Will Men Become Gods?

[Porter Rockwell]

This appears to be a fairly hot issue on this board as it pertains to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.. I thought it would be wise to bring up this topic since it is so frequently asked. Thanks to our good scholar Steve Robinson, I think we can help answer the questions leveled against us. Remember, most people really have NO CLUE what we teach or believe in regards to the subject. No one really ever questioned that matter until the Godmakers came out in the 1980"™s (which again I state is completely inaccurate with blatant misrepresentations about what we really believe). Here are some attempts to clarify

The Doctrinal Exclusion[/b]

The exclusion used most often to declare Latter-day Saints non-Christian is the doctrinal exclusion. The many forms this exclusion takes can really be reduced to the same logical argument: Since the Latter-day Saints do not believe what other Christians believe, they must not be Christians. A general weakness of this type of argument is the faulty assumption that all other Christians believe "what Christians believe." By this I mean that no two denominations, and few individual Christians, agree on every detail of Christian doctrine. Most denominations don't even agree on which doctrines are central and must be affirmed by all Christians, and which ones are peripheral and open to debate. Doctrinal diversity is simply a fact of life among the various Christian churches, so how can it be fair to demand of the Latter-day Saints that they alone manifest no doctrinal diversity? And what is the standard or norm by which such "doctrinal diversity" is to be measured? Even if such a demand were fair, it would still be impossible to comply with it, for there is no single, monolithic body of doctrine accepted by all Christians with which the Latter-day Saints could agree, even if they wanted to. Though many Christians have insisted that there is such a universal standard, so far no one has been able to define it to the satisfaction of all the others.

Which Is the "Christian" Doctrine?

Suppose for a moment that the Latter-day Saints were to take seriously the demand that they conform in every particular to "Christian" doctrine, and that they then made the attempt to do so. Having complied with such a demand, would the Latter-day Saints find themselves in total agreement with Protestants or with Catholics? Would they believe in apostolic succession or in the priesthood of all believers? Would they recognize an archbishop, a patriarch, a pope, a monarch, or no one at all as the head of Christ's church on earth? Would they be saved by grace alone, or would they find the sacraments of the church necessary for salvation? Would they believe in free will or in predestination? Would they practice water baptism? If so, would it be by immersion, sprinkling, or some other method? Would they believe in a substitutionary, representative, or exemplary atonement? Would they or would they not believe in "original sin"? And on and on.

It is unreasonable for other Christians to demand that Latter-day Saints conform to a single standard of "Christian" doctrine when they do not agree among themselves upon exactly what that standard is. To do so is to establish a double standard; doctrinal diversity is tolerated in some churches, but not in others. The often-heard claim that all true Christians share a common core of necessary Christian doctrine rests on the dubious proposition that all present differences between Christian denominations are over purely secondary or even trivial matters-matters not central to Christian faith. This view is very difficult to defend in the light of Christian history, and might be easier to accept if Protestants and Catholics- or Protestants and Protestants, for that mat-ter-had not once burned each other at the stake as non-Christian heretics over these same "trivial" differences.

Is Christian Doctrine Always Biblical?

Often those who apply the doctrinal exclusion confuse the terms Christian doctrine and biblical doctrine. Many Christian denominations believe and teach things for doctrine that are not found in the Bible. For example, some Protestants believe that dancing is a sin. Catholics believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. Both Protestants and Catholics believe the doctrinal pronouncements of at least some of the ecumenical councils, yet all such pronouncements are extrabiblical. The Nicene Creed insists that the Father and the Son are consubstantial (Greek homoousios), but neither the word nor the concept is biblical. Yet the Nicene Creed must certainly be considered Christian in the sense that it was written by Christians to help define their beliefs about Christ. Its doctrine is Christian in the generic sense, even though it is not actually biblical in its content.

Is Christian Doctrine Always True?

Those who employ the doctrinal exclusion also frequently confuse the issue of whether a doctrine is true with whether belief in that doctrine necessarily renders one a non-Christian. They confuse being Christian with being correct. Often the doctrinal excluder perceives only two categories of believers: "those who believe what I believe," and "those who are not really Christians." And yet a logical necessity of having a family of Christian denominations is that one Christian may believe things other Christians don't, and still be considered a Christian. Thus, despite the doctrinal excluder's dichotomized view of things, there must be a third category of believers-true Christians whose beliefs differ from one's own.

Critics of the Latter-day Saints frequently assume that if this or that LDS belief can be proved incorrect, it proves that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians. But the two issues (being correct and being Christian) are logically separate. Many Christian denominations hold views that are believed false by other Christian denominations. For example, Catholics believe in the Assumption of the Virgin and in her role as a mediatrix in heaven, while Protestants do not. Protestants generally believe that the Bible is sufficient for salvation, while Catholics do not. Surely these issues are doctrinally significant, and just as surely either Protestants or Catholics must be mistaken about them. Yet neither side (not counting ultraconservatives) insists that the other is non-Christian merely because of its beliefs on these issues. While there is no way to prove the doctrines either true or false, they must be one or the other. And one side or the other will turn out to be wrong. Each feels very strongly that the other is wrong, but in the meantime the denominations involved have agreed to disagree, and both sides of the question are tolerated as generically Christian points of view.

But if doctrinal diversity does not exclude from the Christian family those who disagree on these matters, how can it validly be applied to exclude the Latter-day Saints for disagreeing on others? If doctrinal variance is going to be tolerated in some degree between the older denominations, then in all fairness it cannot be used to selectively exclude the Latter-day Saints.

On the other hand, it has been argued that the diversity tolerated among other Christian denominations is a matter of flexibility within certain broad limits, and that some LDS doctrines are so foreign to either the New Testament or traditional Christianity that they violate even these broad limits and cannot therefore be tolerated. A close examination of the individual LDS doctrines most maligned by the critics on these grounds, however, produces some surprising results. Let's start with the issue that has received the most recent attention, the charge that the Latter-day Saints are pagan "god makers."

The Doctrine of Deification

It is indisputable that Latter-day Saints believe that God was once a human being and that human beings can become gods [though sources are not always stated as Officual doctrine of the Church]

The famous couplet of Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the LDS church, states:

As man now is, God once was;

As God nowis, man may be.

It has been claimed by some that this is an altogether pagan doctrine that blasphemes the majesty of God. Not all Christians have thought so, however. In the second century Saint Irenaeus, the most important Christian theologian of his time, said much the same thing as Lorenzo Snow:

If the Word became a man,

It was so men may become gods.

Indeed, Saint Irenaeus had more than this to say on the subject of deification:

Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High."... For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality.

Also in the second century, Saint Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god"-almost a paraphrase of Lorenzo Snow's statement. Clement also said that "if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God .... His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, 'Men are gods, and gods are men."

Still in the second century, Saint Justin Martyr insisted that in the beginning men "were made like God, free from suffering and death," and that they are thus "deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest."

In the early fourth century Saint Athanasius-that tireless foe of heresy after whom the orthodox Athanasian Creed is named-also stated his belief in deification in terms very similar to those of Lorenzo Snow: "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods .... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." On another occasion Athanasius stated, "He became man that we might be made divine"fn-yet another parallel to Lorenzo Snow's expression.

Finally, Saint Augustine himself, the greatest of the Christian Fathers, said: "But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. 'For he has given them power to become the sons of God' [John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods."

Notice that I am citing only unimpeachable Christian authorities here-no pagans, no Gnostics. All five of the above writers were not just Christians, and not just orthodox Christians -they were orthodox Christian saints. Three of the five wrote within a hundred years of the period of the Apostles, and all five believed in the doctrine of deification. This doctrine was a part of historical Christianity until relatively recent times, and it is still an important doctrine in some Eastern Orthodox churches. Those who accuse the Latter-day Saints of making up the doc- trine simply do not know the history of Christian doctrine. In one of the best works on Catholicism, Father Richard P. McBrien states that a fundamental principle of orthodoxy in the patristic period was to see "the history of the universe as the history of divinization and salvation." As a result the Fathers concluded, according to McBrien, that "because the Spirit is truly God, we are truly divinized by the presence of the Spirit."

In The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, which is not a Mormon publication, the following additional information can be found in the article titled, "Deification":

Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is 'made in the image and likeness of God'.... It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both OT and NT (e.g. Ps. 82 (81).6; 2 Pet. 1.4 and it is essentially the teaching both of St Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (cf. Rom. 8.9-17 Gal. 4.5-7 and the Fourth Gospel (cf. 17.21-23).

The language of II Peter is taken up by St Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, 'if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods' (Adv. Haer V, Pref.), and becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the fourth century St Athanasius repeats Irenaeus almost word for word, and in the fifth century St Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons 'by participation' (Greek methexis). Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St Maximus the Confessor, for whom the doctrine is the corollary of the Incarnation: 'Deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfilment of all times and ages',... and St Symeon the New Theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, 'He who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face.' ...

Finally, it should be noted that deification does not mean absorption into God, since the deified creature remains itself and distinct. It is the whole human being, body and soul, who is transfigured in the Spirit into the likeness of the divine nature, and deification is the goal of every Christian.

Whether the doctrine of deification is correct or incorrect, it was a part of mainstream Christian orthodoxy for centuries, though some modern Christians with a limited historical view may not be aware of it. If this doctrine became "the standard in Greek theology," and if "deification is the goal of every Christian," then the Latter-day Saints can't be banished from the Christian family for having the same theology and the same goal. If Saint Irenaeus, Saint Justin Martyr, Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Athanasius, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Saint Maximus the Confessor, and Saint Symeon the New Theologian all believed that human beings can become gods, and if these good former-day saints are still to be counted as Christians, then the Latter-day Saints cannot be excluded from Christian circles for believing the same thing. In fact this doctrine is not pagan, nor is it foreign to the larger Christian tradition. Since it is found among the theologian/saints from Justin Martyr in the second century to Simeon the New Theologian in the eleventh century, Joseph Smith obviously did not make it up.

There is often much more to the history of Christianity and of Christian doctrine than just what seems familiar and comfortable to twentieth-century conservatives. Yet even among conservative Protestants the doctrine of deification is still occasionally found. Paul Crouch of the Trinity Broadcasting Network says: "I am a little god. I have His name. I am one with Him. I'm in covenant relation. I am a little god. Critics begone." Robert Tilton, a Texas evangelist, says that man is "a God kind of creature. Originally you were designed to be as a god in this world. Man was designed or created by God to be the god of this world." Kenneth Copeland, also of Texas, tells his listeners, "You don't have a god in you. You are one!" He writes that "man had total authority to rule as a god over every living creature on earth."

Now, in fact, the Latter-day Saints would not agree with the doctrine of deification as understood by most of these evangelists, for in the LDS view we receive the full divine inheritance only through the atonement of Christ and only after a glorious resurrection. Closer to the Latter-day Saint understanding of the doctrine are the views expressed by C. S. Lewis, an individual whose genuine Christianity is virtually undisputed: "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you[sa[w] it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.

Elsewhere Lewis writes that the great promise of Christianity is that humans can share Christ's type of life (Greek zoe rather than bios) and thus can become sons and daughters of God. He explains:["[Christ] came to this world and became a man in order to spread to other men the kind of life He has-by what I call 'good infection.' Every Christian is to become a little Christ." In words reminiscent of those used by the Christian Fathers as well as Lorenzo Snow, Lewis succinctly states: "The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God."

In a fuller statement of his doctrine of deification, Lewis practically states the LDS view:

The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.

If C. S. Lewis can think of human beings as "possible gods and goddesses," if he can maintain that "He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess," and if he is still to be considered a Christian-then how can the Latter-day Saints be excluded from the Christian family as rank pagans for believing exactly the same things?

Critics of the Latter-day Saints may respond that the early Christian saints, the later Greek theologians, and C. S. Lewis all understand the doctrine of deification differently than the Latter-day Saints do, but this is untrue in the case of the early Christians and C. S. Lewis. Anyway, such a response amounts to a quibble, for it retreats abjectly from the claim that deification is a pagan doctrine wholly foreign to true Christianity. It argues instead that deification is a Christian doctrine misunderstood by the Latter-day Saints (and abandoned by most others, I might add). But if that is true, then the doctrinal exclusion is no longer valid when based on this doctrine, for-whether the Latter-day Saints interpret it "correctly" or not-deification is not a doctrine they made up out of thin air or borrowed from ancient paganism, nor is it totally foreign and repugnant to true Christianity, nor does it violate the broad limits of what has historically been considered Christian.

It should be noted here that the LDS doctrine of deification is often misrepresented. Despite what our critics claim, the Latter-day Saints do not believe that human beings will ever become the equals of God, or be independent of God, or that they will ever cease to be subordinate to God. For Latter-day Saints, to become gods means to overcome the world through the atonement of Christ (1 Jn. 5:4-5; Rev. 2:7, 11). Thus we become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 4:7) and will inherit all things just as Christ inherits all things (1 Cor. 3:21-23; Revelation 21:?). There are no limitations on these scriptural declarations; we shall inherit all things-including the power to create and to beget. In that glorified state we shall look like our Savior (1 Jn. 3:2; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18) we shall receive his glory and be one with him and with the Father (John 17:21-23; Philip. 3:21). Sitting with God upon the throne of God, we shall rule over all things (Luke 12:44; Rev. 3:21.

Now, if the Christian scriptures teach that we will look like God, receive the inheritance of God, receive the glory of God, be one with God, sit upon the throne of God, and exercise the power and rule of God, then surely it cannot be un-Christian to conclude with C. S. Lewis and others that such beings as these can be called gods, as long as we remember that this use of the term gods does not in any way reduce or limit the sovereignty of God our Father. That is how the early Christians used the term; it is how C. S. Lewis used the term; and it is how the Latter-day Saints use the term and understand the doctrine.

The Plurality of Gods

Actually the real objection in modern Christian churches to the doctrine of deification is often that it implies the existence of more than one God. If human beings can become gods and yet remain distinct beings separate from God, it makes for a universe with many gods. Surely C. S. Lewis realized this implication; so did the early Christian saints. Yet like the Latter-day Saints they did not understand this implication to constitute genuine polytheism.

For both the doctrine of deification and the implied doctrine of plurality of gods, an understanding of the definitions involved is essential. So let's be clear on what Latter-day Saints do not believe. They do not believe that humans will ever be equal to or independent of God. His status in relation to us is not in any way compromised. There is only one source of light, knowledge, and power in the universe. If through the gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God we receive the fulness of God (Eph. 3:19) so that we also can be called gods, humans will never become "ultimate" beings in the abstract, philosophical sense. That is, even as they sit on thrones exercising the powers of gods, those who have become gods by grace remain eternally subordinate to the source of that grace; they are extensions of their Father's power and agents of his will. They will continue to worship and serve the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost forever, and will worship and serve no one and nothing else.

If the Latter-day Saints had chosen to refer to such glorified beings as "angels" instead of "gods," it is unlikely anyone outside the LDS church would have objected to the doctrine per se. It seems that it is only the term that is objectionable. And yet the scriptures themselves often use the word god in this limited sense to refer to nonultimate beings.

For example, in Ps. 8 the word gods (Hebrew elohim) is used in reference to the angels: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels [elohim],and hast crowned him with glory and honour." (Vv. 4-5.) Though the Hebrew reads "gods" (elohim), translators and commentators from the Septuagint on, including the author of Hebrews in the New Testament, have understood the expression to refer to the angels (see Heb. 2:7). The term gods is here applied to beings other than God. Deuteronomy 10: 17, Josh. 22:22, and Ps. 136:2 all insist that God is a "God of gods." Clearly this doesn't mean that there are divine competitors out in the cosmos somewhere; rather, these passages probably also refer to the angels in their divinely appointed roles. If the angels can, in some sense, be considered divine beings because they exercise the powers of God and act as his agents, then the one God they serve is correctly considered a "God of gods." Scholars have long known, and the Dead Sea Scrolls and other literature of the period have now proven, that the Jews in Jesus' day commonly referred to the angels as "gods" (Hebrew elim or elohim) in this nonultimate sense. This is not because the Jews were polytheists, but because they used the term god in a limited sense to refer to other beings associated with God whom he allowed the privilege of exercising divine powers.

But human beings are also called "gods" in scripture, probably for the same reasons that the angels are-they, as well as the angels, can exercise the powers of God and act as his agents. Thus Moses is designated a "god to Pharaoh" (Ex. 7:1). This doesn't mean that Moses had become an exalted or ultimate being, but only that he had been given divine powers and was authorized to represent God to Pharaoh, even to the point of speaking God's word in the first person. If the scriptures can refer to a mortal human being like Moses as a "god" in this sense, then surely immortal human beings who inherit the fulness of God's powers and authority in the resurrection can be understood to be "gods" in the same sense.

In Ex. 21:6 and 22:8-9 human judges are referred to in the Hebrew text as elohim ("gods"). In Ps. 45:6 the king is referred to as an elohim. Human leaders and judges are also referred to as "gods" in the following passage from the book of Psalms: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods .... I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." (Ps. 82:1,6-7 Jewish and Christian biblical scholars alike have understood this passage as applying the term sods to human beings. According to James S. Ackerman, who is not a Mormon, "the overwhelming majority of commentators have interpreted this passage as referring to Israelite judges who were called 'gods' because they had the high responsibility of dispensing justice according to God's Law."

In the New Testament, at John 10:34-36, we read that Jesus himself quoted Ps. 82:6 and interpreted the term gods as referring to human beings who had received the word of God: "Jesus answered them, 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 scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" In other words, 'If the scriptures [Ps. 82] can refer to mortals who receive the word of God as "gods," then why get upset with me for merely saying I am the Son of God?' The Savior's argument was effective precisely because the scripture does use the term gods in this limited way to refer to human beings. According to J. A. Emerton, who is also not a Mormon, "most exegetes are agreed that the argu- ment is intended to prove that men can, in certain circumstances, be called gods .... [Jesus] goes back to fundamental principles and argues, more generally, that the word 'god' can, in certain circumstances, be applied to beings other than God himself, to whom he has committed authority."

And that, in a nutshell, is the LDS view. Whether in this life or the next, through Christ human beings can be given the powers of God and the authority of God. Those who receive this great inheritance can properly be called gods. They are not gods in the Greek philosophic sense of "ultimate beings," nor do they compete with God, the source of their inheritance, as objects of worship. They remain eternally his begotten sons and daughters -therefore, never equal to him nor independent of him. Orthodox theologians may argue that Latter-day Saints shouldn't use the term gods for nonultimate beings, but this is because the Latter-day Saints' .use of the term violates Platonic rather than biblical definitions. Both in the scriptures and in earliest Christianity those who received the word of God were called gods.

I don't need to repeat here the views of Christian saints and theologians cited above on the doctrine of deification. But it should be noted that for them, as for the Latter-day Saints, the doctrine of deification implied a plurality of "gods" but not a plurality of Gods. That is, it did not imply polytheism. Saint Clement of Alexandria was surely both a monotheist and a Christian, and yet he believed that those who are perfected through the gospel of Christ "are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first installed in their places by the Savior." This is good LDS doctrine. If Clement, the Christian saint and theologian, could teach that human beings will be called gods and will sit on thrones with others who have been made gods by Jesus Christ, how in all fairness can Joseph Smith be declared a polytheist and a non-Christian for teaching the same thing?

In harmony with widely recognized scriptural and historical precedents, Latter-day Saints use the term gods to describe those who will, through the grace of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ, receive of God's fulness - of his divine powers and pre-rogatives-in the resurrection. Thus, for Latter-day Saints the question "Is there more than one god?" is not the same as "Isthere more than one source of power or object of worship in the universe?" For Latter-day Saints, as for Saint Clement, the answer to the former is yes, but the answer to the latter is no. For Latter-day Saints the term god is a title which can be extended to those who receive the power and authority of God as promised to the faithful in the scriptures; but such an extension of that title does not challenge, limit, or infringe upon the ultimate and absolute position and authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

When anti-Mormon critics interpret Exodus ?: 1, Deut. 10:1 ?, Ps. 8:5 (in Hebrew), Ps. 45:6, Ps. 82:6, or John 10:34-36, they go to great lengths to clarify that these scriptures use the term god in a limited sense and that therefore they do not involve any polytheism-there may be more than one "god," but there is only one God. When they discuss Latter-day Saint writings that use the term god in the same sense, however, the critics seldom offer the same courtesy. Instead they disallow any limited sense in which the term gods can be used when that term occurs in LDS sources, thereby distorting and misinterpreting our doctrine, and then accuse us of being "polytheists" for speaking of "gods" in a sense for which there are valid scriptural and historical precedents.

Other Christian saints, theologians, and writers-both ancient and modern-have believed human beings can become "gods" but have not been accused of polytheism, because the "gods" in this sense were viewed as remaining forever subordinate to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Since this is also the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, they also ought to enjoy the same defense against the charge of polytheism. Since these other Christians and the Latter-day Saints share the same doctrine, they should share the same fate; either make polytheist heretics of the saints, theologians, and writers in question, or allow the Latter-day Saints to be considered worshippers of the one true God.

Summary

The doctrinal exclusion is invalid often on general principles because it demands doctrinal conformity to a standard that does not really exist, to a "pure" Christianity which cannot be agreed upon by all Christians. Therefore it is a moving target which changes from denomination to denomination; all parties demand that Latter-day Saints be more "orthodox," but each defines "orthodoxy" differently. The doctrinal exclusion assumes that Christianity is one monolithic point of view when in fact the multiplicity of Christian denominations witnesses that it is not. Those who employ the doctrinal exclusion often recog- nize only two categories: those whose doctrine agrees with their own and those who are "not Christians." But without a third category-that is, Christians whose doctrine is different than one's own but who are still Christians-the very idea of a family of independent Christian denominations is impossible.

Still, the claim is made that certain LDS doctrines are so bizarre, so totally foreign to biblical or historical Christianity, that they simply cannot be tolerated. In terms of the LDS doctrines most often criticized on these grounds, however-the doctrine of deification and its corollary, the plurality of gods-this claim does not hold up to historical scrutiny. Early Christian saints and theologians, later Greek Orthodoxy, modern Protestant evangelists, and even C. S. Lewis have all professed their belief in a doctrine of deification. The scriptures themselves talk of many "gods" and use the term god in a limited sense for beings other than the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost. If this language is to be tolerated in scripture and in ancient and modern orthodox Christians without cries of "polytheism!" then it must be similarly tolerated in the Latter-day Saints. If scripture can use the term gods for nonultimate beings, if the early Church could, if Christ himself could, then Latter-day Saints cannot conceivably be accused of being outside the Christian tradition for using the same term in the same way.

Again, I am not arguing that the doctrine is true, although I certainly believe it is. I am only arguing that other Christians of unimpeachable orthodoxy have believed in deification long before the Latter-day Saints came along, and that it has been accepted and tolerated in them as part of their genuine Christianity. Fair play demands the same treatment for the Latter-day Saints.

President Snow often referred to this couplet as having been revealed to him by inspiration during the Nauvoo period of the Church. See, for example, Deseret Weekly 49 (3 November 1894): 610; Deseret Weekly 57 (8 October 1898): 513; Deseret News 52 (15 June 1901): 177; and Journal History of the Church, 20 July 1901, p. 4.

Other references

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, bk. 5, pref.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.38. Cp. 4.11 (2): "But man receives progression and increase towards God. For as God is always the same, so also man, when found in God, shall always progress towards God."

Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1.

Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.1. See also Clement, Stro-mateis, 23.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124.

Athanasius, Against the Arians, 1.39, 3.34.

Athanasius, De Inc., 54.

Augustine, On the Psalms, 50.2. Augustine insists that such individuals are gods by grace rather than by nature, but they are gods nevertheless.

Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980), 1:146, 156; emphasis in original.

Symeon Lash, "Deification," in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Alan Richardson and John Bowden (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), pp. 147-48.

For a longer treatment of this subject, see Jules Gross, La divinisa-tion du chrétien d'aprè les pères grecs (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1938).

Paul Crouch, "Praise the Lord," Trinity Broadcasting Network, 7 July 1986.

Robert Tilton, God's Laws of Success (Dallas: Word of Faith, 1983), pp. 170-71.

Kenneth Copeland, The Force of Love (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland, n.d.), tape BCC-56.

Kenneth Copeland, The Power of the Tongue (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland, n.d.), p. 6. I am not arguing that these evangelists are mainline evangelicals (though they would insist that they are), only that they are Protestants with large Christian followings.

C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, Collier Books, 1980), p. 18.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952; Collier Books, 1960), p. 153. Cp. p. 164, where Lewis describes Christ as "finally, if all goes well, turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new little Christ, a being which, in its own small way, has the same kind of life as God; which shares in His power, joy, knowledge and eternity." See also C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1982), p. 38, where the tempter Screwtape complains that God intends to fill heaven with "little replicas of Himself."

Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 154.

Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 174-75. For a more recent example of the doctrine of deification in modern, non-LDS Christianity, see M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978) pp. 269-70: "For no matter how much we may like to *****foot around it, all of us who postulate a loving God and really think about it even- tually come to a single terrifying idea: God wants us to become Himself (or Herself or Itself). We are growing toward godhood."

Most critics are surprised to know how highly the thinking of C. S. Lewis is respected by Latter-day Saint readers.

See, for example, John Strugnell, The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran -4 Q Serek Sirot 'Olat Hassabat in Supplements to Vetus Testamenturn VII [Congress Volume, Oxford 1959], (Leiden: Brill, 1960), pp. 336-38, or A. S. van der Woude, "Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neuge-fundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI," Oudtestamentische Studiën 14 ( 1965): 354-73.

James S. Ackerman, "The Rabbinic Interpretation of Ps. 82 and the Gospel of John," Harvard Theological Review 59 (April 1966): 186.

J. A. Emerton, "The Interpretation of Ps. 82 in John 10," Journal of Theological Studies 11 (April 1960): 329, 332. This was also the view of Saint Augustine in writing of this passage in On the Psalms, 50.2: "It is evident, then, that he has called men 'gods,' who are deified by his grace" (cf. also 97.12).

Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 7.10.

God Bless,

Porter.

[Goose 11]

NO.

[DaveH]

Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Nope. Just ONE GOD. NOT many gods. No other gods. Just the One who created the universe and everything in it. He is the ONLY one.

[Porter Rockwell]

Goose,

Please offer some insight to your thinking. Why is it a no? Other Protestant and Evangelical believe it is a possibility, why cant you? I would ask that you would offer something other than just "Because it is unbiblical." The prior post certain grants a very good possibility that it is. Just because a rather extreme Fundamentalist Non Denominational Evangelical does not beleive it to be so cannot just simply be the case. I don't know if you fall into this category or not, but if you doI would content that you seek to eliminate any and all other that don't fall under YOUR doctrinal standard. Just because YOUR doctrinal standard does not meet with someone elses. Your doctrine is the doctrine of exclusion and not inclusion. Generally people who adopt the exclusionist perspective will exclude more than just members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I find it interesting that even among conservative Christians like Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts and Robert Schuller they are branded by Evangelical, Biblical inerrant Fundamentalists as herectical or non Christian. For those who would brand these three among others, their operating defintion of the family of Christian Churches is very small indeed. There operating definition is always "Follow my defintion or you are not one of us." I hope you are not part of this radical side. No offense intended.

God Bless,

Porter.

[Porter Rockwell]

Dave,

Please refer to my post to Goose and respond accordingly if you will. Should I rephrase the question at the beginning? It was an invitation to dialogue that would elicit some further understanding, not exclusion.

Thanks,

Porter.

[Moose75]

Will Men Become Gods?

NO.

[Moose75]

Can Humans Become Gods?
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.




One of the more eye-opening beliefs of Mormonism is the polytheistic notion that humans can become gods. Standard Mormon theology maintains that even God (the Father) and Jesus Christ were once human. They were preceded by other humans who themselves progressed to the status of gods.
Of course, this doctrine was not presented initially by Joseph Smith, but was developed after the production of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon actually contradicts later Mormon revelation, in that it affirmed in 1830 the biblical doctrine of the oneness of God in three persons, i.e., the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Observe the conversation between Ammon and King Lamoni:

[blockquote]
And then Ammon said: "œBelievest thou that there is a Great Spirit?"� And he said, "œYea."� And Ammon said: "œThis is God."� And Ammon said unto him again: "œBelievest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?"� And he said: "œYea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens."� And Ammon said unto him: "œThe heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels."¦ I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people"� (Alma 18:26-30).[/blockquote]
Nephi declared: "œAnd now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end"� (2 Nephi 31:21, emp. added). Amulek contended with the diabolical Zeezrom: "œAnd Zeezrom said unto him: "˜Thou sayest there is a true and living God?"™ And Amulek said: "˜Yea, there is a true and living God."™ Now Zeezrom said: "˜Is there more than one God?"™ And he answered, "˜No"™"� (Alma 11:26-29, emp. added).
The Book of Mormon also affirmed that Jesus was God in the flesh:

[blockquote]
And now Abinadi said unto them: "œI would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son"”the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son"”And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth"� (Mosiah 15:1-4, emp. added).[/blockquote]
Even the "œthree witnesses"� to the Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, affirmed monotheism and the oneness of God: "œAnd the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God"� ("œThe Testimony,"� 1981, emp. added). Joseph Smith affirmed the same thing in the Articles of Faith: "œWe believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost"� (Pearl, 1981, p. 60).
These teachings certainly are in harmony with the Bible. The Bible repeatedly and frequently affirms the doctrine of monotheism and the unity of God: Deuteronomy 4:35,39; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6,8; 45:5; 46:9; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4,6; 1 Timothy 2:5. These and many other passages indicate "œthere is but one infinite Spirit Being, and that within that one Spirit essence there are three personal distinctions, each of which may be, and is, called God"� (Lanier, 1974, p. 46). There is only one divine essence (ousia) or nature (phusis)"”a solidaric unity"”one divine substance in (not and) three persons (prosopa or persona), with each "œperson"� being the subsistence (hupostaseis) of the divine Essence [NOTE: for discussions of the concept of Trinity and its treatment in church history, see Archer, 1982, pp. 357-361; Bickersteth, n.d.; Boles, 1942, pp. 19ff.; Chadwick, 1967, pp. 84ff.; Schaff, 1910, 3:670ff.; Walker, 1970, pp. 106ff.; Warfield, 1939a, 5:3012-3022].
But by 1844, Joseph Smith had begun to advocate a very different understanding of deity"”in direct contradiction to the Book of Mormon. He began to promulgate the idea that God had, in fact, previously been a man Himself Who had become exalted, and that all men were capable of the same progression (see Tanner, 1972, p. 163). This shift was expressed formally in the Pearl of Great Price where, in the Book of Moses, God is spoken of in the singular throughout. For example: "œI am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest"� (2:1). In stark contrast, however, in the Book of Abraham, in a section discussing the same creation event, God is spoken of as "œGods."� For example:

[blockquote]And then the Lord said: "œLet us go down."� And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.... And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night....And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed.... And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness....And the Gods planted a garden, eastward in Eden, and there they put the man, whose spirit they had put into the body which they had formed (4:1,5,18; 5:8, emp. added).
[/blockquote]
Anyone who is familiar with the King James Version cannot help but be struck with the fact that the author of the Book of Abraham had before him a copy of a KJV and merely paraphrased the text. It is equally apparent that the author "œhad an axe to grind"� in adjusting the text to foist upon the reader the notion of multiple "œgods."� In fact, in the thirtyone verses of chapter four, the term "œGods"� is used thirty-two times! It is used sixteen times in chapter five! Polytheism now so thoroughly permeates Mormonism that one Mormon apostle asserted that humans are the offspring of the union between an Eternal Father and an Eternal Mother (McConkie, 1979, p. 516)![align=center]"œLET US MAKE MAN"�[/align]Separate and apart from the issue of the inspiration of the Book of Mormon (see Miller, 2003), the question must be asked: Does the Bible give credence to the notion of multiple gods? Certainly not! However, various verses have been marshaled in an effort to defend the Mormon viewpoint. For example, on the sixth day of Creation, God said, "œLet Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness"� (Genesis 1:26). It is alleged by Mormons that the use of the plural in this verse implies a multiplicity of "œgods."� However, an examination of the context reveals that the doctrine of the Trinity is being conveyed (see Leupold, 1942, 1:86ff.).

The Holy Spirit was active at the Creation, "œhovering over the face of the waters"� (1:2). "œHovering"� refers to attentive participation (cf. Deuteronomy 32:11). Elsewhere, the Bible makes clear that Jesus also was present at the Creation, in active participation with Deity"™s creative activity (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; 2:10). Hence, when God spoke of "œUs,"� He was referring to Himself and the other two members of the divine Essence [cf. "œGodhead"� (theotes) in Colossians 2:9, "œdivine"� nature (theios) in Acts 17:29 and 2 Peter 1:3-4, and "œdivinity"� (theioteis) in Romans 1:20. The first term (theotes) differs from the third term (theioteis) "œas essence differs from quality or attribute"� (Thayer, 1901, p. 288; cf. Vine, 1966, pp. 328-329; Warfield, 1939b, 2:1268-1270)]. Some (e.g., Archer, 1982, p. 74) have suggested that God was including the angels in the "œus,"� since "œsons of God"� sometimes can refer to the angels (e.g., Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; cf. Psalms 29:1; 89:6), and "œsons of God"� can be shortened to "œGod"� while still referring to angels (e.g., compare Psalm 97:7 with Hebrews 1:6, and Psalm 8:5 with Hebrews 2:7,9). In either case, the fact remains that the Bible presents a consistent picture that there is only one God, and that this divine essence includes three"”and only three"”persons.[align=center]"œYE SHALL BE AS GODS"�[/align]
Another verse that has been brought forward to substantiate Mormon polytheism is the comment made on the occasion of Adam and Eve being tempted to eat the forbidden fruit: "œFor God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil"� (Genesis 3:5"”NKJV). The King James Version says, "œye shall be as gods."� Four points of clarification are in order on this verse. In the first place, Satan made this statement"”not God. Satan"™s declarations are never to be trusted, since he is "œa liar and the father of it"� (John 8:44).
In the second place, the uncertainty conveyed by the various English translations in their differing treatment of the verse (i.e., whether "œGod"� or "œgods"�) is the result of the underlying Hebrew term elohim. This word is not to be confused with Yahweh, the formal name for God throughout the Old Testament. Elohim is a generic term used some 2,570 times in Scripture, and generally refers to the one true God, but also is used to refer to pagan gods, and even can refer to judges or rulers and, as noted previously, to angels (Harris, et al., 1980, 1:44-45). Though the word is plural in form, it is used in both the plural and singular sense [cf. "œface"� (panim)"”Genesis 50:1; Exodus 34:35 and "œimage"� (teraphim)"”1 Samuel 19:13]. English shares a similar phenomenon with its plural nouns like "œdeer,"� "œseed,"� "œsheep,"� and "œmoose."� The same form is used, whether referring to one or to many. Hebrew, like most other languages, matched the number (whether singular or plural) of verbs and adjectives with the noun. In the case of elohim, with only rare exception, the verbs and adjectives used with it are either singular or plural in conformity with the intended meaning (Ringgren, 1974, p. 272). Fretheim noted that its use in the Old Testament for Israel"™s God is "œalways with singular verbs"� (1997, 1:405; cf. Archer, 1982, p. 74).
Some Hebrew scholars maintain that the plural form used to designate the one true God is the pluralis majestatis or excellentiae"”the plural of majesty"”or the plural of intensification, absolutization, or exclusivity (e.g., Fretheim, 1:405; Gesenius, 1847, p. 49; Harris, et al., p. 44; Mack, 1939, 2:1265; Reeve, 1939, 2:1270), although others question this usage (e.g., Grudem, 1994, p. 227; Jenni and Westermann, 1997, p. 116). In the case at hand, Satan was tempting Eve with the prospect of being like God"”Whom she knew, and from Whom she (or at least her husband) had received previous communication (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:3). She knew nothing of other "œgods"�"”pagan or otherwise. Since the term elohim occurs 58 times in the first three chapters of Genesis and is consistently rendered "œGod,"� and since Satan himself used the term earlier in the same verse as well as four verses earlier (vs. 1) to refer to the one God, no contextual, grammatical, or lexical reason exists for rendering it "œgods"� in verse five. In fact, most of the major English translations properly render it "œGod"� (e.g., NKJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV). [See also the discussion in Clarke, n.d., 1:50, who noted that the ancient Syriac version rendered the term correctly].
Third, elohim in this verse has an attached prefix (Biblia Hebraica, 1967/77, p. 4)"”what Hebrew scholars call an "œinseparable preposition"� (Weingreen, 1959, p. 26). In this case, the prepositional prefix is the eleventh letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the kaph, and means "œlike"� or "œas."� Satan was not saying that Eve would become God or a god; He was saying she would become like God. This realization brings us to a fourth point: the context stipulates in what way Eve would become like God. In the very verse under consideration, an explanatory phrase clarifies what Satan meant: "œYou will be like God, knowing good and evil"� (emp. added). This meaning is evident from subsequent references in the same chapter. When they disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit, "œthe eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew"¦"� (verse 7, emp. added). God commented: "œBehold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil"� (verse 22, emp. added). In other words, Adam and Eve became like God in the sense that they now were privy to a greater breadth of awareness, understanding, and insight: "œThey now had a sufficient discovery of their sin and folly in disobeying the command of God; they could discern between good and evil; and what was the consequence? Confusion and shame were engendered, because innocence was lost and guilt contracted"� (Clarke, p. 51). As Keil and Delitzsch summarized: "œBy eating the fruit, man did obtain the knowledge of good and evil, and in this respect became like God"� (1976, 1:95, emp. added).[align=center]GOD OF GODS[/align]
A third attempt to substantiate the Mormon doctrine of plural gods is the use of various verses from the Bible that speak of God being a "œGod of gods."� For example, on the occasion of the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, the "œSong of Moses"� declared: "œWho is like You, O Lord, among the gods"� (Exodus 15:11, emp. added). Forty years later, in his stirring challenge to the Israelites to be firm in their future commitment to God, he reminded them: "œFor the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome"� (Deuteronomy 10:17, emp. added). During the days of Joshua, some of the Israelites exclaimed: "œThe Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, He knows"� (Joshua 22:22, emp. added). These verses, and many more in the Bible, speak of "œgods"� in such a way that a cursory reading might leave one with the impression that the Bible teaches that "œgods"� actually existed. However, one cannot really study the Bible and come away with that conclusion. The Bible presents a thoroughgoing monotheistic view of reality. It repeatedly conveys the fact that "œgods"� are merely the figment of human imagination, invented by humans to provide themselves with exemption from following the one true God by living up to the higher standard of deity. Humans throughout history have conjured up their own imaginary gods to justify freedom from restriction and to excuse relaxed moral behavior.
Consequently, all verses in the Bible that use the term "œgods"� to refer to deity (with the exception of the one God) are referring to nonexistent deities that humans have invented. When God gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, the very first one said: "œYou shall have no other gods before Me"� (Exodus 20:3). Liberal higher critics of the Bible (like Wellhausen) have alleged that this dictum advocated only monolatry (exclusive worship of Yahweh) rather than actually denying the existence of other gods. Distinguished professor of Old Testament languages, Gleason Archer, has maintained, however, that "œthis construction of the words is quite unwarranted"� (1974, p. 235). Many additional passages clarify the point. For example, the psalmist declared: "œFor the Lord is great and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all gods"� (Psalm 96:4, emp. added). One might get the impression from this verse by itself that the psalmist thought that "œgods"� actually existed. However, the next verse sets the record straight: "œFor all the gods of the peoples are idols, but the Lord made the heavens"� (vs. 5, emp. added). The Hebrew word for "œidols"� (elilim) means "œof nothing, of nought, empty, vain"� (Gesenius, p. 51). Notice carefully the contrast the psalmist was making. The people made their gods; but the one true God made the heavens (i.e., the Universe). The genuineness, reality, and greatness of God are placed in contrast to the people"™s fake, nonexistent gods who could not make anything. Archer concluded: "œThis passage alone"¦demonstrates conclusively that the mention of "˜gods"™ in the plural implied no admission of the actual existence of heathen gods in the first commandment"� (1974, p. 236). As God Himself announced: "œThey have provoked Me to jealousy by what is not God"� (Deuteronomy 32:21, emp. added).
The denunciation of the Israelites for conjuring up false gods"”pretending that such actually existed, rather than devoting themselves exclusively to the one and only God"”reached its zenith in the eloquent preaching pronouncements of the Old Testament prophets. Elijah treated the notion of the existence of gods in addition to the one God with sarcasm and forthright ridicule (1 Kings 18:27-29). The idea of multiple gods would have been laughable, if it were not so spiritually serious (cf. Psalm 115:2-8). The people on that occasion finally got the point, for they shouted: "œThe Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!"� (vs. 39).
Likewise, the reality of monotheism was pure, well defined, and single minded for Jeremiah. He frequently chastised the people by accusing them of following gods that were, in fact, "œnot gods"� (2:11; 5:7; 16:20). Isaiah was equally adamant and explicit:

[blockquote]You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior. I have declared and saved, I have proclaimed, and there was no foreign god among you; therefore you are My witnesses, says the Lord, that I am God. Indeed, before the day was, I am He; and there is no one who can deliver out of My hand; I work, and who will reverse it? (43:10-13, emp. added; cf. 37: 19; 40:18-20; 41; 44:8-24).
[/blockquote]
Over and over, Isaiah recorded the exclusivity of the one true God: "œI am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me"� (45:5, emp. added); "œThere is no other God"� (45:14, emp. added); "œI am the Lord, and there is no other"� (45:18, emp. added).
The New Testament continues the same recognition of the nonexistence of deities beyond the one God Who exists in three persons. Paul reminded the Galatian Christians of their pre-Christian foolish belief in other deities: "œBut then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods"� (4:8, emp. added). By definition, the "œgods"� that people claim actually exist are not gods! In his lengthy discussion of whether Christians were permitted to eat foods that had been sacrificed to pagan deities, Paul clarified succinctly the Bible position on the existence of so-called gods:

[blockquote]Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live (1 Corinthians 8:4-6, emp. added).
[/blockquote]
In this passage, Paul declared very forthrightly that idols, and the gods they represent, are, in fact, nonentities. The RSV renders the meaning even more clearly: "œWe know that an idol has no real existence, and that there is no God but one"� (emp. added).
Of course, Paul recognized and acknowledged that humans have worshipped imaginary, nonexistent gods in heaven (like Greek mythology advocated) and on Earth (in the form of idols). He used the figure of speech known as "œmetonymy of the adjunct,"� where "œthings are spoken of according to appearance, opinions formed respecting them, or the claims made for them"� (Bullinger, 1898, p. 597; Dungan, 1888, p. 295; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4). He spoke of "œgods"� as if they existed, simply because many people of his day had that opinion. But Paul knew "œthere is no God but one."� As Allen observed: "œThe gods (i.e., the so-called divine beings contemplated by the pagans) represented by the images did not exist. "¦[T]hey were nothing as far as representing the deities envisioned by the heathen"� (1975, p. 98, emp. added; cf. Kelcy, 1967, p. 38; Thomas, 1984, p. 30).
Paul continued his discussion of idols two chapters later, and again affirmed the nonexistence of any deities besides God: "œWhat am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything?"� (1 Corinthians 10:19). For Paul, it was technically permissible for a Christian to eat food that had previously been used in a pagan ceremony as an offering to a "œgod."� Why? Because such "œgods"� did not, and do not, actually exist"”except in the mind of the worshipper (cf. 8:7-8)! Thus, the food used in such ceremonies was unaffected. However, the person who really thinks there are "œgods,"� and who then worships these imaginary "œgods,"� is, in actuality, worshipping demons (10:20)! Paul said there are only two possibilities: "œBut I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons"� (10:20-21). Paul envisioned no class of beings known as "œgods."� There is only the one true God, and then there are the demons and forces of Satan (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:15-16). This bifurcation of the spiritual realm (i.e., God versus Satan and his forces) is the consistent portrait presented throughout the Bible. The Bible simply admits no knowledge or possibility of "œgods."�[align=center]YE ARE GODS[/align]
A final passage that is alleged to support the notion of "œgods"� is the statement made by Jesus when the Jews wanted to stone Him because He claimed divinity for Himself:

[blockquote]The Jews answered Him, saying, "œFor a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."� Jesus answered them, "œIs it not written in your law, "˜I said, "œYou are gods"�?"™ If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came"¦do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, "œYou are blaspheming,"� because I said, "œI am the Son of God"�? (John 10:33-36).
[/blockquote]
Mormons allege that Jesus here endorsed the notion that men can become "œgods."� But, of course, Jesus did no such thing. On this occasion, He appealed to an Old Testament context to deflect the barb of His critics. Psalm 82 is a passage that issued a scathing indictment of the unjust judges who had been assigned the responsibility of executing God"™s justice among the people (cf. Deuteronomy 1:16; 19:17-18; Psalm 58). Such a magistrate was "œGod"™s minister"� (Romans 13:4) who acted in the place of God, wielding His authority, and who was responsible for mediating God"™s help and justice (cf. Exodus 7:1). In this sense, they were "œgods"� (elohim)"”acting as God to men (Barclay, 1956, 2:89). Hebrew parallelism clarifies this sense: "œI said, "˜You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High"™"� (Psalm 82:6, emp. added). They did not share divinity with God"”but merely delegated jurisdiction. They still were mere humans"”although invested with divine authority, and permitted to act in God"™s behalf.
This point is apparent throughout the Torah, where the term translated "œjudges"� or "œruler"� is often elohim (e.g., Exodus 21:6; 22:9,28). Take Moses as an example. Moses was not a "œgod."� Yet God told Moses that when he went to Egypt to achieve the release of the Israelites, he would be "œGod"� to his brother Aaron and to Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). He meant that Moses would supply both his brother and Pharaoh with the words that came from God. Though admittedly a rather rare use of elohim, nevertheless "œit shows that the word translated "˜god"™ in that place might be applied to man"� (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, emp. in orig.). Clarke summarized this point: "œYe are my representatives, and are clothed with my power and authority to dispense judgment and justice, therefore all of them are said to be children of the Most High"� (3:479, emp. in orig.). But because they had shirked their awesome responsibility to represent God"™s will fairly and accurately, and because they had betrayed the sacred trust bestowed upon them by God Himself, He decreed death upon them (vs. 7). Obviously, they were not "œgods,"� since God could and would execute them!
Jesus marshaled this Old Testament psalm to thwart His opponents"™ attack, while simultaneously reaffirming His deity (which is the central feature of the book of John"”20:30-31). He made shrewd use of syllogistic argumentation by reasoning a minori ad majus (see Lenski, 1943, pp. 765-770; cf. Fishbane, 1985, p. 420). "œJesus is here arguing like a rabbi from a lesser position to a greater position, a "˜how much more"™ argument very popular among the rabbis"� (Pack, 1975, 1:178). In fact, "œit is an argument which to a Jewish Rabbi would have been entirely convincing. It was just the kind of argument, an argument founded on a word of scripture, which the Rabbis loved to use and found most unanswerable"� (Barclay, 1956, p. 90).
Jesus identified the unjust judges of Israel as persons "œto whom the word of God came"� (John 10:35). That is, they had been "œappointed judges by Divine commission"� (Butler, 1961, p. 127)"”by "œthe command of God; his commission to them to do justice"� (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, emp. in orig.; cf. Jeremiah 1:2; Ezekiel 1:3; Luke 3:2). McGarvey summarized the ensuing argument of Jesus: "œIf it was not blasphemy to call those gods who so remotely represented the Deity, how much less did Christ blaspheme in taking unto himself a title to which he had a better right than they, even in the subordinate sense of being a mere messenger"� (n.d., p. 487). Charles Erdman observed:

[blockquote]By his defense Jesus does not renounce his claim to deity; but he argues that if the judges, who represented Jehovah in their appointed office, could be called "œgods,"� in the Hebrew scriptures, it could not be blasphemy for him, who was the final and complete revelation of God, to call himself "œthe Son of God (1922, pp. 95-96; cf. Morris, 1971, pp. 527-528).
[/blockquote]
This verse teaches the exact opposite of what Mormons would like for it to teach! It brings into stark contrast the deity"”the Godhood"”of Christ (and His Father Who "œsanctified and sent"� Him"”vs. 36) with the absence of deity for all others! There are no other "œgods"� in the sense of deity, i.e., eternality and infinitude in all attributes. Jesus verified this very conclusion by directing the attention of His accusers to the "œworks"� that He performed (vs. 37-38). These "œworks"� (i.e., miraculous signs) proved the divine identity of Jesus to the exclusion of all other alleged deities. Archer concluded: "œBy no means, then, does our Lord imply here that we are sons of God just as He is"”except for a lower level of holiness and virtue. No misunderstanding could be more wrongheaded than that"� (1982, p. 374). Indeed, the Mormon notion of a plurality of gods is "œwrongheaded,"� as is the accompanying claim that humans can become gods.[align=center]CONCLUSION[/align]
It is unthinkable that the consistent prohibition of polytheism and idolatry throughout the Bible would or could give way to the completely contrary notion that, as a matter of fact, many gods do exist, and that these gods are merely exalted humans who now rule over their own worlds even as God and Christ rule over theirs. It is likewise outlandish"”and contradictory"”that humans would be required to worship God and Christ"”while being banned from worshipping these other gods. The fact of the matter is that "œhistoric Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic"� (Mack, 1939, 2:1265). The same may be said of historic Christianity. To think otherwise is pure pagan hocus-pocus"”"œa mere creation of the imagination, a mere matter of superstition"� (Erdman, 1928, p. 78, emp. added).[align=center]REFERENCES[/align]
Allen, Jimmy (1975), Survey of 1 Corinthians (Searcy, AR: Privately published by author).
Archer, Gleason L. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.
Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Barclay, William (1956), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press), second edition.
Barnes, Albert (1949 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Luke and John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Bickersteth, Edward (no date), The Trinity (MacDill AFB, FL: MacDonald Publishing).
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/77), (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung).
Boles, H. Leo (1942), The Holy Spirit: His Personality, Nature, Works (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1971 reprint).
Book of Mormon (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Butler, Paul (1961), The Gospel of John (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Chadwick, Henry (1967), The Early Church (New York: Penguin Books).
Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke"™s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).
Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Erdman, Charles (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Erdman, Charles (1928), The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Fishbane, Michael (1985), Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Fretheim, Terence (1997), "œelohim,"� The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1979 reprint.
Grudem, Wayne (1994), Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann (1997), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Kelcy, Raymond C. (1967), First Corinthians (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Lanier, Roy H., Sr. (1974), The Timeless Trinity for the Ceaseless Centuries (Denver, CO: Roy H. Lanier, Sr.).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. John"™s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Leupold, Herbert C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1950 reprint).
Mack, Edward (1939), "œNames of God,"� International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
McConkie, Bruce (1979), Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft).
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Miller, Dave (2003), "œIs the Book of Mormon From God?"� [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2243
Morris, Leon (1971), The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Pack, Frank (1975), The Gospel According to John (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Pearl of Great Price (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Reeve, J.J. (1939), "œGods,"� International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1974 reprint.
Ringgren, Helmer (1974), "œelohim,"� Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Schaff, Philip (1910), History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979 reprint).
Tanner, Jerald and Sandra (1972), Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City, UT: Modern Microfilm).
Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
"œThe Testimony of Three Witnesses"� (1981 reprint), Introduction to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Thomas, J.D. (1984), The Message of the New Testament: First Corinthians (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press).
Vine, W.E. (1966 reprint), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Walker, Williston (1970), A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner"™s Sons).
Warfield, Benjamin (1939a), "œTrinity,"� International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
Warfield, Benjamin (1939b), "œGodhead,"� International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
Weingreen, J. (1959), A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Oxford University Press), second edition

[gman1969]

Hi Porter,

A few questions:

1) In simple terms define "god" for me as it pertains to your understanding of what man may become according toyour belief.

2) As a "god", what will man be able to do, what will be his abilities, limits, etc...

3) How does the "god" that man can attain to differ from the God of the Bible in your belief?

4) Is there really a difference?

5) According to your belief, has the God of the Bible always been God, or was He once was as we are now?

Thanks.

[Goose 11]

Mr. Porter,

Your doctrine is the doctrine of exclusion and not inclusion.

My doctrine is the doctrine of the Bible. I don't compare my beliefs with the faiths of other men, only to the scriptures, which does not include the LSD books. I stand by the post that Moose made by Dr. Miller. Remember:
Galatians 1:10-11 "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man"™s gospel."

[DaveH]

Porter--I didn't give you a one word answer. Why do you then refer me to the same answer you gave to goose? I DID give you something to work and dialogue with. There is only ONE TRUE GOD. You are not Him. You don't compare to Him . . . and you never will. That applies to everyone.