible. We are children of God. God’s seed. God’s embryo. We are baby gods. We are heirs and joint-heirs with Christ to the throne. We will be kings and queens in the next life.

chris - where did you get this information?

Elohim: Plural or Singular?
by Nehemia Gordon

The Hebrew word for God is Elohim. Elohim ends with the masculine plural suffix “-ִים” From this we might conclude that Elohim signifies a numerical plural (i.e. denoting multiplicity) and translate it accordingly as gods. But before we determine whether the world was created by a single God or multiple gods, we must consider whether Elohim is really a numerical plural.

In Hebrew, a numerically plural noun has three characteristics:

It receives a plural suffix;
It receives a plural verb;
It receives a plural adjective.
The first characteristic, the plural suffix, is familiar to the English speaker. In English, most nouns have the plural suffix “s” or “es”. For example, dog is the singular while dogs is the plural. Hebrew adds another dimension by matching adjectives and verbs to the noun. In Hebrew, a plural noun gets a plural verb and plural adjective. In contrast, English verbs and adjectives do not change to match the noun. For example, in English:

Singular: The big dog guarded.

Plural: The big dogs guarded.

But in Hebrew:

Singular: The big (sg) dog (he) guarded. שָׁמַר הַכֶּלֶב הַגָּדוֹל

Plural: The big (pl) dogs (they) guarded. שָׁמְרוּ הַכְּלָבִים הַגְּדוֹלִים
So the first thing we must check about Elohim is whether it gets a plural adjective and plural verb, because this will tell us whether or not it is a numerical plural denoting multiplicity. In the very first verse of the Torah we read בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים meaning “Elohim (he) created”. Were Elohim a numerical plural, the verse would have to say בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים “Elohim (they) created”. Indeed, the word Elohim appears in its plural form over 2000 times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and in virtually every instance it has a singular verb. It is always "And Elohim (he) spoke to Moses " and never "And Elohim (they) spoke to Moses ". The same thing can be found with the adjective. The adjective for Elohim is singular, not plural. Thus we find אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק “righteous (sg) Elohim” (Ps 7:10) and not אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיקִים “righteous (pl) Elohim”.

  So why does Elohim have a plural suffix if it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective? It turns out there is a special type of plural in Hebrew that has a plural suffix even though it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective. These nouns are called majestic plurals. The meaning of the plural suffix in the majestic plural is not that there is more than one of the noun, but that the noun is "great, absolute, or majestic". For example, אָדוֹן means "master" while אֲדוֹנִים (Isa 19:4; Mal 1:6) with the masculine plural suffix means "great master, lord". Thus we read, "I will imprison the Egyptians in the hand of a harsh lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them" (Isa 19:4). In this verse the fierce king that will enslave Egypt is described as an ?ֲדֹנִים קָשֶׁה "a harsh (sg) lord (pl)". In this verse, the plural suffix attached to the word ?ֲדֹנִים does not make it a numerical plural ("masters") but instead magnifies the meaning ("great master, lord"). Because אֲדֹנִים is a majestic plural it receives the singular adjective קָשֶׁה (harsh) and not the plural adjective קָשִׁים that would be required for a numerical plural. The word בַּעַל also means "master" while בְּעָלִים with the masculine plural suffix means "great master, owner". For example, in Exodus 21 the owner of the "goring ox" is repeatedly referred to as the בְּעָלִים "owner". The word בְּעָלִים has the plural suffix even though the ox is only owned by one person. In this case, the plural suffix magnifies the noun imbuing it with a connotation of "absolute owner, complete master". Because בְּעָלִים "owner" is a majestic plural it gets a singular verb. Thus we read concerning the negligent owner whose ox has killed, "the ox shall be stoned and the owner (he) will be put to death" (Ex 21:29). The verb ?וּמָת meaning "he will be put to death" is in the singular even though the word for "owner" בְּעָלִים has the plural suffix. The common characteristic of majestic plurals is that they have the plural suffix while denoting singular objects and as a result they receive singular adjectives and singular verbs. Elohim is quite simply an example of the majestic plural and means "great God".       
  
  
  That YHWH is a single individual and not a multiplicity of gods or personalities is consistent with what we find throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Moses declares to the children of Israel, "YHWH is our Elohim, YHWH is one" (Dt 6:4)...  In these verses the word for "God" is Eloha ?ֱלוֹהַּ, the singular form of Elohim... Indeed, YHWH is called by the singular Eloha (God) some 47 times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures which proves that He is not a plurality or multiplicity. This and the fact that the verbs and adjectives connected with Elohim are always singular confirm our conclusion that Elohim is an majestic plural denoting a singular individual but with a connotation of greatness.