Elohim and the plurality of Gods

[robuchan]

It may be up for debate as to whether I am a demi-god or not. But no... I am no mopologist. At least, I am not one any more. I lost my faith in Mormonism a few years ago. But I think I've been around mopologetics long enough, and have done enough research of my own, to know that there are certain areas of debate that Mormons have an sizable advantage (relative to other Christian denominations). This is one of those areas. And to make matters worse for you, you have caught the attention of some scholars in this forum who have done a great deal of research on this topic. So my advice to you is, rather than state absolutes, proclaim what is obvious, or criticize Mormons up front, it may be best for you to simply ask questions. Take it for what its worth. Good luck.

Then maybe one of these scholars who have done great research could point me to a better article than the Barney article, as that one wasn't very convincing.

edit for clarification: what I mean is an argument about how Joseph's interpretation of Gen 1:1 might have been correct, not that Joseph's polytheism matched the Hebrew Bible.

[Ron Beron]

[quote name='David Bokovoy' writes,

In light of what we know today about the Old Testament, I personally believe that Joseph's views regarding a plurality of deities who exist in a council structure represent one of the greatest pieces of evidence for the Prophet's inspiration.

While I agree with you in principle on the above I am wondering recently if we are viewing these scriptures with an eye towards a literalness that isn't quite there. Taking a cue from Kerry Shirts and his knowledge of the Zohar can we see that the plurality isn't based on a literal council but a figurative one based more on the schema set up by Plotinus and early Neoplatonism in that God acts as the nous or central deity and that all semi-deities or "council members" including all of humankind are actually emanations of that central power?

BTW, interesting article. I had missed that one.

[David Bokovoy]

Then maybe one of these scholars who have done great research could point me to a better article than the Barney article, as that one wasn't very convincing.

edit for clarification: what I mean is an argument about how Joseph's interpretation of Gen 1:1 might have been correct, not that Joseph's polytheism matched the Hebrew Bible.

Well, if you're reading has now convinced you that Joseph's view concerning a council of deities in the Bible not only appears throughout the work, but provides evidence for his inspiration, then really, I'm afraid there's simply not a whole lot more we could say or point you to concerning your questions regarding the Prophet's understanding of Genesis 1:1. There's simply no way to either verify or disprove Joseph's claim that this verse originally read, "the head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods," since the original text does not exist.

Any specific concerns regarding Joseph's analysis of Hebrew grammar must include the fact that we honestly have no idea how Joseph precisely pronounced and/or understood certain words, phrases, and/or syllables connected with Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, the Prophet's original views do not appear in writing, and a full, verbatim account of the sermon does not exist.

Joseph's address on the subject featured in the History of the Church and the book Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith derive solely from notes taken by Thomas Bullock, William Clayton, Willard Richards, and to some extent, Wilford Woodruff. Important discrepancies exist between these records, and the thought that Joseph's precise analysis of Hebrew grammar appears in these various notes is in my estimation a bit naive.

From my analysis of the records, I personally believe that there exists strong evidence that Joseph knew more Hebrew than many have assumed and that this knowledge, together with divine inspiration, provide the basis for the Prophet's analysis.

My personal views concerning the connection between the Bible and Joseph's theology on the council of the gods can be found here:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=644

best

[Joseph Antley]

Yes, but is this something that you just made up? Do you have any references to this theory outside yourself. Not that I have a problem with that, I have just never read your broad definition of the word God anywhere else.

I have especially never read anything as liberal in the definition that Sargon provided. His definition renders the word meaningless, yours only less so.

Something I made up? Michael/Adam, who is called "the Prince," was a supernatural being who created the earth, who occasionally offers aid to mortals, and who led armies of the Most High God's sons into battle against Satan in a heavenly war.

Were scholars to only recently discover a text describing this mythic figure, what else would they call him besides a god?

[WalkerW]

Well, if you're reading has now convinced you that Joseph's view concerning a council of deities in the Bible not only appears throughout the work, but provides evidence for his inspiration, then really, I'm afraid there's simply not a whole lot more we could say or point you to concerning your questions regarding the Prophet's understanding of Genesis 1:1. There's simply no way to either verify or disprove Joseph's claim that this verse originally read, "the head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods," since the original text does not exist.

Any specific concerns regarding Joseph's analysis of Hebrew grammar must include the fact that we honestly have no idea how Joseph precisely pronounced and/or understood certain words, phrases, and/or syllables connected with Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, the Prophet's original views do not appear in writing, and a full, verbatim account of the sermon does not exist.

Joseph's address on the subject featured in the History of the Church and the book Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith derive solely from notes taken by Thomas Bullock, William Clayton, Willard Richards, and to some extent, Wilford Woodruff. Important discrepancies exist between these records, and the thought that Joseph's precise analysis of Hebrew grammar appears in these various notes is in my estimation a bit naive.

From my analysis of the records, I personally believe that there exists strong evidence that Joseph knew more Hebrew than many have assumed and that this knowledge, together with divine inspiration, provide the basis for the Prophet's analysis.

My personal views concerning the connection between the Bible and Joseph's theology on the council of the gods can be found here:

http://mi.byu.edu/pu...19&num=1&id=644

best

David,

Did you complete your Ph.D. yet?

[DLClark]

A.W. Tozer comments upon the understanding of the One , True Living Creator Eternal God, Jesus Christ, and what false religions think. These words are prophetic of our time. Please take them to heart. The false gods of the world and the One True Creator God of the Bible is not the same God.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A.W. Tozer comments upon the understanding of the One , True Living Creator Eternal God, Jesus Christ, and what false religions think. These words are prophetic of our time. Please take them to heart.

The false gods of the world and the One True Creator God of the Bible is not the same God.

DLC

Nice strawman, no one as argued for this. Additionally it would also seem that you are saying that if "I don't beleive in your interpretaion of Jesus then I just beleive in a false Jesus".

So you don't beleive that Jesus is the savior of the world born of the virign Mary and that Jesus is the Son of God?

Additionally do you beleive that God is a God of false gods?

[DLClark]

In Mormon theology Jesus was a man who became a god through God the Father having sex with Mary. God the Father was a man who became a God. Why do you stop with God the father and not whoship his father. Remember the creator is greater than the creation. Here read this information. I spent time researching the information. Please check it out.

Here you go. The Virgin Mary and God the Father had sex that produce the Son Jesus Christ.

Orson Pratt in "The Seer," pg 158

G.A.T., pp. 127-129. We were spirit people before we came to earth. After coming to earth man can become a God if he is obedient. On pg 12 of the same work Hunter said that God the Father attaines His position of ecxaltation and Godhood by obedience to the great law od progression.

G.A.T, p. 51 Hunter said that Jesus became a God through obedience to the gospel.

Jesus was born of the Father as a natural birth, Religious Truths Defined, p. 44 by J.F. Smith.

Bruce R. McConkie made this statement in Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 546-547 that Jesus was born by an imortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten. Sounds like God the Father had sex that produced Christ the Son.

Here you go. The Virgin Mary and God the Father had sex that produce the Son Jesus Christ.

Orson Pratt in "The Seer," pg 158.

DLC

[Doctor Steuss]

In Mormon theology Jesus was a man who became a god through God the Father having sex with Mary. God the Father was a man who became a God. Why do you stop with God the father and not whoship his father. Remember the creator is greater than the creation. Here read this information. I spent time researching the information. Please check it out.

Here you go. The Virgin Mary and God the Father had sex that produce the Son Jesus Christ.

Orson Pratt in "The Seer," pg 158

G.A.T., pp. 127-129. We were spirit people before we came to earth. After coming to earth man can become a God if he is obedient. On pg 12 of the same work Hunter said that God the Father attaines His position of ecxaltation and Godhood by obedience to the great law od progression.

G.A.T, p. 51 Hunter said that Jesus became a God through obedience to the gospel.

Jesus was born of the Father as a natural birth, Religious Truths Defined, p. 44 by J.F. Smith.

Bruce R. McConkie made this statement in Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 546-547 that Jesus was born by an imortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten. Sounds like God the Father had sex that produced Christ the Son.

Here you go. The Virgin Mary and God the Father had sex that produce the Son Jesus Christ.

Orson Pratt in "The Seer," pg 158.

DLC

Ed Decker, is that you?

[David Bokovoy]

In Mormon theology Jesus was a man who became a god through God the Father having sex with Mary.

I love it when a non-LDS person whose sole encounter with LDS doctrine seems primarily, if not entirely derivative of a couple of anti-Mormon internet sources presumes to tell those of us who have spent many, many years in the faith what Mormon theology truly proclaims.

[jkfrost]

I'm no Hebrew expert, so I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong. But I've come across this lately and wondered what people thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Hebrew_grammar

This is my understanding based on this article (and yeah I know wikipedia is not the best source).

Elohim is a complicated word and difficult to translate sometimes. It's the plural word for God but it's used a few different ways.

1) used as a singular word referring to The God, in these cases a singular verb is used with the plural Elohim, example Moses speaking to Elohim at the burning bush and Elohim creating the Earth in Genesis 1:1. This is how Elohim is generally used in the Old Testament and it is always understood the to mean The One monotheistic God of the Hebrews.

2) used as a plural referring to other false gods, as in "have no other gods before me"

3) special case in Psalms "know yet not ye are gods" which according to some experts can be properly translated as angels, kings, or judges

So how about this for a theory:

Joseph wants to retranslate the Bible. He starts in Genesis 1:1. He's using his Hebrew English dictionary and basic grammar textbook and he reads the word Elohim and sees that it's a plural word. Aha! Gods not God! He misses the fact that the Hebrew is using the singular verb and also that the whole entire Old Testament repeats the pattern plural Elohim with singular verb referring to One God. The verse appears to have had a very strong impact on Joseph. Joseph refers to this verse over and over in various sermons and each time he repeats the error. He always refers to the verse as the building block of the plurality of Gods theology.

So could the whole LDS theology of plural Gods be based on one mistake Joseph made when he was starting out learning Hebrew?

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Abraham 5:4 And the Gods came down and formed these the generations of the heavens and of the earth,

when they were formed in the day that the Gods formed the earth and the heavens,

5 According to all that which they had said concerning every plant of the field before it was in the earth,

and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Gods had not caused it to rain upon the earth

when they counseled to do them, and had not formed a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground,

and took his spirit (that is, the man's spirit), and put it into him;

and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father,

the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh,

that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal,

that they might know thee the only true God, and

Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1Cr 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols,

we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

1Cr 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth,

(as there be gods many, and lords many,)

1Cr 8:6 But TO US there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,

and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

There are many Gods But TO US there is but one God, AND one Lord Jesus Christ.

[wenglund]

By this I refer to the fact that LDS believe that God is omnipresent, but not in the classical sense. He is capable of operating as if he was physically present in all places at all times, though he isn't.

I liken this to the word "sun", which refers not only to the finite body that is the star at the center of our universe, but also the warmth and light emited therefrom to fill the universe. The term "God", as you astutely noted, refers to, among various things, the finite personage of the Father, but also the spirit of truth and light emited therefrom to fill the universe, thereby making "God" omnipresent in this sense of the word as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cold Steel]

So could the whole LDS theology of plural Gods be based on one mistake Joseph made when he was starting out learning Hebrew?

If Joseph Smith were a true prophet, it's unlikely he would be getting his theology out of a Hebrew to English dictionary. In fact, there are plural aspects to the language. "Man has become as one of us" and "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

It's long been my view that the word "God" should be treated the same way the word "quorum" or "family." Singular units with plural elements. How many people are in a quorum? How many members does a family have? Yet each of these words is singular.

Then, in Psalms 110:1-2, David writes, "The Lord saith unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand...." Who is David's Lord and who was addressing Him?

Finally, Jesus prayed to the Father concerning the apostles, "That they may be one, even as we are one." One what? One God. Thus, God is singular, but made up of multiple elements.