Joseph Smith's Sermon On Plurality of Gods

UTLM ^ | June 16, 1844 | Joseph Smith

[P-Marlowe]

Joseph Smith's Sermon On Plurality of Gods
(as printed in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)

---

SERMON BY THE PROPHET—THE CHRISTIAN GODHEAD—PLURALITY OF GODS.

Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844.

Prayer by Bishop Newel K. Whitney.
Choir sang, "Mortals Awake."

President Joseph Smith read the 3rd chapter of Revelation, and took for his text 1st chapter, 6th verse—"And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father: to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

It is altogether correct in the translation. Now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods, and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry—"The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has fallen."

It has been my intention for a long time to take up this subject and lay it clearly before the people, and show what my faith is in relation to this interesting matter. I have contemplated the saying of Jesus (Luke 17th chapter, 26th verse)—"And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man." And if it does rain, I'll preach this doctrine, for the truth shall be preached.

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!

Our text says "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for Paul says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly. and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.

John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just so in the Revelation. Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God—that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all. But if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, "Away with him! Crucify him! crucify him!"

Mankind verily say that the scriptures are with them. Search the scriptures, for they testify of things that these apostates would gravely pronounce blasphemy. Paul, if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer. you are. I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one, and no man can limit the bounds or the eternal existence of eternal time. Hath he beheld the eternal world, and is he authorized to say that there is only one God? He makes himself a fool if he thinks or says so, and there is an end of his career or progress in knowledge. He cannot obtain all knowledge, for he has sealed up the gate to it.

Some say I do not interpret the scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods. in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination, The Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." I want to show a little learning as well as other fools—

A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring,
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us up again.

All this confusion among professed translators is for want of drinking another draught.

The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, "Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aashamayeen vehau auraits"—"The head one of the Gods said. Let us make a man in our own image." I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. I came here to investigate these things precisely as I believe them. Hear and judge for yourselves; and if you go away satisfied, well and good.

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself—"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, art with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house. I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist—two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."

If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before. He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys, &c. I know it is good reasoning.

I have reason to think that the Church is being purged. I saw Satan fall from heaven, and the way they ran was a caution. All these are wonders and marvels in our eyes in these last days. So long as men are under the law of God, they have no fears—they do not scare themselves.

I want to stick to my text, to show that when men open their lips against these truths they do not injure me, but injure themselves. To the law and to the testimony, for these principles are poured out all over the scriptures. When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.

They found fault with Jesus Christ because He said He was the Son of God, and made Himself equal with God. They say of me, like they did of the apostles of old, that I must be put down. What did Jesus say? "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods? If He called them Gods unto whom the word of God came, and the scriptures cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God?" It was through Him that they drank of the spiritual rock. Of course He would take the honor to Himself. Jesus, if they were called Gods unto whom the word of God came, why should it be thought blasphemy that I should say I am the son of God?

Oh, poor, blind apostates! did you never think of this before? These are the quotations that the apostates take from the scriptures. They swear that they believe the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants and then you will get from them filth, slander, and bogus-makers plenty. One of the apostate Church official members prophesied that Joseph would never preach any more, and yet I am now preaching.

Go and read the vision in the Book of Covenants. There is clearly illustrated glory upon glory—one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and a glory of the stars; and as one star differeth from another star in glory, even so do they of the telestial world differ in glory, and every man who reigns in celestial glory is a God to his dominions. By the apostates admitting the testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants, they damn themselves. Paul, what do you say? They impeached Paul [p.478] and all went and left him. Paul had seven churches, and they drove him off from among them; and yet they cannot do it by me. I rejoice in that. My testimony is good.

Paul says, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So is also the resurrection of the dead." They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead, are exalted far above principalities, powers, thrones, dominions and angels, and are expressly declared to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, all having eternal power.

The scriptures are a mixture of very strange doctrines to the Christian world, who are blindly led by the blind. I will refer to another scripture. "Now," says God, when He visited Moses in the bush, (Moses was a stammering sort of a boy like me) God said, "Thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel." God said, "Thou shalt be a God unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman." I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, "Abba, Father!" Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for.

John said he was a king. "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, and His Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever Amen." Oh, Thou God who art King of kings and Lord of lords, the sectarian world, by their actions, declare, "We cannot believe Thee."

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it! The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is in the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without: authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation? I have got all the truth which the Christian world possessed, and an independent revelation in the bargain, and God will bear me off triumphant. I will drop this subject. I wish I could speak for three or four hours; but it is not expedient on account of the rain: I would still go on, and show you proof upon proofs; all the Bible is equal in support of this doctrine, one part as another.

[la$tminutepardon]

That prophet, of whom Moses spake, was Christ. See Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and Acts 3:22-23.

Well I don't accept the book, but upon a re-reading I see that yes, it is meant to be. However, 2 Nephi 3:6 is clearly designated in the footnotes to be Smith and he is meant to be a direct descendent of Joseph's from what I could understand of it.Hence your and restornu's emphasis on Ephraim, and your's on the stick of Ephraim's, which was passed by Christ to Samaria. He fancied himself Moses, even down to the ability to not be gifted in speech. He therefore appointed Oliver Cowdery to be Aaron and off they went.

Was he a true prophet of God? The evidence says no. Even though some things that he prophesied concerning the building of the church has happened, most did not, and the fate of a false prophet was his end.

Reading most of your texts, for the most part, I see that it is just the new testament chopped up and inserted in the different books. There is really no theology to speak of which you would think would be there if these really were Hebrews in America. These so called lost tribes, apparently knew all the wisdom of their forefathers, but they had herds of swine which they brought from Jerusalem and they did not practice circumcision. It would all make more sense if you just claimed to be Samaria.

I asked God was this revelation true, after I had read it. There was no burning in my bosom, just a sorrow, that you have the real thing and it would be sufficient for you if you would just accept it.

This is not meant to be an attack. Thank you.

[la$tminutepardon]

The plurality of gods. Adam has to be a god in the theology for all of the rest of them to be. I'll say it and be condemned, that's what I'm here for: It is the lie of Eden.

[P-Marlowe]

I think we should limit our discussions to the "doctrines" of Mormonism and the doctrine of God as taught by Joseph Smith. Every church has history that they would like to hide, and my experience is that when you start bringing in things like the Mountain Meadows massacre, then the discussion gets off course.

I think the doctrines taught here are more disconcerting than a massacre that happened 150 years ago. Most of those people would be dead now even if they hadn't been killed then. So I think it is somewhat irrelevant.

What do you think about Joseph Smith's concept of God? Is it scriptural?

A question for Mromons: Is this doctrine of a plurality of gods taught in the Book of Mormon? If so, where?

[P-Marlowe]

Doesn't the Book of Mormon condemn polygamy in no uncertain terms? Didn't God describe it in the Book of Mormon as an "abomination?" or "abominable" or something like that?

How does the LDS church reconcile the BOM condemnation and the D&C commandment? If the BOM is the restoration of the "fullness of the Gospel" then how can a later revelation contradict it?

[White Mountain]

Your #21: Even though some things that he prophesied concerning the building of the church has happened, most did not, and the fate of a false prophet was his end.

We have discussed this before. Again, I invite you to back that up and be specific.

>> I asked God was this revelation true, after I had read it. There was no burning in my bosom, just a sorrow,

Thanks for asking Him. Keep listening, as I am sure you always do. God bless you!

[P-Marlowe]

Welcome to the discussion WM. I see a lot of Spurgeon and Wesley sermons posted by Calvinists and Arminaians alike. I don't see too many Joseph Smith sermons posted for review and comment. I would appreciate your input into this subject.

Is what Joseph Smith taught here standard doctrine for the LDS Church?

[CaliforniaOkie]

Also, when I was a Mormon, NOBODY ever talked about having a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ.

We have classes each Sunday in priesthood meeting and relief society that teach you must bring your whole mind and heart into focus with Jesus Christ to know how to be saved. In other words you must have a personal relationship so intense it shuts out all other influences. I don't know where you could have been when they were teaching these principals. It has not changed from that or any other basic principal at all.

[CaliforniaOkie]

Please tell me where you read any place in the scriptures that you mentioned that Adam is God? It just ain't so.

[T. P. Pole]

Doesn't the Book of Mormon condemn polygamy in no uncertain terms?

Kinda. Here's the reference you are talking about. I'll paste it for those that do not have a Book of Mormon.

Jacob 2:23-28

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

In my earlier reply I mentioned that David and Solomon were both condemned in the Bible for this. However, Abraham and Jacob were not. There must, therefore, be a difference in the way these two groups practiced it.

In context, the people being preached to here in Jacob must have gotten their hands on the scriptures and decided that since David and Solomon did it, we can too. We LDS never taught polygamy to be practiced this way. It was more like an assignment from a church leader. One didn't ask for it.

It would appear that the Lord settled the issue in Jacob by saying nobody could do it. This closely matches what happened to us. Because there was a controversy over polygamy, the Lord told us to stop for the time being. Today, we say polygamy is wrong. We also say that at one time it was correct, and will once again be correct.

Is the BOM the restoration of the "fullness of the Gospel"?

This is a common discussion point, and I will be glad to discuss this and put it away once and for all. We do claim that the BoM is the "fullness of the Gospel." However, we also feel that the Gospel is the "good news" that Christ paid for our sins in the garden and on the cross, and was resurrected on the third day, and that we can return to live with our Father in Heaven if we accept Jesus Christ's sacrifice (through repentance and faith). I trust that you feel the Gospel is the same thing?

Why, then, do we claim that the BoM is the "fullness of the Gospel?" That is because it is a testament of Christ's resurrection. In the BoM, we learn of the prophecy of Christ, of his birth, and of his resurrection. The BoM tells of Christ's appearing to another group of people after his resurrection. These folks testify of the resurrection of Christ. Thus, they tell more fully the "fullness of the Gospel."

It's that simple. We don't claim that our Temple work is the fullness of the Gospel, nor our baptism, nor polygamy, nor any of the other practices. It is other folks that give them that label.

BTW, thanks for keeping the conversation civil, and for encouraging others the same. It certainly helps in the discussion.

[T. P. Pole]

I have just recently read through Nephi 1-4, Ether, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrines and Covenants.

Congratulations. Most LDS haven't even read the D&C through. It's a shame.

[P-Marlowe]

They weren't doing that 35 years ago.

[rwfromkansas]

The Mormon concept of an alien God is not Scriptural.

[la$tminutepardon]

All over the place in the D and C's.

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.97 - p.98: ALL EXALTED MEN BECOME GODS. To believe that Adam is a god should not be strange to any person who accepts the Bible. When Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God, he answered the Jews: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 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?" Joseph Smith taught a plurality of gods, and that man by obeying the commandments of God and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which he also will become a god.

[CaliforniaOkie]

Someone here told me that Adam was one of the gods..I just do not understand how a god could be deceived by lucifer...and sin..

Adam was not deceived, he had a choice to stay in the garden forever innocent or to eat the fruit and fall (disobey) so that his eyes would be opened to good and evil. Had he not eaten the plan of salvation could take place for all mankind. Remember, God did give them the choice.

[P-Marlowe]

Although Abraham was not condemned for his little sojourn with polygamy, his descendants were cursed forever because of it. Had Abraham trusted God's promise that his 80 year old wife Sarah would bear him a son, he would not have gone out of his way to help God out in fulfilling this prophecy by sleeping with Haggar. As a result Abraham had a son Ishmael, and his descendants have been a thorn in the side of Issac's Godly and elect lineage ever since.

Where in the Bible, the Book of Mormon or in real life has polygamy ever been practiced sucessfully?

BTW doesn't the Bible state that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife? If the early Mormon bishops were polygamists, weren't they violating this directive?

Thanks.

[la$tminutepardon]

Thanks for asking Him. Keep listening, as I am sure you always do. God bless you!

Why thank you WM. For the record, I now believe that some Mormons do have faith in Christ and it is real faith of the real Christ. (Bear in mind though, that I am a heretic and proud of it.) But again, they are saved not because of your church and it's doctrines, but in spite of it, by the Grace of God, for we know that in every Egypt there are some that are His.

[CaliforniaOkie]

They weren't doing that 35 years ago.

Marlowe, give it another try, I think you missed something the first time around.

[P-Marlowe]

To be fair, the LDS church did not teach the Adam is god concept when I was a member 35 years ago. Nevertheless, I was very disturbed to read that Brigham Young (a Prophet of God) and others clearly taught this doctrine before the turn of the 20th century.

I got into a debate with some Christians about whether or not Brigham Young had ever taught such a thing. I lost that debate. Because I discovered that the LDS church had suppressed this and other things, I basically lost my faith in the LDS Church.

At any rate, since they do not teach it now, I do not believe it is relevant to this discussion. The discussion needs to be centered on exactly what is LDS doctrine right now, today.

So the question is whether the LDS Church is still in agreement with Joseph Smith on this plurality of gods doctrine and whether or not it is supported by scripture. (Whatever "scripture" you want to use.

One thing I think is relevant is that I do not believe that the Book of Mormon teaches anything about a plurality of Gods. If I remember correctly the BOM states that there is only one God. Am I wrong?

[CaliforniaOkie]

Welcome to the discussion WM. I see a lot of Spurgeon and Wesley sermons posted by Calvinists and Arminaians alike.

What is an Arminaian? Don't mean to be disrespectful but never heard of them.

[la$tminutepardon]

Well I have no way of knowing what they believe without looking at the texts and other historical documents. The fact that the official religion changes constantly in order to become more and more mainline Christian, is the reason why I believe that the people have no idea what they believe or once did, or are supposed to now. So how can we even discuss it?