Mormons and Catholics

[ed. note: Benjamin McGuire is an impressive Mormon scholar with expertise in Biblical and literary interpretation. He has written several articles for FAIR, a couple which I will point out here because of their tangential relevance to this topic. In The Bible he outlines historical Mormon views and usage of the Bible. In Reconsidering Psalms 82:6 : Judges or Gods? A Proposal McGuire explains deification in both New and Old Testament contexts. Recently he was asked question about how Christians and more especially Mormons deal with the seemingly strict monotheistic overtones of Isaiah 43:10 and has agreed to let me publish it here, which I do with minimal editting.]

Isaiah 43:10 says:

“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.”

The challenge with this particular passage is that it is almost universally used out of context. Unfortunately, such a claim often sounds hollow to those on the other end. But to help you understand, let me provide a bit of history.

During Isaiah’s time as a prophet, we might contrast what we could call “Biblical” religion with popular religion (that is what the text says the people should be doing, and what they were actually doing). Israelites had adopted many of the religious practices of their neighbors - and one of these was the worship of the Canaanite divinity Ba’al. (The worship of Ba’al wouldn’t really be eradicated among Israelites until the Babylonian captivity some time later). Ba’al - according to Canaanite myth - had attained his status of king of the gods by defeating Yaam, the Canaanite God of primordial chaos, the god of the sea. In another episode, Ba’al confronts Mot (the Canaanite god of death) and is defeated (that is, he dies). While he is dead, there is an attempt to find someone to replace Ba’al as the king of the gods. This is attempted by another Canaanite divinity named ‘Athtar (also identified with Venus - the morning star). ‘Athtar fails to fill the throne of Ba’al and comes down to the earth as the god of the earth - and this narrative plays an important role in Isaiah’s discussion of Lucifer (the morning star) in his taunting of the king of Babylon. In any case, Ba’al gets resurrected, and continues in his position as king of the gods.

In Canaanite myth, their god Ba’al becomes god only upon defeating Yaam, and this includes the idea (which was explored in the mythology) that if Ba’al could gain his position by defeating another, then he too in turn could be replaced. Isaiah’s intent in this passage is to contrast Jehovah (YHWH) with Ba’al. And so the prophet declares:

“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.”

In other words, YHWH didn’t become God by replacing someone, nor can he be replaced. And this verse discusses before YHWH and after YHWH, but really doesn’t care about the “during YHWH”. For us (and most Christians), we don’t really recognize a before God and an after God. And to read this statement (in its context) as a claim of strict monotheism (or that it removes the possibility of having other divinities like God) is simply to remove it from its context. Usually, if I have to respond to it, I like to pose a corresponding set of questions - if God says that before him there is no God, and after him there is no God, just when is this “before God” and “after God” supposed to have occured?

On a separate note, I think that we cannot help but interpret scriptures. This is why having the Spirit is important to us when we look at revelations from God. In the Book of Mormon, one of my favorite narratives is the vision of the Tree of Life which Lehi [1 Nephi 8] and Nephi [1 Nephi 11 - 1 Nephi 15] had . In the story, Nephi compares his own response to his father’s dream to his brothers’ response. He asks God and receives the same vision (although he tells us in passing that he was paying attention to different things than his father was, and so the vision had a somewhat different impact and intepretation for him - for example, the river of filthy water [1 Nephi 15:27]?). His brothers come to him and ask him for an explanation (an interpretation) of his father’s dream, and he asks them first if they have gone to God. They respond that God doesn’t reveal these things to them. And so from our perspective, asking for an interpretation - even if that interpretation comes directly from the prophet who received the vision - takes a second seat to asking God - even if in the process of asking God, he tells us what we need to know (which may not be quite the same as what the prophet was told). And Nephi takes this lesson to heart when he says that we need to liken the scriptures unto ourselves [1 Nephi 19:23] (which means that we don’t have to know the history - although certainly that can help us understand a text like this one). What we want to strive for are interpretations guided by the Spirit of God - and to be different from Laman and Lemuel in that God will share with us the things we ask for. And of course a recognition that as we experience revelation - as Nephi did - we may well have a different interpretation than others do (even including, perhaps, other Christians) - because we are all different to begin with. I have found this perspective useful in my own search for Truth and a closer relationship with God.