M&C question: Many gods, but just one God
Posted by Dave Keller on October 10th, 2006
Antonio asks:
About the father of God
I wanna know about the doctrine of the LDS church that tells God was a man like us and had a father. And about we becoming gods. I think this part of the doctrine goes against Isaiah 43:10. I am asking this because my girlfriend is Mormon and I love her. But if don’t become Mormon she will break with me. I want to believe but some parts contradicts the Holy Bible and I’m having some difficulty on it.
I will be very grateful if you answer my question.
I respond:
You have asked some rather advanced questions so let me start by pointing you to the basic Mormon beliefs about the three members of the Godhead recently explained by Mormon prophet Gordon B. Hinckley here. It is a challenge for any Christian faith to account for threeness and oneness (as Isaiah 43:10 seems to require) of God. The simple answer for Mormonism is that we shift what is meant by the word “God” to adapt to whatever scriptural context it is in. When we talk in terms of “one God”, usually we refer to our’s (and Christ’s) Father; but a less common usage of “one God” refers to the three personages of the Godhead as they are one in purpose.
The doctrine that men can become gods is a solid belief held by Mormons, Catholics, and early Christians (see also here) . I think the main difference between Mormons and Catholics is that the teaching gets much more emphasis in Mormonism. The next biggest difference is that Catholicism stresses different natures for God and man while Mormonism treats God and man as the same species, with God being more advanced than us. The Bible can be used to support the idea that man can become like God, for example see John 17 and 2 Peter 1 .
The idea of that there is a grandfather God was promoted by Joseph Smith shortly before his martyrdom, but I have yet to see a reference to it in any current Mormon teaching manuals. It is mostly considered speculation of which we don’t know much about. Some Mormon apologists point to 1 Cor 8:5-6 to show that if there are other gods they are irrelevant to us as we recognize and worship only one God.
I personally don’t worry too much about reconciling Mormon or Catholic teachings to Isaiah 43:10. Finding what the original authors meant can be quite a challenge and then we have to interpret how much new revelation was given after a passage was written (for example what the New Testament reveals about Christ, His Father, and the possibility of men becoming gods) that changes our understanding. Stay tune for more treatment of Isaiah 43:10 and don’t be afraid to ask some follow up questions.
Best wishes for you and your girlfriend!
October 10th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
As a practicing Mormon, I can say:
Don’t become a Mormon just because your girlfriend wants you to. I’ve seen a lot of conversions like this. Only rarely did it ever work out. Usually it made both people profoundly frustrated later in life.
If you want to convert to Mormonism, do it because you actually like, and relate to, the religion itself. If you convert simply to “keep her happy” you won’t be entering the religion with the sort of commitment level our church demands. In fact, your girlfriend may expect a high level of commitment as well. Mere baptism alone may not be all she’s asking for. If that’s the case, you’re setting yourself up for a extra troubles in the relationship. You should clarify this with her if you’re unsure.
Love is nice, but the Church will impact your life in much deeper and more comprehensive ways. Don’t sell your spiritual life short for any other person (no matter how fantastic she may be).
October 10th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
I’m very happy to get my question answered. Thank you very much for spend your time with me. Your answer was very satisfactory to me, mainly the reference to Cor 8:5-6. I’m very confused about my beliefs, and trying to clarify my doubts. I do believe in God, because of this, I’m afraid to get my faith to the wrong direction, and when the Lord judges me He ask why I didn’t follow the right path.
You mormons are very nice people, and I have learned a lot with you. To Know my girlfriend really changed my life for better and even I choose to not join the Church, I don’t want to do the wrong things I used to do before, like saying bad words, alcohol, etc.
And Seth, your words sounds like you know what is happening with me. It’s like you listen what we talk. I don’t want to do something just for my own happiness. I know that the only way to we be happy together is a truly converting.
I have another question, and this one is about divorce. I ask her if a person get married in law with another one and then divorce legally and get married in law again with another person, is this person an adulterous? She said isn’t sure about this question but she said that maybe this person is not adulterous. I was concerned about this because the Gospel according to Mark 10:12 .
Thank you again and sorry for my english
October 11th, 2006 at 5:19 am
Antonio,
I am glad that Seth was able to help you and that 1 Cor 8:4-5 was able to help straighten things out. If you are interested, an internet acquaintance of mine, Benjamin McGuire, gave me his scholarly take on Isaiah 43:10, which I just got through posting above.
The short answer to your question about legal divorce and remarriage is that Mormon church does not treat such a scenario as on-going adultery. Any sin that accompanied a previous divorce can be repented and forgiven by promising to do one’s best not to let it happen again and making sure any obligations (like child support, for example) are met.
The longer answer is how to square a very forgiving practice with Jesus’s tough remarks about divorce and adultery of which a version is found in all four gospels. I recommend an article out of the official church magazine (I don’t know what the Mormon church has available in your first language. By the way, where are you from?).
Jonathan M. Chamberlain Ensign, Jan. 1993, 59
I compared Mormon and Catholic teachings on marriage and divorce on this earlier, but in the process I assembled some key Mormon texts under the heading “The Mormon Divorce and Marriage Guide for Dummies”.
I hope that helps.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Thank you for answering. I read the Question about divorce and didn’t understand it all, probably because of my english. In the first part, became clear to me that the only reason for divorce is adultery commited by the man or the woman. But bellow is write: “In this day divorces are permitted in accordance with civil statutes, and the divorced persons are permitted by the Church to marry again without the stain of immorality which under a higher system would attend such a course.†(Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1973, 1:547.)”. I don’t know if I understand this part, for me it is saying that any reason according to civil statutes is good (I my country if both need to divorce there is no need of reason to divorce, or if one part want to divorce because of any stupid reason its allowed). And the person could marry again without commiting adultery. Is not this the opposite of what Jesus said?
I really don’t know if I understand the text well and I’m not trying to refute your answer I just want to understand it better. I’m from Brazil. And you, are you from Utah?
Thank you
October 14th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Antonio,
You are right that I am from Utah. I can understand your confusion over the way the church materials address the contradiction between theory and practice. I have read Bible interpretations from scholars from 5 or 6 religions and they all come to different conclusions. It is one of those problems that can’t really be solved, but I will try to explain four principles I consider when I mull the four gospel accounts over.
First I think the marriage and divorce laws of our countries are roughly analogous to the lesser Law of Moses. Even though the details between the laws of Brazil, Utah, and Moses differ; they are designed to be practical and permit people to move on with their lives after messing up. Jesus explained that the Law of Moses permitted divorce in certain circumstances due to the “hardness of your hearts” and he taught a higher law that did not permit divorce. He indicated that not everybody was capable of receiving or living his higher law.
One way to look at Jesus’s new instructions is through an analogy to his command to “be ye therefore perfect.” For some it will be impossible to keep these ideals, but it is better to have an ideal to strive for as opposed to trying to see how much one can get away with. It appears to me in the Gospel accounts, Jesus’s opponents were trying to get him to draw the line on how much bad behaviour a person would be expected to put up with in his/her spouse before seeking a divorce.
A second thing to consider is that Jesus’s teachings about marriage hinge on whether and to what degree God has joined the marriage. No man should tear apart what God has put together (to paraphrase). Both Mormons and Catholics, for instance, have ways of classifying marriages and have different procedures of perhaps dissolving or annulling them. Mormons, for example, distinguish between marriages for time and those for time and eternity. Catholics, as I understand, distinguish between non-sacramental and sacramental marriages. A very rough simplification would be to equate both sets with a lesser and higher law, with both faiths striving to live the ideal Jesus taught according to their understanding.
The Mormon way of performing marriages is not just based on the Bible but on modern revelation as well (see D&C 132:15-20). While the Mormon church accepts marriages performed outside of a Mormon temple as being valid for time (i.e. holding together until death or divorce), the church encourages such much marriages to be sealed by someone holding God’s priesthood authority to do so. A temple sealer has the power to make covenants made on earth be binding in heaven as well (making a marriage last for time and eternity depending on whether the couple remain true to their promises). By virtue of his priesthood authority, a temple priest acts in the name of God. I can confidently say that God has put such a marriage together, but I would hesitate to say that about other types of marriage ceremonies.
The same idea applies for when the Mormon prophet nullifies a temple sealing in some rare cases of divorce. In the scriptures, Jesus gave the apostles the power to “loose” on heaven as well as on earth to go along with their power to “bind” or “seal”. Therefore if God through man can join a couple in marriage together, He can also break up such a marriage through a like process. The charge of adultery need not apply if man authorized by God breaks up a marriage likewise authorized.
Which brings me to a third principle about the difficulty of defining adultery. For Mormons, roughly speaking adultery happens when sexual relations occur outside the bounds of marriage. We primarily worry about actions (members can be excommunicated for adulterous actions), but understand that to have adulterous thoughts is a sin as well (he who looks at a woman … hath commited adultery in his heart). In some sense, trying to manipulate ones marital situation through serial marriage and divorce is yet another way to not honor the bounds of marriage. So it can be said that such behavior partakes of the spirit of adultery in some abstract way. So Mormons would not say any divorce is “good”. It is sinful, but it can be permitted. It can be forgiven after it is repented for as I explained in my “short answer”.
The last thing I wish you to consider is that while Jesus’s words are for the most part timeless and inspiring no matter how much things change on earth–when cultural conditions do change–societies, churches, and individuals need to re-evaluate how best to put the Jesus’s words into practice. We have to “liken” the scriptures to ourselves with the help of Holy Spirit like Benjamin McGuire discusses at the end of his Isaiah 43:10 analysis.
October 15th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Short answer: There is only one true and living God in all of eternity, and there is no God beside him [1].
Nonetheless, we are taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal [2].
And we are also taught that through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ, we may become one with the Father, in the same way the Father and the Son are one [3].
So though there be gods many [4] and lords many, to us there is one God and one Lord Jesus Christ [5]. And they are one God, infinite and eternal.
[1] Mark 10:18, Deut 4:35, Isa 44:6, many others
[2] 2 Ne 31:21, D&C 20:28
[3] John 17:21-23
[4] Psalm 82:1
[5] 1 Cor 8:5-6
October 16th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Mark Butler Says
“And we are also taught that through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ, we may become one with the Father, in the same way the Father and the Son are one”
Can you explain this further? The obedience part.
God Bless
Rich
Mk 10:17-30
As Jesus was setting out on a journey, a man ran up,
knelt down before him, and asked him,
“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good?
No one is good but God alone.
You know the commandments: You shall not kill;
you shall not commit adultery;
you shall not steal;
you shall not bear false witness;
you shall not defraud;
honor your father and your mother.”
He replied and said to him,
“Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth.”
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him,
“You are lacking in one thing.
Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor
and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”
At that statement his face fell,
and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
Jesus looked at them and said,
“For human beings it is impossible, but not for God.
All things are possible for God.”
Peter began to say to him,
“We have given up everything and followed you.”
Jesus said, “Amen, I say to you,
there is no one who has given up house or brothers or sisters
or mother or father or children or lands
for my sake and for the sake of the gospel
who will not receive a hundred times more now in this present age:
houses and brothers and sisters
and mothers and children and lands,
with persecutions, and eternal life in the age to come.”
December 1st, 2006 at 9:26 pm
“Can you explain this further? The obedience part.”
My own theory is that obedience is an integral part of the Atonement, in that it is a primary mechanism for lowering the wall we’ve erected between ourselves and God, which alienates us from Him. A submissive attitude is the key to true acceptance of Christ’s Atonement, and therefore the key to exhaltation and becoming perfected in Christ.
No serious attempt can be made to invoke the Atonement without an initial showing of obediance in action or spirit. Without it, Paul’s faith “is dead,” having no animating life to give it meaning.