THE "MORMON" DOCTRINE OF DEITY AS SET FORTH IN THE DISCOURSES OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH AND EARLY CHURCH PUBLICATIONS.
From the King Follett Sermon, April 7, 1844.[A]
[Footnote A: Millenial Star, vol. xxiii, p. 245 et seq.]
It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning.
* * * *
There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as respects their relationship to God.
* * * *
If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.
* * * *
What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth. * * * God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the vail was rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit; and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instructions from, and walked, talked, and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.
* * * *
It is necessary we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and will take away the vail, so that you may see. * * * It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.
* * * *
The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power"—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible.[A]
* * * *
[Footnote A: The argument here made by the Prophet is very much strengthened by the following passage: "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he [the Father] doeth, these also the Son doeth likewise" (St. John 5:19).
Here, then, is eternal life: to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you—namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.
* * * *
How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child or dear relative, to know that although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings, in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? [i. e., to be joint heirs with Jesus Christ]. To inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much has been said.
* * * *
When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the vail before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world: it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation, even beyond the grave.
* * * *
I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the Bible. Berosheit: I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by, through, etc. Rosh—the head. Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the bath there. A Jew, without any authority, added the word: he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read at first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. * * * Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council. * * * The head God called together the Gods, and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand Councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens, and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at that time. * * * In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods, and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.
* * * *
From the Discourse of June 16, 1844.[A]
[Footnote A: Mill. Star Vol. 24, p. 108, et seq.
The Prophet's text was: "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father: to him be glory and dominion forever and ever, Amen." (Revelation of St. John 1:6.)
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."
* * * *
I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for the 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 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? The 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 the Apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just so in the Revelations. 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, * * 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!" * * * 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. * * * Some say I do not interpret the Scriptures 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. You know, and I testify, that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God. * * * 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 [the existence of] a plurality of Gods. * * * Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, "In the beginning God created the heavens 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 a 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."
* * * *
The head God organized the heavens and the earth. * * * In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. * * * * If we pursue the Hebrew text further it reads Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits.-"The head one of the Gods said, Let us make 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.
* * * *
In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. * * * The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods. The head of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take a [this] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness, and perfection of all the Gods.
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, 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." * * * * I want to read the text to you myself—"Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." 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 these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they may all be agreed, as thou, Father, art agreed 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 is as his Father.
* * * *
I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the [Egyptian] 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 [that Father] had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such doctrine, for the Bible is full of it. * * * 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 [him].
* * * *
They found fault with Jesus Christ because he said he was the Son of God, and made himself equal with God. * * * 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 has 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. * * * * 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?
* * * *
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, * * * "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." O thou God who art King of kings and Lord of lords, the sectarian world, by their actions, declare—"We cannot believe thee."
USE OF THE WORD ELOHIM.[A]
BY PROFESSOR W. H. CHAMBERLIN, OF THE BRIGHAM YOUNG COLLEGE, LOGAN, UTAH.
[Footnote A: During the progress of the discussion between the Rev. C. Van Der Donckt and myself, as published in the Improvement Era, Professor William H. Chamberlin of the Brigham Young College, Logan, Utah, contributed the following brief though valuable paper on the use of the word "Elohim" in the Bible, which by his kind consent I am permitted to publish here.]
Two words, El, of which Elim was the plural form, and Eloah, of which Elohim was the plural, were applied generally to Deity by the Hebrew people. All these forms are found in the other Semitic languages, and are, therefore, very ancient in origin.
Under severest discipline the people of Israel were educated in the school of monotheism, in order that God's nature might be revealed to man, and in order that unity might be introduced into the moral life of man. Under this discipline, the people of Israel must have learned to apply the plural form Elohim, which their fathers had used of Deity, in speaking of the one God whom they had been taught to serve.
The Hebrew language would allow them to do this, for a few nouns, when used by them in the plural, seemed to magnify the original idea. In such cases the plural form was treated grammatically as singular. An example may be found in Job 40:15, where the plural form behemoth is used to intensify the image of the animal there being described, as is shown by context. In the same verse, the behemoth is referred to by the singular pronoun he.
But the use of Elohim, in this sense, by the later writers of Israel, is not necessarily opposed to the view that in the earliest documents or writings which the Hebrews possessed, it was applied to a plurality of Gods.
The objection to this view has been made that, with the plural form Elohim, in Gen. 1, the singular verb is used. Such a use of a singular predicate with a plural subject is, however, common in Hebrew. On page 111 of Harper's Hebrew Syntax we find the following rule covering the case, viz: "When the predicate precedes the subject it may agree with the subject in number or it may assume the primary form, viz.: third masculine singular, whatever be the number of the following subject." So the plural form Elohim after a singular verb, the construction found in Gen. i, and elsewhere, is no proof that it is singular in any sense. Similar constructions are found with other words in Gen. i:14, where the singular of the verb haya, be, is followed by the plural noun meoroth, lights; in Gen. 41:50, where the singular verb yullodh, was born, is followed by the plural noun sheney banim, two sons; in Job 42:15, where the singular verb nimtsa, was found, is followed by the plural noun nashim, women. Many similar examples might be given to illustrate the rule.
That Elohim was used in the plural sense in Gen. 1, is shown in the 26th verse, where the Elohim in referring to themselves use the plural suffix, nu, our, twice; and they also use the plural form of the verb naaseh, let us make. Also in Gen. 11:7, where nerdhah, let us descend, and nabhlah, let us confuse, two verbs in the plural form, proceed from the mouth of God, In Gen 3:5. the plural construct participle, yodhe, knowers of, modifies the noun, Elohim, which therefore is also plural. It is just possible that this participle is predicated of the subject you, but the participle would then follow the finite verb, giving a very unusual construction for the early Hebrew writers. One such construction is, however, found in Gen. 4:17, "he became (one) building a city."
The thought of the possibility of God's having with him great associates was alive even to the time of Isaiah, as is shown in Isaiah 6:8, where Jehovah said, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Jehovah was a personal name applied to the Being who guided Israel, and afterwards lived on the earth as Jesus Christ. (III Nephi, 15:5, Doc. and Cov. sec. 110.) Probably few of the Jews were ever able to distinguish Jehovah from Elohim, as it was latterly used, i. e., in the singular sense, and so when late writers wrote down the portion of Genesis where the name of Jehovah began to be used, they placed next to it, for the same purpose for which we now place the marginal reading, the word Elohim. So we have in Gen. 2:4; 3:24, and in some other places, the expression Jehovah Elohim, translated the Lord God. The words were put together late in Israel's history when Elohim had come to be used in the singular; Jehovah Elohim meant Jehovah, i. e., God. Later the explanatory use of the word Elohim was forgotten, and the two words combined to apply to God. (See page 219 of Brown's Hebrew Lexicon, the most authoritative lexicon in English, for the above explanation.)
The use of the singular noun Eloah is almost confined to poetry. It is used in Psalm 18 and in Deut. 32. There is ground for saying that the Savior on the cross in crying out to his Father, used the singular form Eloah. In combining Eloah with the suffix i, meaning my, and expressing the result in Greek the h would be dropped, for there is no letter h in the Greek alphabet. A, which was merely introduced to assist the Hebrew to pronounce the h, would also be dropped. The result would give us Eloi, the form given in the basic gospel, in Mark 15:34. (See also Judges 5:5, of the Septuagint).
In the year 1830, we find Joseph Smith, in the face of the tradition of the whole world, daring to render the word Elohim in Gen i, et seq., in the plural. It is one great evidence of the divinity of the Church of Jesus Christ restored in these last days that its prophet said many things, in the day in which he lived, that a progressive people are beginning to appreciate as true; and so we find learned men sympathizing with the daring position taken above. With reference to Gen. 1:26, and similar passages, we find as one explanation in the lexicon mentioned above, a lexicon based on the work of Gesenius, the great German Hebrew scholar, that God was in consultation with angels. Now, since the term "angel," a term used loosely by the scholars, is made there to mean and refer to superhuman beings sufficiently advanced in intelligence to be included in a consultation with God, we have our prophet's explanation exactly. In conclusion I shall quote the words of the great Biblical scholar, the Rev. A. B. Davidson of Edinburgh, in explanation of the same: "The use of 'us' by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:22, 11:17) is strange, but is perhaps due to his consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Is. 5:8)." (See Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, page 205.)
OMNIPRESENCE OF GOD.[A]
BY ELDER WILLIAM HENRY WHITTALL.
[Footnote A: Millennial Star Vol. xxiii No. 19, p. 292.]
In comparing the ideas of others with our own upon any subject, with a view of coming to a clear understanding and just conclusion on the points discussed, it is both important and necessary that a clear definition of terms be given and received. Most of the disputes which arise in all classes of society, religious and secular, would be avoided to a great extent, if the disputants clearly understood and attended to each other's terms, and clearly defined their own.
Words are frequently used in such different sense—sometimes primary, and sometimes secondary—sometimes literal, and sometimes figurative, that a misconception is often likely to arise, which might be easily prevented, were a plain definition of terms given at the outset. Opposite parties are too apt to place their own constructions on each other's expressions.
"Omnipresence" as all will admit means presence everywhere.
Now, strictly speaking, matter, in its most extensive and comprehensive sense, is the only thing that can be said to be literally everywhere. There are various kinds and degrees of matter; but matter as a whole, and in a general sense, is the only thing that we can conceive of as being everywhere present, and nowhere absent.
One reservation, however, must here be made, for the sake of scientific accuracy,—namely, that wherever matter exists and moves, there is of necessity a corresponding or proportionate extent of space wherein to move.
There is no such thing, however, in all the creations of God, as what is called empty space.
But this fact does not in the least affect our argument; for the motion of matter is merely the displacement of one thing by another—one particle occupying the space which had been previously occupied by another. Thus, if I thrust my hand into a mass of sand, I do not penetrate the grains of sand, (although I do penetrate the sand as a mass,) the hand merely going between, or making its way by displacing the grains with which it comes in contact. No particle of matter can occupy the same identical space as another at the same time; consequently, no portion of matter can in an exclusive and strictly literal sense be omnipresent.
The nearest approach to a literal omnipresence, that we can conceive of, is that of the particles of one kind and degree of matter commingling with those of another.
The following may serve as a simple illustration: In a homely cup of tea, we find the particles of the tea itself intimately mingling with those of the water; those of the sugar mingling with those of the other two elements; and then, again, there are the particles of caloric or heat everywhere present throughout the whole. Yet no one particle of either water, (itself a compound of gases), or tea, or sugar, or cream, can occupy the same space as any other particle. This simple illustration, however homely and commonplace, may serve as an example, on a small scale, of the nearest idea that can be formed of a literal omnipresence, or presence everywhere. The plainer the simile, the better for ease and clearness of thought.
We have now to define what we mean by the term "God."
This word, like many others, is frequently used to represent different ideas. We sometimes employ it in reference to Deity as a person. One of the old prophets saw God sitting on a throne. Of course, then, according to this personal sense of the word, God could not have been everywhere present; for he was on a throne. We often read of God as sitting down, standing up, walking about, &c. Now, a person, when sitting down, does not occupy the same space as when standing up. He always occupies the same amount of space, but no more, whatever posture he may place himself in, or however much he may change his relative positions by moving hither and thither.
Hence it is utterly impossible for God to be personally omnipresent.
But we sometimes speak of God in reference to his attributes of love, wisdom, goodness, influence, power, authority, &c.
The next question, then, is, Can he be said to be omnipresent in these respects?
Yes, undoubtedly so; but not literally.
As these are all abstract terms, it is evident that they cannot be used in a strictly literal sense. Love, power, goodness, wisdom, &c., are not things which occupy space. We cannot measure knowledge by the yard, wisdom by the pint, influence by the inch, or power by the gallon. We cannot speak of authority as occupying so many square or cubic feet of space, or describe the height, depth, length, or width of intelligence or faith. These are all abstract terms; and in describing the extent of any attribute of God or man, we are bound to speak figuratively. We thus speak of "infinite power," of "boundless love," of "illimitable wisdom," of "unbounded influence," of "unlimited authority," of "infinite goodness," &c. If we examine such expressions closely, we cannot but see that they are used in a relative and figurative sense, and not in a strictly literal one. We cannot find room for all these things everywhere. If one thing occupied all space literally, we certainly could not locate half a dozen everywhere! The absurdity of the thing only proves the fallacy of the idea of literal ubiquity in reference to any attribute, the terms, expressive of which cannot be literalized.
But again: We often speak of God in reference to his agents. For example, the Apostle Paul says, "No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." Moses, who called and ordained Aaron, was God's agent. All the servants of the Lord are called by his agents acting in his name and by his authority. When a man is called and ordained to certain functions of the Priesthood, we say that God called him, and that he is a servant of God. Thus, in a relative sense, God may be and is said to be present where he is personally absent, just as her Majesty the Queen may be said to be present throughout all her dominions by her official and representative agents. She is not literally, but virtually or officially, representatively or vicariously present wherever her regal authority is swayed. It is not actually she who is present, but her agents or authorities, who act in her name in her various principalities and colonies.
Again: We often use the term "God" in reference to his Spirit, whereby he is said to be omnipresent.
But we also frequently use the term "Spirit" in more sense than one. Sometimes we speak of the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost as a person. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three distinct persons,—the first two being personages of tabernacle, and the last a personage of spirit. In this sense the Spirit can be no more spatially extended, and no more omnipresent, than the Father or the Son. If, indeed, either of the three could be personally and substantially present everywhere—that is, filling all space, it would puzzle the astutest intellect to conceive where the other two could be located!
The spirit of God, then, or the Holy Ghost, as a personage, cannot be literally omnipresent, although we may (as we often do) speak of him as being present here and there by his influence, authority, and power.
But we also frequently speak of the Spirit of God as a divine substance or influence, of power diffused throughout the spiritual and physical universe, giving vitality, activity, and force to the various things around us, according to certain spiritual and natural laws.
It is, indeed, the inherent life and soul of all things—the inner and eternal principle of life and being. Whether we speak of "Nature" or of the "God of nature," we mean the same thing, unless, by way of distinction, we connect with the latter expression the idea of personality. In the former sense, God is everywhere.
President Young, upon this subject, says—"It is the Deity within us that causes increase. * * * He is in every person upon the face of the earth. The elements that every individual is made of and lives in possess the Godhead * * The Deity within us is the great principle that causes us to increase and to grow in grace and truth."
It will thus be evident that God is, by his Spirit, in this sense, omnipresent. Indeed, we arrive at the conclusion that God (although local in personality) may be said, in various ways and in different senses of the word, to be everywhere present. President Young says—"He is omnipotent, and fills immensity by his agents, by his influence, by his Spirit, and by his ministers." So that, go wheresoever we may, God is there, in some way or other. If we ascend to the heavens above, he is there; if we make the grave our bed, he is there; if we fly to any part of the earth or sea, he is there, and his providence will protect the just.