Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Revisiting "ye are gods"


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Pyreaux, is this your own work or are you citing someone else?  It has the feel of not being an off the cuff remark with all the scripture references.  :) 

This is half of an amalgamation of multiple sources I've compiled into my notes intended for "Chapter 2: El Elyon" of a book/compendium. I've cut it down, there is plenty I've left out. The cited sources were indeed prepared in advanced. Its partially a heavy rewritten and reduced Margret Barker's Great Angel and Michael Heiser's articles about Canaanite Hymns and Isaiah's taunt song.

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

This is half of an amalgamation of multiple sources I've compiled into my notes intended for "Chapter 2: El Elyon" of a book/compendium. I've cut it down, there is plenty I've left out. The cites sources were indeed prepared in advanced. Its partially a heavy rewritten and reduced Margret Barker's Great Angel and Michael Heiser's articles about Canaanite Hymns.

I wished you had showed up a couple of years earlier when I could concentrate better.  This looks fascinating, but I just can’t stay focused long enough to absorb enough to play with it.  Ah well.  Maybe some day.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, theplains said:

From my point of view, I believe there is one God.  When God was incarnated into man (Jesus), 
God did not become two Gods.  But at the same time, Heavenly Father and Jesus are not the 
same being.  Can I fully explain or understand that? No.

From my understanding of LDS theology, Heavenly Father was a man who became a God in some 
other world with his exaltation (after following his father’s plan of salvation for him), 
with one wife or more wives (more likely). They procreated in some way and their first child 
was Jesus. I suppose he was considered a ‘god in embryo’ who reached some level of intelligence 
and then that ranked him as a God.  That would be 3 Gods (Jesus, his father, and his mother). 
They (Heavenly Father and one or more of his wives) continued to have billions of spirit 
children and populated the countless worlds that were created.  Heavenly Father (once a man on 
some other world) became a God and was subsequently worshipped by his own spirit children.  
Just like he (as the spirit child of his own Father) worshipped his God (that is, Jesus’ 
Grandfather).  The Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost) is taught to be another spirit child of heavenly 
parents who also was considered a God of the Godhead.  But the church does not teach how he was 
considered a God.

Future spirit male children of this Earth who become Gods are said to continue with eternal 
increase. Their subsequent children will have the same relationship to them as they (the exalted 
fathers of this Earth) had with their Heavenly Father. Simple implication – they too will be 
worshipped as the heavenly father of their own worlds.

I agree with you.  Some of the teachings I quote from LDS teaching manuals are not scriptural.

Thus seems to me to be a potentially valid LDS paradigm, for those that believe it.  My views are far less literal, but who cares? 🤔

Link to comment
On 9/14/2023 at 12:52 PM, teddyaware said:

I have a question for you: If all things are possible with God, and if God is able to make his faithful believers “partakers of the divine nature,” why do you think it isn’t possible for God to make his saints joint heirs with Christ in all he possesses, and fill them with all the fulness of God?

In a sense, we already have a divine nature through faith but also a fallen nature as a result 
of the Fall.  But I don’t believe a divine nature makes us a “God in embryo.”

In regards to those passages about faithful believers gaining the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 
3:19; 4:13), I need to reconcile it with others, which indicate God is unique and there is no 
God formed before or after him (all verses are from the King James Version).  But I will provide 
another attempt to explain it

https://www.gotquestions.org/fullness-of-God.html

Maybe the phrase “fullness of God” means something other than possessing “all power, glory, 
dominion, and knowledge” like Gospel Principles teaches in the chapter on exaltation.

"Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, 
fearful in praises, doing wonders?" (Exodus 15:11).

Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know 
and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither 
shall there be after me” (Isaiah 43:10)

"All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the poor from him 
that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and the needy from him that spoileth him?" (Psalm 
35:10).

"Thy righteousness also, O God, is very high, who hast done great things: O God, who is like 
unto thee!" (Psalm 71:19).

"Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?" (Psalm 77:13).

"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto 
thy works" (Psalm 86:8).
 
"For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone" (Psalm 86:10).
 
"For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be 
likened unto the LORD?" (Psalm 89:6).

"O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about 
thee?" (Psalm 89:8).

"Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high, Who humbleth himself to behold the 
things that are in heaven, and in the earth!" (Psalm 113:5-6).

"Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of 
the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in 
mercy" (Micah 7:18).

For this same reason, I don’t believe Joseph Smith’s teaching that God was once a man from 
another world who became the God and Heavenly Father of our Earth and who was then subsequently 
worshipped by his spirit children.

I don’t believe any male Latter-day Saint (for example John Doe) will follow in the footsteps 
of his heavenly father (of this Earth) and have spirit children of his own via eternal increase, 
who will then have the same relationship to their heavenly father (John Doe) as he (John Doe) 
in turn had with his heavenly father (of this Earth).

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, theplains said:

In regards to those passages about faithful believers gaining the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 
3:19; 4:13), I need to reconcile it with others, which indicate God is unique and there is no 
God formed before or after him (all verses are from the King James Version).  But I will provide 
another attempt to explain it

https://www.gotquestions.org/fullness-of-God.html

Maybe the phrase “fullness of God” means something other than possessing “all power, glory, 
dominion, and knowledge” like Gospel Principles teaches in the chapter on exaltation.

"Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, 
fearful in praises, doing wonders?" (Exodus 15:11).

Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know 
and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither 
shall there be after me” (Isaiah 43:10)

"All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the poor from him 
that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and the needy from him that spoileth him?" (Psalm 
35:10).

"Thy righteousness also, O God, is very high, who hast done great things: O God, who is like 
unto thee!" (Psalm 71:19).

"Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?" (Psalm 77:13).

"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto 
thy works" (Psalm 86:8).
 
"For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone" (Psalm 86:10).
 
"For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be 
likened unto the LORD?" (Psalm 89:6).

"O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about 
thee?" (Psalm 89:8).

"Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high, Who humbleth himself to behold the 
things that are in heaven, and in the earth!" (Psalm 113:5-6).

"Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of 
the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in 
mercy" (Micah 7:18).

These are what are known as "denial statements" (by biblical scholars).  These do not in any way demonstrate that no other gods exist.  They do, however, demonstrate that our God is unique, but only in the sense that no other god compares to him (not that no other gods actually exist).

This is what the Protestant biblical scholar Michael Heiser says about these kinds of "denial statements" on pages 34 and 35 of his book, The Unseen Realm:

Quote

“NO GODS BESIDES ME”?
     Another misguided strategy is to argue that statements in the Old Testament that have God saying “there is none besides me” mean that no other elohim exist. This isn’t the case. These phrases do not contradict Psalm 82 or others that, for example, say Yahweh is above all elohim or is the “God of gods [elohim].”  I’ve written a lot on this subject—it was a focus of my doctoral dissertation.12  These “denial statements,” as they are called by scholars, do not assert that there are no other elohim. In fact, some of them are found in chapters where the reality of other elohim is affirmed. We’ve already seen that Deuteronomy 32:17 refers to elohim that Paul believed existed. Deuteronomy 32:8–9 also refers to the sons of God. Deuteronomy 4:19–20 is a parallel to that passage, and yet Deuteronomy 4:35 says there is no god besides Yahweh. Is Scripture filled with contradictions?
     No. These “denial statements” do not deny that other elohim exist. Rather, they deny that any elohim compares to Yahweh. They are statements of incomparability. This point is easily illustrated by noticing where else the same denial language shows up in the Bible. Isaiah 47:8 and Zephaniah 2:15 have, respectively, Babylon and Nineveh saying “there is none besides me.” Are we to believe that the point of the phrase is to declare that no other cities exist except Babylon or Nineveh? That would be absurd. The point of the statement is that Babylon and Nineveh considered themselves incomparable, as though no other city could measure up to them. This is precisely the point when these same phrases are used of other gods—they cannot measure up to Yahweh. The Bible does not contradict itself on this point. Those who want to argue that the other elohim do not exist are at odds with the supernatural worldview of the biblical writers.

EXAMINING THE LOGIC
     The denial that other elohim exist insults the sincerity of biblical writers and the glory of God. How is it coherent to say that verses extolling the superiority of Yahweh above all elohim (Psa 97:9) are really telling us Yahweh is greater than beings that don’t exist? Where is God’s glory in passages calling other elim to worship Yahweh (Psa 29:1–2) when the writers don’t believe those beings are real? Were the writers inspired to lie or hoodwink us? To give us theological gibberish?
     To my ear, it mocks God to say, “You’re greater than something that doesn’t exist.” So is my dog. Saying, “Among the beings that we all know don’t exist there is none like Yahweh” is tantamount to comparing Yahweh with Spiderman or Spongebob Squarepants. This reduces praise to a snicker. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire such nonsense?

For footnote 12, above, I linked that to Michael Heiser's 2008 dissertation at Liberty University, "Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible".  See sections 1.2 and 1.3 of that dissertation for the part that deals with the denial statements.

So the bottom line is that there is no such thing as monotheism in the Bible.  Other gods do in fact exist in reality, even gods that rule with the one God above all others.

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/19/2023 at 5:13 PM, InCognitus said:

So the bottom line is that there is no such thing as monotheism in the Bible.  Other gods do in fact exist in reality, even gods that rule with the one God above all others.

Based on how you portray what monotheism is, would that mean that Latter-day Saints are polytheists?

Link to comment

Depends on who you ask. The Jews and the Muslims say the Christians are all Polytheists. Jews have always vehemently defended their monotheism against Trinitarianism. And they have denied Trinitarianism is in their Scriptures, said the Trinity is blasphemous, and that this is surely how Jews would have viewed it during the time of Jesus. That’s why some modern scholars reject the word “monotheism” as a useful category. The rule then becomes to take people as monotheist if that is how they describe themselves. But even as the prime beneficiaries of that rule, most Christians won’t allow such a loose definition, denominations have established some criteria for deciding who is a genuine monotheist, though they often disagree on the criteria. 

According to many of its proponents, a denomination only counts as monotheistic if certain conditions are met. Firstly, no matter how intentionally incomprehensible your personal beliefs are, always insist on your commitment to monotheism, even though there are three fully divine Persons. Monotheism is secured by the three having a certain relation (e.g. familial relations, dependence relations, or compositional relations) creating an ‘indivisible unity’ such that it is impossible for anyone Trinitarian person to function as a God without the other two (e.g. Jesus must mediate between us and God). For the Creedal Trinity, God is undivided by "substance" or "essence", then there is the Social Trinity where God is undivided by "purpose" and "will", that it's justified to reference them with a lack of distinction.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers itself monotheistic, because God the Father is The God of the Universe and is worshipped by Jesus Christ as well. Latter-Day Saints believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are each individual divine beings, each with roles in administering God's plan. Unlike traditional polytheism where the multiple gods have their own domains and their own agenda. The Godhead's "domain" is all of creation, and they act in perfect harmony and agreement. Together, they are our (single) Godhead that works and acts together.

I believe the Biblical Jews and Latter-day Saints are more accurately described as monolatrous, single worshippers. We admit the possibility of humans becoming joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, and thus gods, but no one is to be worshipped as a god in the sense of polytheism. If the Church belief in The One God and other less gods beneath that God that we don't worship is considered polytheism to you, I'd insist you just be careful with your meaning if you just mean not Trinitarian Monotheism, while it should not be confused with worshipping Baal or other pagan deities. Simply believing multiple divine beings exist isn't enough. We all believe in the existence of angels, and angels are divine beings. Even "gods" in Psalm 82. Which is not exactly strict Monotheism.

656ttggtt566777yt-334x420.jpg

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
On 9/28/2023 at 8:39 AM, theplains said:

Based on how you portray what monotheism is, would that mean that Latter-day Saints are polytheists?

No.  The opposite of monotheism is not automatically polytheism.  Polytheism has implications that don't fit, so that doesn't work.  I don't know of a good word for it.  We worship one supreme God while not denying the existence of other gods who are subject to him.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I don't know of a good word for it.

The word you are looking for is henotheism.

Mormonism has always had something of a debate on this point. In the absence of a uniquely LDS systematic theology, there probably won't be much of a consensus on how Mormonism should be identified. There are two issues in particular which contribute to this uncertainty. The first is an incomplete notion of the attributes necessary for someone to become God (i.e when does Jesus become God - has it happened, or will it yet happen at some point in His continued post-mortal existence). The second, is that the Mormon pantheon (to the extent that such a pantheon exists) exists only in the abstract. We discuss the existence of other divinities only through relationships and not as individuals. The closest we come to a non-abstract divinity that isn't our Heavenly Father is our Heavenly Mother - and there is very little discussion about that topic. But the role or existence of a father of God the Father illustrates this problem. Most religions that we define as polytheistic or henotheistic identify those divinities, give them names and roles, and so on. Within Mormonism, they exist more as concepts than anything else.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The closest we come to a non-abstract divinity that isn't our Heavenly Father is our Heavenly Mother - and there is very little discussion about that topic.

Though the Oneness of Marriage could be equal to or greater than the Oneness of the Godhead. Two become one flesh, in the more extreme views of Kabbalistic Jews, the concepts of such a sacred union range from two Siamese Twins or even a single Hermaphroditic being... But I digress.

Image result for god a kaballah hermaphrodite

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
On 10/4/2023 at 7:11 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The word you are looking for is henotheism.

Mormonism has always had something of a debate on this point. In the absence of a uniquely LDS systematic theology, there probably won't be much of a consensus on how Mormonism should be identified. There are two issues in particular which contribute to this uncertainty. The first is an incomplete notion of the attributes necessary for someone to become God (i.e when does Jesus become God - has it happened, or will it yet happen at some point in His continued post-mortal existence). The second, is that the Mormon pantheon (to the extent that such a pantheon exists) exists only in the abstract. We discuss the existence of other divinities only through relationships and not as individuals. The closest we come to a non-abstract divinity that isn't our Heavenly Father is our Heavenly Mother - and there is very little discussion about that topic. But the role or existence of a father of God the Father illustrates this problem. Most religions that we define as polytheistic or henotheistic identify those divinities, give them names and roles, and so on. Within Mormonism, they exist more as concepts than anything else.

You say I was looking for the word henotheism, and then explain that this has always been something of a debate :) 

The fact that the precise word is debated is why I didn't use the word henotheism.  Some think the word monolatry fits (I personally like the word monolatry better, as it doesn't make me think of worshipping chickens like henotheism does).  That's why I prefer to just try to explain it and not give it a name.

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
  • 9 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...