“Are there many gods? Are gods more holier than each other?”

This question requires some explanation beyond a simple “yes” or “no” answer, because both answers are correct and incorrect at the same time.

Mormons believe that every human being is a God in “embryo” form, or childlike form. Just as a boy becomes a man or a girl becomes a woman, we believe men and women become Gods and Goddesses. We believe the purpose of this life is to move us along that path, and that this life is one of multiple steps in that direction. Of course if this is what we believe, then yes, we believe there are multiple Gods. In fact, there must be billions, trillions, or even more Gods.

However, when we speak of worshiping God, we only speak of one God. Mormons believe in the commandment “You shall have no other gods before me”, but whereas those of other faiths think of “other gods” as being Baal or other gods that don’t really exist, or perhaps other “gods” in the sense that one can “worship” his career, fame, money, Blu-Ray, etc., Mormons believe all that plus the idea that there are in fact other gods, but only one God that we need to worry about. Or in other words, we only have one boss, one chief, one being that we worship and obey, and he is a specific person, separate from other gods. The other gods have no power over us, and we owe them no obeisance, no loyalty, etc. They are not in charge of us, responsible for us, nor do they appear to have any interaction with us, just as our God, theoretically, has no involvement with the children of those other Gods. In a sense, you might as well say there are no other Gods, because for all intents and purposes there aren’t. The only reason it’s even important for us to know that there are is because it tells us something about our own divine purpose.

Now, for the second question regarding whether one God can be “holier” than another God, the answer is more straightforward–no. Mormons believe that God is 100% perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. There is no being more righteous, more knowledgeable, more powerful, etc. If there were, then it wouldn’t make much sense to do the bidding of the less powerful God, because the more powerful God could come along and turn all the first God’s plans upside down.

But this is kind of a weird part of the discussion, because there is and cannot be any such thing as a “less powerful” God, because by definition that person would not then be God. All Gods must, theoretically, be exactly equal in power if they all have 100% of whatever power can be attained.

To sum up, Mormons believe there are many Gods, but only believe in one God. Or to put it another way, Mormons know there are many Gods, but only know one God.

This is a branch off of a question asked in the comments of another post, and also a widely disseminated “gotcha” question for Mormons, which is that if Mormon claim that God was once a man, and that men can become Gods, then how does that reconcile with scriptures such as follow:

James 1:16: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.”

Hebrews 13:8-9: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines.”

As Ann Mere on the other post points out, “You seem to be promoting cognitive dissonance and holding 2 contradictory beliefs at the same time.”

Well, it turns out that it’s even worse than that! Because not only do Mormons have to figure out how to reconcile those Biblical scriptures with the belief that God was not always God, but check out these scriptures from the Book of Mormon:

“For behold, I am God; and I am a God of miracles; and I will show unto the world that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I work not among the children of men save it be according to their faith.” – 2 Nephi 27:23

God is “unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” – Moroni 8:18

“For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?” – Mormon 9:9

Great, now what? Well, let’s see if we can shed some light on this matter.

First, if there’s an issue with Mormon beliefs, then there’s also an issue with the internal consistency of the Bible. In Luke 2:52 we read that Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man”. If Jesus increased in wisdom, then this clearly implies that there was wisdom he was lacking, and if he acquired more wisdom than he had previously, then doesn’t this mean that he “changed” and was not the same one day as the day before?

Likewise, after the resurrection, Jesus said “all power is given unto Me in heaven and earth.” This implies that previously, he did not have all power in heaven and earth. Again, Jesus had evidently progressed from one state to another, at least as far as the power he held, if not in other ways.

You could argue that Christ and God are separate beings, and that what applies to Christ doesn’t apply to God, but since most of those who would enter into this issue in the first place believe Christ and God are one and the same, and Mormon doctrine itself sees no difference in their characteristics or attributes despite believing they are distinct beings, I’m not sure there’s a point, so let’s just skip that discussion for the time being.

So how can God have changed, and yet be an unchanging being?

First, let’s try the perspective of things when we separate God from Godhood. If God is a specific person, then Godhood is the state of being God, or a god. If we can assume that the scriptures use the term “God” to describe “Godhood” then a scripture that says “God is unchangeable” takes on a slightly different meaning, which is that the specific criteria that makes God who He is never changes. To make an analogy, you could say “Government is a necessary evil. It always has been, and always will be.” If a true statement, this does not mean that the US government has always existed. It is merely pointing out something about the nature of government, not the physical existence of or specific traits of a specific government.

Now, Mormons might interpret some scriptures this way, but it certainly doesn’t work in all cases. Another way to look at things is to question exactly what the scriptures mean when they say things like “all eternity to all eternity” or “yesterday, today, and forever”. Are these meant to be literal measurements of time, or meant to communicate the fact that God is not going to say one thing today, and something contradictory tomorrow? When Christ says he is Alpha and Omega, is he saying that he is literally the first and last letters of the alphabet and perhaps every letter in between, or is he using a colloquialism to say that he is “everything” and that without him nothing really matters?

Joseph Smith taught in Lectures on Faith that one of the necessary attributes of God is that he cannot change, that is, that he is consistent in his principles. If he were inconsistent, then he would be like the inconsistent parent whose children are constantly afraid because they do not know how to predict what the parent will do in reaction to any action from the children. This would render it difficult at best to exercise faith in God, not to mention that God could hardly be called “perfect” if he taught one thing one day and another on another day. This isn’t to say that God doesn’t teach us things that seem to conflict. In the Bible we are commanded not to kill, and yet in the Bible God also commands his people to put to death entire cities of men, women, and children. This seems to present a conflict, but only when we do not understand the principles underlying the commands. The commands may change, but the principles do not.

Is there any other way to interpret these scriptures? Perhaps, but I think these two perspectives, especially the second, take care of things for the most part. The bottom line God is trying to get across is that he’s consistent, and he isn’t going to change. We can be confident that if we start down the path he has commanded us to take, we aren’t going to find out tomorrow that he changed his mind and now wants us to do something completely different.

Will this answer satisfy everyone? Probably not, but this is my personal view of things, and if you’re looking to understand what Mormons think on the matter I hope this is a good starting point.

To answer this question requires a more than a one or the other type of answer because the answer is “yes” to both…sort of. Well, it depends on what you mean by “big bang”. As I understand things, it’s fairly settled science that everything in the universe is moving away from a center point. This loosely supports the big bang theory, although I have not heard it explained as to why everything is moving away from that point at an accelerating speed. Now that’s just kind of weird, but I digress.

If the question is “Do Mormons believe everything is moving away from a center point of the universe?” then the answer is that Mormons don’t have any doctrine to that effect, although Mormons generally regard any scientific knowledge or discovery as interesting and valuable, since we believe we’re all children of God, destined to become like him, and since God knows everything we’re interested in knowing everything as well.

Just as well for any other aspects of big bang theory. Science doesn’t have all the answers yet and can’t fully explain the big bang, so there’s nothing Mormons can truly agree or disagree with. It’s mostly theory and hypothesis.

The one part of Mormon doctrine that touches on this subject is that our scripture says that everything has always existed. Not necessarily in its current form, but that there’s no such thing as creating something out of nothing. So if one assumes that a belief in the big bang means you believe that a bunch of stuff came out of nowhere, then no, Mormons don’t believe in that. But if nowhere actually means “nowhere” as in “we don’t know where it came from” then sure, there’s nothing in our doctrine to preclude a belief in a big bang.

Krauss claims that “Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.” But this simply isn’t true. At best we can only claim that what we know about science at this point in time doesn’t fully explain how certain miracles happened. The Bible says that Jesus rubbed dirt and spit in a blind man’s eyes and then told him to go wash his eyes in a contaminated, filthy pool of water, and then the man’s blindness is cured. Sounds fantastic, but only because we don’t know how it happened. We cannot legitimately claim that it is impossible. To do so one would have to prove that under no circumstances could the actions taken in that story result in blindness being cured.

What’s especially interesting about science with regards to religion is that the scientific method itself is based on faith. A hypothesis is an expression of faith. It says, in effect, “I believe that if we do such and such, that such and such will follow.” We then create tests to prove or disprove our statement of faith.

You can find atheistic scientists who have faith in all sorts of things the rest of us would find ridiculous or impossible. Most of the technology we have today would have sounded ridiculous and impossible a mere 50 years ago, let alone 200 years ago. It took faith to believe man could fly through the air, and without that faith we wouldn’t have airplanes today that can carry many tons of cargo thousands of miles through the air in a few hours. It took faith to create computers, the Internet, the light bulb, pharmaceuticals, etc. Before any of it was created it was “seen” with the eye of faith. And many more inventions and discoveries will be made in the future. I would guess there are many scientists who don’t believe in God, yet have no trouble believing that someday man will travel throughout space at, near to, or faster than the speed of light. It is true that some discoveries are made accidentally, but generally when someone is “expressing faith” in something else. It is rare that someone invents something or discovers something when they are looking for nothing at all, or not trying to create something.

The difference between faith in revealed science and faith in God is the supporting evidence. Naturally, there is more evidence to support the things we already know than there is to support things we don’t know. But a lack of knowledge about something is no reason to disregard it. Just because what limited information we have about God (which may or may not be correct) sounds hokey, that doesn’t mean it’s a matter not worth investigating. If we were to extend this line of thinking to science, then where would we be today? How many inventions would not exist? How much knowledge would still be hidden? How many diseases would remain uncured if scientists looked at a sick person and said “I have no evidence to convince me it is possible to cure this person, therefore I will not try.”

On the contrary, if God really does exist, what more important discovery could there possibly be? So many people have so much “faith” that there is no God based on so little evidence.

But what if there is a God? What if he has a plan for us? What if it is integral to that plan that we are not allowed to know for sure whether he exists or not unless we already want to believe he does? Then those who do not want to believe in God will receive no convincing signs that he does, while those who do want to believe he exists will receive evidence of his existence. And naturally, those who do not receive such evidence will think those who claim to have received such evidence are crazy, and vice versa.

My advice to scientific atheists would be to not base your belief in the non-existence of God on what you think you know about God. Maybe what you think you know about God is wrong. Maybe there is a God but he’s not like anything you’ve imagined before. Maybe there is no conflict between science and belief in God, only unresolved questions. If there is a God, is it worth missing out on that knowledge because you based your theory on faulty information?

So, do Mormons hate gay people? No. If Mormons don’t hate gay people, why are they against gay marriage? Why are they forcing their religion on other people and taking away their rights? Why would they want to rob committed couples of the opportunity to legalize that commitment?

Mormons don’t hate gay people any more than they hate people who steal batteries. Mormons see the homosexual act as a sin, but they don’t hate people who sin. Mormons recognize that everyone is a sinner, and nobody has the right to say “I’m good and you’re bad” because we all fall far short of perfection. We are all “bad” if you want to look at it that way.

But there are two ways we can look at “badness”. We can either say “I’m bad, but I want to be good” or we can say “There is no such thing as being bad.” Mormons want to be good, and want to help others be good as well. Mormons believe that legalizing gay marriage is a way of saying that there is no such thing as bad and good or right and wrong, and Mormons believe that if people think something that is truly bad is accepted as being good, then that will lead to increased levels of general unhappiness. Legalizing gay marriage doesn’t change what it is. It forces society to accept it, but doesn’t make it acceptable. If California legalized stealing batteries we would all be forced to accept battery thieves, but we would all know that it’s still stealing, whether it’s legal or not.

Or would we? What message would it send to our children if we legalize stealing batteries? What if a child’s parents teach them that stealing is wrong, no matter what, but then at school they learn that stealing is usually wrong, except for batteries? In at least some cases might this not result in the child doubting the teachings of the parents? And if everyone else believes stealing batteries is ok, but my parents don’t, what else might my parents be wrong about? And what’s the difference between batteries and music CDs? Why is one ok and the other wrong? What about cars? If it’s ok to steal batteries, isn’t it ok to steal anything?

Of course legalization of the theft of batteries wouldn’t result in every child becoming a thief. But what if it negatively affected the actions of 1%, 2%, or 5% of the population? Might the actions of that small percentage be enough to negatively effect the entire population?

Likewise, the legalization of gay marriage will send a message to children that what their parents teach them at home and what they learn outside the home are at conflict. This will force them to either doubt the legitimacy of the government, or the legitimacy of their parents as authoritative figures. It puts parents at odds with the government in the education of their children.

Of course this isn’t the first time this has happened, but can you expect parents to not oppose anything? If the government wanted to legalize stealing cars would you oppose it? Of course you would. Why? Because stealing is wrong. It hurts people. Making stealing acceptable would hurt all of society. Mormons and others see legalization of gay marriage the same way. The only difference between you and them–assuming you were against Prop 8– is that they’ve drawn the line in a different place. You are willing to accept things Mormons aren’t. But we all believe discrimination is good, we just don’t always agree on what should be discriminated against. We can all agree that discriminating against negative behaviors like murder and theft is good for society (except for some real nut-jobs), and we generally agree that discriminating against inherent characteristics like gender and skin color are not good for society. But homosexuality falls into a gray zone where we’re split. Some think it is a similar issue to skin color, and others see it as a behavior, like stealing things.

The question has been decided democratically, by the vote of the people. I don’t oppose the right of those who are trying through legal means to stop Prop 8 or overturn it. I think they have every right to try as long as they don’t circumvent the laws of the state and country. If they win someday, as I’m afraid they may, I won’t react the same way they have with protests and hateful words, nor will I hate them. I’ll be disappointed and frustrated but I’ll deal with it.

While these are clearly my own opinions I believe they’re held by a majority of Mormons. In my 33 years as a member of the LDS faith I have never heard any hateful talk about gays. On the contrary I’ve heard much about love and compassion and I expect to see more of it as time goes on and Mormons come to understand the issue more thoroughly.

The same can’t be said for other religions due to their de-centralized leadership. If you wanted to picket the head of the Baptist religion, where would you go? What about the Methodists, Presbyterians, or evangelicals? I can see the Prop 8 protesters assigned to picket those religions meeting at a parking lot in the morning and then all looking puzzled as they try and figure out where they’re supposed to go, and then finally giving up and saying “But we know where those Mormons are! To the Los Angeles temple!” and then they all go storming off in that direction like villagers with pitchforks running after Frankenstein.

In addition, Mormons were quite active in fundraising for Prop 8. The estimates I’ve heard hover around 40%, which is obviously disproportionate when you understand that Mormons make up only 2% of the population in California.

So in light of those facts, it’s no surprise to me to see that Mormons have been targeted more than other faiths in the backlash against Prop 8.

The fight to pass Prop 8 has been a bright beacon of hope as religions with conflicting doctrines have joined together to promote a common cause. Our opponents have tried to divide us based on our doctrinal differences in order to defeat us, but they failed. But they’ll try again, and if they can succeed in turning us against each other, then eventually they’ll win and we will all lose. But if we can continue to come together on the causes that unite us, we can maintain the society that has provided us with the freedom we currently have to have differences of doctrine and each worship as we please.

The thing about evolution is that it generally happens over millions of years, right? So theoretically, human beings, or the species that led to them, over millions of years would have gotten a little more intelligent here, a little more sophisticated there, and so it seems there would be an archaeological record showing a gradual increase in human capabilities over many, many years.

Instead, we have humans going from a life barely superior to that of animals to inventing spacecraft and computers all within a period of less than 10,000 years. How would you account for this radical advancement in terms of the evolutionary process? And why wouldn’t this have happened previously? Why now? Why weren’t airplanes invented 3,000, 2,500, 2,000, 1,500, 1,000, 500, or 250 years ago? Heck, why wasn’t the cotton gin, a relatively simple invention, invented 500 years ago? How does evolution account for those individuals who compose symphonies where 100+ musical instruments must work in harmony to produce the desired results? Is that ability tied to the ability to throw a spear better?

On a somewhat related note, what happens to us all now since we can create inventions to overcome the disadvantages of individuals of the human species? If a fat, lazy guy with a low iq can reproduce just as well as the smart guy with the great physique, does that mean our species is on a downward path and someday we’ll all be a mess, having devolved, in essence?

There’s also the question of whether those Mormons who believe in natural selection believe that all existing species descended from green algae vs. being placed on earth in some other way by God. My guess would be that 99% of Mormons haven’t thought about it since it doesn’t affect our theology one way or the other.

In fact, whether or not Adam and Eve were descendants of apes or green algae doesn’t really affect our theology either. I do believe Adam and Eve existed and that all humans are their descendants, and I don’t believe Adam and Eve were descendants of apes or cavemen or anything like that, but if they were, so what? It doesn’t change anything for me so I don’t care. It’s interesting to think about the various possibilities, and I’m curious to know exactly how it all came about, but whether it’s one or the other doesn’t make that much of a difference to me.

While Elder Nelson doesn’t make what I would call an “official church declaration” about when life begins, he comes about as close to it as you can to it, in my opinion, when he says:

Nearly all legislation pertaining to abortion considers the duration of gestation. The human mind has presumed to determine when “meaningful life” begins. In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days the circulation of blood begins.10 To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion.

Hopefully this will end any doubt as to what Mormons believe about abortion and when life begins.

In 1839, Joseph Smith was asked to describe the difference between his religion and the other religions of his day. Smith replied that the primary difference was primarily in mode of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (HC 4:42). However, Smith neglected to mention that he believed that his visions were contrary to classical Christianity. He needed to tell them that, “God the Father and His son Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith in the spring of 1820. Joseph revealed that the Father and the Son each have a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,” (D&C 130:22). Smith’s answer is obviously evasive. He neglected to explain his view of God as in the form of a man, the importance of works, temple ordinances, polygamy and deification.

Another way this same basic question has been phrased in the form of a statement is “Mormon missionaries only teach the stuff that appeals to mainstream Christians and then once they’re baptized they throw all the stuff at them like baptism for the dead and man > God doctrine after it’s too late.”

There are at least two reasons why Joseph Smith didn’t mention these other things in the situation above, and why Mormon missionaries don’t teach certain things.

One reason is because there is limited time and space. Joseph Smith was being asked by a newspaper reporter what the “primary” difference was between the LDS Church and other religions. Surely the questioner didn’t have time for and wasn’t looking for Joseph to sit down and take 30 hours to answer him. Even if Joseph spoke for 30 hours straight there are still things he wouldn’t be able to cover and people could still say “See? He’s being evasive!” Just because something isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean it’s being hidden. When people ask me how I’m doing I generally just say “Good” rather than giving them a five-minute explanation of all the good things going on in my life.

A second reason for stating certain things first and other things later is for the same reason certain things are taught to elementary school children and other things are taught to high-school aged kids. You could hardly say that school administrators are sneaky in how they teach kids basic math in elementary school but then throw calculus at them in high school when it’s “too late”. Although I will admit that I did feel a bit betrayed by my upper math classes. There is a progression of ideas in the gospel as with anything else, and it only makes sense to start by teaching those things that are more basic and fundamental, which of course includes those things that are generally understood by the majority of the population.

But aside from this, it’s simply not true that all Mormon missionaries teach is non-controversial ideas that are easy to accept. Traditionally, Mormon missionaries teach about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in the very first meeting with someone who wants to learn more about the LDS Church. If modern-day prophets, Joseph Smith saying that he saw God and Christ appear to him as two distinct being, and scriptures in addition to the Bible aren’t shocking enough for a first introduction to the LDS Church then what is?

Mormon missionaries simply can’t teach it all, and there’s a logical order in which to teach things. Nothing is hidden from those who want to learn about the church, and frequently things like temple garments, baptism for the dead, man > God, and other things are discussed between missionaries and investigators of the church. To me, it seems that no matter what missionaries teach the enemies of the church are going to try and find fault with it, and saying that Mormons are hiding things is an easy target, since there’s so much Mormons couldn’t possibly cover even if they tried.

By the way, in case you’re interested, the LDS Church publishes the entire missionary manual online for anybody to read. If you want to know what Mormon missionaries teach and how they’re taught to teach it, you can read the book and find out for yourself.