Posted on 04/06/2002 12:22:31 AM PST by 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.
Marlowe
I would be interested to know from the assembled Mormons here whether the Mormon Church has (or even theoretically can) backtrack from something Smith said. So the question is two-fold: (i) have they ever done it (that the Mormon church is willing to admit) and (ii) is it theoretically possible that one of the current church boards and/or officials could have some 'vision' or 'revelation' and thereupon rescind or modify something Smith had said?
I suppose another way of asking it is: Is there something qualitatively different in the force and effect of the 'revelations' of Smith and the 'revelations' of the current-day boards and/or officials of their church?
I think things have changed pretty dramtically in the last 30 years. Lets see if they still believe their "Prophet" from 150 years ago.
I would say that this expresses quite well what we believe in regards to the Godhead. Every LDS would tell you that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are three separate beings that are one in purpose, and would even point to that same scripture where Jesus tells the church to be one even as He and His Father is.
Also by extension, but not by firm doctrine, we suspect that while God the Father had a Son, that God the Father may have once been a Son also, and had a Father Himself.
We teach both of these concepts today. We believe that we are offspring of God, and have the potential to "sit with [Christ] in his throne, even as [Christ] will sit with [the Father] in his throne." That looks like we at least participate in some way with God in His throne.
We also teach that "Gods" idea about the creation. We feel that there was a council of "Gods" with at least God the Father and God the Son, who planned the creation. As an aside, we feel that it was the Son who actually was in charge of the work.
As to the question of changing doctrine, we tend not to do that. Pretty much everything stays, just the focus or emphasis changes.
For example, polygamy. We feel that it is still correct doctrine, and that it is still a commandment to God's people. We also teach that we must obey the law of the land. Early in the church, these conflicting commandments caused much consternation with the leadership of the church. Today, we feel that one day we will again be allowed to obey this law. We teach this, but you won't hear it taught every Sunday. On most Sundays you will hear the basic doctrines, things like Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, obedience to the commandments, and so forth.
Hope this helps. I'll be busy today, so I may not get here too often to check, but I'll try to check during the day.
You noted that the Polygamy revelation is still correct doctrine, but that it has apparently been suspended in order to comply with the law of the land. Does this mean that in those countries where Polygamy is legal, LDS Members are free to practice it?
Catch ya later.
What is the scriptural basis for that?
I do have a serious question about that Marlow..seeing you were once a Mormon you may know the answer.
If you believe that there is a "mother" god and that there is some "mysterious" way that spirit children are made..( I think celestial sex??) Then Poloygamy makes sense ..more wives to become heavenly mothers for spirit children, therefore more "spirit children"??..is that the basis for poloygamy?
IMHO the real reason for polygamy was that Joseph Smith was practicing it. He got caught. And suddenly, lo and behold, there was a revelation from god that commanded it.
Mormons must believe that women are more righteous then men, so there are more women in Heaven, so polygamy is needed to match them all up.
Again, this is said tongue-in-cheek.
Ahhhhhhhhhh common ground with a Mormon..mark the calender *grin*
The answer is no. It is a good question, though. You will often hear us ponder what would happen if polygamy was made legal again.
In a strange way, this leads to interesting positions. For example, the marriage laws. Should we fall on the side of "marriage is for man and woman only" or "marriage is for anybody." One could argue for either position. The first is what we believe strongly, the second might allow us to obey the law of polygamy again.
For now, we fall on the man and woman only side, and sometimes campaign strongly when it comes around.
good idea:>))
BTW, I was visiting a college class and learned some shocking information about something going on in Utah. I found it now finally after searching for it. There were Morman murderers called the Danites. Anyway, one day some rampaging Mormons committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre, slaughtering settlers and to this day, Mike Leavin....who is descended from these killers, refuses to allow archaological digs on the site and keeps the road to the site hidden. This is something the Mormons are determined to keep under wraps, apparently.
I'll start with what is on the Church's web page:
Question:
What is the Church’s position on polygamy?
Answer:
In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church's position on plural marriage: "This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church."
At various times, the Lord has commanded His people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon (Doctrine and Covenants 132:1).
In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage (Official Declaration 1).
Here are my comments on this.
We believe that we are a "restoration" gospel. This means that we believe that there has been at least one falling away, or apostasy, from the true gospel.
We believe that the true gospel was restored (through Joseph Smith). This pretty much defines how we are different from other Christian faiths. We believe that some truths were lost (or fallen away) and have now been restored.
One of the concepts of a restoration is that all truths will be restored. This includes law and practices. This includes polygamy.
It would appear that in the Old Testament some prophets were given the law of polygamy. Abraham comes to mind (Gen 16:1-11). Jacob also (Gen 29:28).
Exodus 21:10 seems to set some requirements for it. Deut 21:15 also. Deut 17:17 implies that kings should not "multiply" wives, so polygamy doesn't appear to apply to everybody. David seems to have many wives (2 Sam 5:13), yet Nathan seems to only condemn him for taking Uriah's wife (2 Sam 12:7-9), and it seems only because he killed to do it.
In 1 Kings 11:1-4, Solomon seem to be chastised, not for taking many wives, but for taking "strange" wives from other faiths that turned him away from the Lord.
Isaiah 4:1 would seem to suggest that in the millennium "seven women shall take hold of one man" and be "called by [his] name." Maybe there will be a shortage of men in the millennium (see my comments in an earlier post).
There are a few other scriptures. Some seem to condemn polygamy, others seem neutral on it. If we claim that we are a restoration Gospel, then we must have a restoration of all laws and truths. If polygamy was a law, then it must be restored. That pretty much is it.
Hope this helps to answer. I know it is long.
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..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.