Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of deity

[TheosisM]

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.

The problem with this interpretation is that it denies the Trinity, which teaches that God exists as three distinct persons. In fact, the website where this interpretation seems to come from (israelofgod.org/elohim1.htm) proclaims a number of non-Trinitarian beliefs (including an interpretation of Genesis 1:26 that conflicts with the traditional Christian interpretation of the “us” in the verse, pointing to the “plurality of persons in the Deity” (Douay Rheims Commentary)). Trinitarians rightly deny the “majestic plural” grammatical interpretation of “Elohim” because God really exists as three distinct Persons, and not one Person.

 

[TheosisM]

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.
.

Catholicism/Orthodoxy agrees that we can become heirs and joint-heirs in Christ (it’s in the Bible as you know). Catholicism/Orthodoxy also believes that we can become “gods” (it’s in the Catechism, and theosis is a prominent belief in the East). One major difference I see between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Mormonism is that LDS believe that we are of the same nature as God right now, while Catholicism/Orthodoxy teaches, in the words of Athanasius, we “becom[e] by grace what God is by nature”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Catholicism/Orthodoxy agrees that we can become heirs and joint-heirs in Christ (it’s in the Bible as you know). Catholicism/Orthodoxy also believes that we can become “gods” (it’s in the Catechism, and theosis is a prominent belief in the East). One major difference I see between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Mormonism is that LDS believe that we are of the same nature as God right now, while Catholicism/Orthodoxy teaches, in the words of Athanasius, we “becom[e] by grace what God is by nature”.

…add that God is not created.

 

[lax16]

The problem with this interpretation is that it denies the Trinity, which teaches that God exists as three distinct persons. In fact, the website where this interpretation seems to come from (israelofgod.org/elohim1.htm) proclaims a number of non-Trinitarian beliefs (including an interpretation of Genesis 1:26 that conflicts with the traditional Christian interpretation of the “us” in the verse, pointing to the “plurality of persons in the Deity” (Douay Rheims Commentary)). Trinitarians rightly deny the “majestic plural” grammatical interpretation of “Elohim” because God really exists as three distinct Persons, and not one Person.

From The Hebrew Catholic, No. 87, Winter 2009-2010:

The Shma

…Because Jesus taught us that the Shma is the summary of all Torah, God’s first and greatest command for us, we need to examine it with the greatest diligence. And that requires a careful look at the Hebrew prayer:
Shma Yisrael, Adonai, Eloheinu, Adonai ekhad.
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Duet 6:4)

When we look more closely, we see that Adonai, often translated “God,” is also plural, “our Gods.” A literal translation of the Shma would be , “Hear O Israel: my Lords our Gods my Lords one.” Three mentions of God followed by one, a perfect representation of the Blessed Trinity. The second mention of God, moreover, is Eloheinu, “our Gods,” not Elohei, “my Gods,” suggesting the Second Person, who would open the Torah to the whole world.
…Classic rabbinic exegesis includes finding similar patterns elsewhere in the Torah, and elsewhere in the Jewish Canon of Sacred Scripture. Rabbinic tradition connects the three mentions of God in the Shma with the three mentions in God’s self-description: "The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious (Ex 34:6). In the Torah’s original Hebrew, YHWH,YHWH, Elohim, “He is, He is, Gods,” which again points to the Blessed Trinity.

 

[TheosisM]

From The Hebrew Catholic, No. 87, Winter 2009-2010:

The Shma

…Because Jesus taught us that the Shma is the summary of all Torah, God’s first and greatest command for us, we need to examine it with the greatest diligence. And that requires a careful look at the Hebrew prayer:
Shma Yisrael, Adonai, Eloheinu, Adonai ekhad.
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Duet 6:4)

When we look more closely, we see that Adonai, often translated “God,” is also plural, “our Gods.” A literal translation of the Shma would be , “Hear O Israel: my Lords our Gods my Lords one.” Three mentions of God followed by one, a perfect representation of the Blessed Trinity. The second mention of God, moreover, is Eloheinu, “our Gods,” not Elohei, “my Gods,” suggesting the Second Person, who would open the Torah to the whole world.
…Classic rabbinic exegesis includes finding similar patterns elsewhere in the Torah, and elsewhere in the Jewish Canon of Sacred Scripture. Rabbinic tradition connects the three mentions of God in the Shma with the three mentions in God’s self-description: "The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious (Ex 34:6). In the Torah’s original Hebrew, YHWH,YHWH, Elohim, “He is, He is, Gods,” which again points to the Blessed Trinity.

Yes, this is a much better interpretation. The other one seemed very Unitarian.

 

[lax16]

Yes, this is a much better interpretation. The other one seemed very Unitarian.

But all of the interpretations I have read (and there is a lot!), not one agrees with chris’ scriptural interpretation to prove that man becomes a god.

 

[lax16]

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

Theosis - what do you say this means?

 

[TheosisM]

But all of the interpretations I have read (and there is a lot!), not one agrees with chris’ scriptural interpretation to prove that man becomes a god.

I agree. I’m sure that the vast majority of those interpretations do not agree with the LDS belief that man is already of the same nature as God. Though we must remember that Catholicism/Orthodoxy does teach that those that are saved become gods (CCC 460, St. Athanasius, etc.), though it differs from Mormonism on what that means.

 

[TheosisM]

TheosisM;6575569:

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

Theosis - what do you say this means?

I think that Justin Martyr was clear on what he meant: “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”. His interpretation of Psalm 82 fits nicely with the Catholic/Orthodox teaching on theosis/deification (with no mention of “judges”, especially when he concludes his analysis with “now I have proved at length that Christ is called God”), and becoming joint-heirs in Christ.

 

[az_4_faith]

I find this thread fascinating. The theological apologetics/arguments have been very interesting to read.

I’ve never met a Mormon who can sufficiently explain to me the so-called apostasy that negated the truths of the Catholic faith, which was necessary to “restore” the true faith through the LDS Church.

Simply put, to believe in such an apostasy would render Jesus Christ a liar - which would negate both of our religions. Jesus promised to remain with His Church until the end of time. One Church.

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

and

"Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

With those words, Jesus Christ commissioned the twelve apostles with a mission. Then on Pentecost, He fulfilled His promise to send the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, in full, to enable them to complete their mission on earth, to establish the Faith, which would come to be known as the Catholic faith.

There cannot be two “Truths” and Jesus would not have anointed the apostles with His Grace only to abandon them a couple of hundred years into the life of the Church, only to hide the truth from the world until the 1800’s.

That’s enough for me to know that there is no other religion in the world that holds the fullness of Truth but the Catholic Church. To believe anything else is to call Jesus Christ a liar.

 

[mmsiciliana]

There is a reference at the bottom of the original post. The reference is full of footnotes.

In my experience learning about Catholicism, I have been appalled at the viciousness of some of the threads on this forum between Catholics and Mormons. Coming from a faithful Mormon background I would really appreciate it we could all take the high road here. Can we simply share our thoughts, opinions, and experiences while showing some respect for each other?

What I have found most disturbing is that most everything I was told about the Catholics from the Mormons was untrue.

I imagine Catholics learning about Mormonism from someone other than a faithful Mormon would be equally untrue.

So I’m glad for this thread so we can learn from each other because this is a place where each person is discussing what they believe. We’re getting it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. And that’s a good thing. So let’s discuss, and not pick fights, ok?

Thanks,
Hope

I wrote a paper recently for a theology class on what different religions believed. I had a very difficult time researching Mormon beliefs. Am I correct in saying there is no creed or official statement of belief? Even the Mormon Encyclopedia is not accepted as stating Mormon belief, correct? I had an online discussion with a Mormon missionary and he told me that you determined whether the Mormon teaching you received was “correct” by the way it made you feel–is this true?

 

[mmsiciliana]

Eternal progression is no small difference in theology. If God can “progress” then He is in time which means He is part of our universe. Time is only possible in relation to matter and movement inside of the naturals laws of our universe. This then means He did not create our universe. If he did not create the universe then he is not really God but something less than God. Bottom line: If God created the universe he cannot progress because he is outside of time and unable to change.

Eternal progression also means God cannot be almighty and all powerful now if he can progress. And if there is more than one God, God cannot be almighty and all powerful at all.

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi Paul,

I have learned enough LDS history and doctrine to realize that it is all true. Did you serve an LDS mission? If so, where did you serve?

Taiwan Taipei Mission 1977-1979 under President Frederick W. Crook.

 

[lax16]

lax16;6575953:

I think that Justin Martyr was clear on what he meant: “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”. His interpretation of Psalm 82 fits nicely with the Catholic/Orthodox teaching on theosis/deification (with no mention of “judges”, especially when he concludes his analysis with “now I have proved at length that Christ is called God”), and becoming joint-heirs in Christ.

Thank you for the explanation. (It may seem clear to you, but not to me!) I have been plodding my way through books about the early church fathers and wish I had a professor to guide me!
The little bit that I have read about Justin Martyr seems to indicate that he was possibly influenced by great philosophers and that he may not have been “open” to Jewish teachings. From what I have read, it doesn’t appear that he would look for the Hebrew translation showing “gods to be judges,” etc. but I could be wrong.

You are right regarding the CCC and men becoming gods. I never really paid attention to the wording because it has never held that meaning for me. Thanks for pointing it out!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

You seem to be an expert on Mormonism. At what point do you suggest Joseph Smith changed from a monotheist to believing in the plurality of Gods? When Joseph Smith was 14 years old in 1820, he saw the Father and the Son in the Sacred Grove. He says there were TWO personages that he saw. Was Joseph a monotheist at this time? When did Joseph EVER claim to be a monotheist?

lol, where do you get this stuff??? Possibly some anti-mormon tracks?

Hello Chris;

Monotheism is the belief in One God. Traditional christianity believes that God is trinitarian in nature - that the nature of God is One in three Persons. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, each a separate Person but each possessing the fullness of divinity. So, to say that JS saw two “persons” in the “Sacred Grove” is entirely consistent with the traditional notion of a trinitarian God. Indeed, JS could have seen three separate divine “persons” and still be consistent with the traditional notion of a trinitarian godhead.

What is your understanding of the triune nature of God?

Peace,
Robert

 

[evanfaust]

I find this thread fascinating. The theological apologetics/arguments have been very interesting to read.

I’ve never met a Mormon who can sufficiently explain to me the so-called apostasy that negated the truths of the Catholic faith, which was necessary to “restore” the true faith through the LDS Church.

Simply put, to believe in such an apostasy would render Jesus Christ a liar - which would negate both of our religions. Jesus promised to remain with His Church until the end of time. One Church.

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

and

"Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

With those words, Jesus Christ commissioned the twelve apostles with a mission. Then on Pentecost, He fulfilled His promise to send the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, in full, to enable them to complete their mission on earth, to establish the Faith, which would come to be known as the Catholic faith.

There cannot be two “Truths” and Jesus would not have anointed the apostles with His Grace only to abandon them a couple of hundred years into the life of the Church, only to hide the truth from the world until the 1800’s.

That’s enough for me to know that there is no other religion in the world that holds the fullness of Truth but the Catholic Church. To believe anything else is to call Jesus Christ a liar.

AZ,

I don’t have much time now, but this article addresses your questions.

fairlds.org/pubs/ApostasyRestoration.pdf

 

[Tmaque]

This is a vain attempt to discredit Joseph Smith.

You know, it is interesting how the Bible makes a better case that the Father and Son are two seperate personages than the Book of Mormon does. But the Book of Mormon still teaches of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as being seperate beings.

Here is just one example in the Book of Mormon:
“2 I perceive that ye are weak, that ye cannot understand all my words which I am commanded of the Father to speak unto you at this time.
3 Therefore, go ye unto your homes, and ponder upon the things which I have said, and ask of the Father, in my name, that ye may understand, and prepare your minds for the morrow, and I come unto you again.
4 But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them.” (3 Nephi 17)

So are you saying Jesus commanded himself and spoke to himself? And then later left and went to himself?

The arguement is so silly I can’t believe I’m defending this.

Please show me where in the Book of Mormon where the modalistic view of the Godhead is taught. It is no different than the Bible showing they are “one” in purpose.

Wow, a “vain” attempt? What is vain about telling the truth as I see it?

On Modalism:
The 1st edition of the Book of Mormon clearly taught modalism. It was changed 7 years later when the theology changed.

Following are the passages in question as they read in all editions except for the 1830 edition. The italicized [capitalized] words are those which were added in the 1837 edition:

Behold, the virgin which thou seest is the mother of THE SON OF God...(1 Nephi 11:18).

Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the SON OF THE Eternal Father! (1 Nephi 11:21).

And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the SON OF THE everlasting God...(1 Nephi 11:32).

...the Lamb of God is the SON OF THE Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world ...(1 Nephi 11:32).

It’'s interesting that you seem to make the same mistake Joseph Smith did in assuming that Trinitarian belief is modalism. Many LDS make this mistake because they start with the faulty premise that God is finite and bound in flesh. As an ex-LDS, I myself couldn’t grasp the concept of the Trinity until I understood the idea that God is wholly other, outside of time and space, and a spirit.

And no we’re not saying “Jesus commanded himself and spoke to himself…And then later left and went to himself” Jesus is a separate person within the Trinity, but he is still God. He is the very expression of God, the Word. It’s a very deep subject that our minds can’t wholly grasp and we’re ok with that. What we won’t do is fill in the gaps with our own ideas to make ourselves comfortable with the notion of who God is.

 

[Tmaque]

Eternal progression also means God cannot be almighty and all powerful now if he can progress. And if there is more than one God, God cannot be almighty and all powerful at all.

This is true but doesn’t make a good argument to LDS. They will say that God is all powerful as far as we’re concerned and that’s all that we should be concerned with.

 

[madalinemadar]

Much of the church’s doctrine is able to change through the years because they believe in current prophets. Is that how an LDS person would explain that?

Green World

 

[Javl]

We all must keep in mind that Joseph Smith Jr. has said that the “Book of Mormon is the most correct book ever written”. Since the BOM has shown to have had over 3000 errors ( other than typographical and grammatical ) and has been corrected and revised over the years, why then cannot Mormon theology follow the same route? It’s only logical to do so to explain away all the boo-boos Mormonism makes. It reminds me of George Orwell’s “1984” and double-think.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem