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.
Just got done watching the second session of General Conference (will be broadcasting again over the Internet tomorrow 10am-2pm and 4pm-6pm Mountain Time), and now I have some errands to run. Will be back.
When Egyptologists translated this piece of papyrus, they found that it contained absolutely nothing concerning Abraham. Instead, it turned out to be a pagan funerary text known as the "Book of Breathings," a work which actually evolved from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Book of Breathings did not come into existence until the later stages of Egyptian history - just a few centuries before the time of Christ. Like the Book of the Dead, it was buried with those who died in ancient Egypt. It is filled with magic and pagan gods. It was obviously written by a very superstitious people, and is quite different from the religion taught in the Bible. The fact that the papyrus Joseph Smith used as the basis for his Book of Abraham is in reality the Book of Breathings cannot be disputed because the name "Book of Breathings" appears clearly on the fourth line of the fragment. In 1968 two Egyptologists from the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute, Professors John A. Wilson and Klaus Baer, identified the papyrus as the "Book of Breathings." A translation by Klaus Baer was printed in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, pp. 119-20. Professor Richard A Parker, Chairman of the Department of Egyptology at Brown University also translated the papyrus. Professor Hugh Nibley stated that "Parker is the best man in America for this particular period and style of writing." Professor Parker's translation reads as follows:
I pointed out that that will not be the case we will still be individuals as we are now and be recognizable by others that we know now.
As for Gods above God, as Joseph Smith pointed out a father reasonably has a son and a son reasonably has a father. Truth is reason, would God confuse us by going against reason? That is my own thinking on that.
I have not studied in great detail this subject so could be speaking out of turn here. I know that God is my father and Jesus Christ is my brother and the savior of this world. That's all I need to know.
If they stick to it, then do they dispute the findings of the Egyptologists?
Do they have their own confirmation from any secular source?
Also, does the book of Mormon teach about a Plurality of Gods? If so, where?
I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.
I will probably post it after this one. I think this particulay thread is a good warm up to this doctrine. King Follet might be too much to handle in one day, eh?
You claim to be a heretic. What heresy do you subscribe to?
I myself am a certified subscriber to the "I am not a Calvinist" heresy. Since I am not an Arminaian either, I am certified from both camps. I believe I am also a certified member of the "pre-millenial dispensationalist" heretic society as well.:-)
Is that from the "King Follet" sermon? Boy, that really brings God down to street level, doesn't it?
I have to admit that I am not familiar with this (his descendants being cursed) being in the Bible. It certainly would appear that a great amount of conflict in the world is caused by this, but I couldn't find a scripture that directly stated the curse. Galatians 4:22-31 makes this same observation of conflict also, but doesn't seem to call it a curse. And Gen 16:12 seems more a prophecy than a curse.
As for being condemned, wasn't it just one verse from when the child with Hagar was born and when the Lord appeared to Abram and walked with him, and makes a covenant with him? Doesn't sound like anything close to condemnation.
Besides, God's promise made in Gen 15:4 was that Abram would have an heir out of his own bowels, and not an heir from his servants. Hagar shows up in Gen 16. The promise that the now-Abraham received that the now-Sarah would have children was made in Gen 17. The timeline seem funny for it to be a curse.
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?
Good question. Paul did give Timothy and Titus some instructions regarding the church organization. And he did indicate that a Bishop should be married. But did he say in either place that a Bishop must be the husband of only one wife. It would be hard to say, with what we know, if Paul meant he must have only one wife, or only that he must be married.
Sounds like we may have to agree to disagree on this one.
Yes, you need to post the King Follett sermon in its entirety for there I think is where Mormons get their doctrine on gods and it's given straight from the stammering lips of the prophet himself.
"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Ps. 90:2; emphasis added)
"Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? There is no searching of his understanding" (Is. 40:28; cf. Ps. 102:25-27)
God is Creator of all things:
"Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from tee womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretch forth the heaven alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" (Is. 44:24)
"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else" (Is. 45:18)
You are correct. Ishmael wasn't cursed-- Isaac got the birthright, but Ishmael's seed got other gifts and a bright heritage. Old Esau now, that's a different story and he comes from Isaac.
Funny! I will argue scripture and even non-scriptural sources and if Calvinism agrees with what I understand, which it often does, I agree. If a Calvinist, or Mormon, or whatever posts something I disagree with, I say so. We have to be honest, that's the most important thing. And we can't let doctrinal differences affect how we relate to the person behind the post.
One thing that goes against their position is the fact that the Book of Mormon contains several thousand verses that are exact quotations from the King James bible. So the logical conclusion is that If the book of Mormon verifies the translation of the King James Bible then they do not have that excuse to fall back upon. Do they?
You have laid out the scriptures rather well. Now can we get a logical response? Can we get a scriptural response? We shall see.
I have it prepared to be posted. However I will wait until someone else requests it. Otherwise I will let this thread run its course.
Would anyone else care to have the King Follet sermon posted? Or should we continue to comment upon this one?
Well I am getting an education in the LDS..so I would like it posted..
Here's the Link:
On another thread the other day, Restornu quoted an authority of some sort from your church (McConkie or McConkle, something like that] to the effect that the Bible was "pre-eminent" or "foremost" (I am doing this from memory and that may not be the word) among the 'standard works' of your church.
A couple of questions:
1. Does your church establish a prioritization among its 'authorative books' vis-a-vis the Bible? If so, what is that priority? Where is that officially recorded? If one 'authority' states something like that, can some other say something contrary? How does it become the 'official' position of your church? [Obviously, to Biblical Christians, this is an important question.]
2. Has that priority changed at all over the life of your church?
3. Assuming arguendo that the Bible has priority over the other authorative works, is that priority used to justifiy changes in doctrines based upon the "other works", i.e. the Smith books?
4. Finally, on a slightly different but related tack. There have been a very large number of textual discoveries relating to the Biblical text since Smith died (I think, for example, we have 4 or 5 times as many manuscripts and fragments as were known in 1830-1850.) Most Protestant scholars and (I think) even most catholics favor the critical text (derived from these discoveries) while the KJV is based on the much later textus receptus (the Byzantine). I understand your church to favor the KJV. Is that because you think the text is more faithful to the original (like our KJV-only folks do) or because the translated language is closer to that 'translated' by Smith in his books?
5. Finally, is there a central respository for the major changes in your church doctrine as a result of 'visions' (or other form of 'revelation') purportedly given to your church leaders when doctrine is changed. [I noticed a citation to "official decisions". Is that it?] Is that central series on the web?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
LOL. When you tell a judge that you have just a couple of questions does he allow you to ask 5 compound questions of ulitmate significance? Or does he cut you off at two?
BTW those are Really good questions. I had never heard that the Bible is pre-eminent in LDS theology. The order that I recall was the Book of Mormon (said to be the fullness of the gospel) followed by the Doctrine and Covenants (the latter day revelation) followed by the Pearl of Great Price, followed by the Bible -- but only "insofar as it is translated correctly."
If the Bible is pre-eminent, that is a major change since I last darkened the door of an LDS ward. Clearly a step in the right direction. But I'd like to see some documentation on that one.
Welcome to the discussion. I look forward to your input.
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.