I’ll start us off:

1. Perfect. Because if he weren’t perfect, then how could I trust anything about him at all?

2. Omnipotent. If he’s not able to do everything, then how do I know if he can do anything he says he can do?

3. Omniscient. If he didn’t know everything, then who knows what he might not know? Again, I couldn’t trust him, because while he could promise me something, how could I know for sure whether he can keep his promises? Maybe there’s something he doesn’t know that would get in the way?

4. Loving. If he didn’t love me 100%, how could I be confident that he would act in my best interests? He might be nice to me one day, and ignore me the next, and why would I want to dedicate myself to a being like that?

How do you interpret the passage where Jehovah God says to Isaiah, “Before me there was no God formed; neither shall there be after me.” (Isa 43:10) in light of the LDS teaching that Elohim was a God formed before Jesus (Jehovah, in LDS theology)?

Now that’s a good question! Not that the other isn’t, but this certainly takes it a step further…further? Farther? Whatever. Anyway, the title of this post is slightly misleading, in that due to not having much time to research what other Mormons think about this scripture, I’m just giving my own opinion, based on thinking it through and referring to some other sources that indirectly touch on this matter. Here are a few thoughts, loosely organized.

First, Mormons believe that all of us humans are “gods”, the same way that a child is a man, if by “man” you mean human. If by “man” you mean grown, male adult, then that’s a different matter. Suffice it to say, we are gods in a child-like state. We may not reach the goal God has set for us, but we are his offspring nonetheless, and therefore of the same species.

Second, Mormons believe that we all existed from all eternity to all eternity. Who we are has no beginning and no end. I don’t pretend to fully understand what that means, at least the “no beginning” part, but if we take it literally, then neither God, nor Jesus Christ, nor we were “formed” at all, that is, created out of nothing. We always existed. Therefore Elohim was not a god before Christ, that is, they were of the same species and always have been contemporary in that sense, although he became God the Father (i.e. an adult) before Christ, the same way a human father becomes an adult before his child.

Third, Jehovah doesn’t always mean Christ in the Old Testament. We believe most instances do, but not all. And really, what’s the difference? Jesus is God’s representative, they’re of one heart and mind, and in a sense they’re interchangeable. One isn’t going to deliver a message that the other wouldn’t, and vice versa.

Fourth, is this a literal statement or a manner of speech, a colloquialism familiar to the understanding of those to whom this message was originally addressed? If we were to apply the same rigor of analysis to the statement “I know everything about flowers from A to Z,”  that many people apply to passages of the Bible, what would we conclude is meant? Probably something quite different than what is truly meant, that is “I know a lot about flowers.” Could it be that God was merely saying “Look, you idol-worshippers, there’s no other God you need to recognize, got it? Get rid of your false gods and your idols, and worship the one and only God you need to worry about.” I suppose he could have added “And since I know that what I’m saying right now is going to end up in this so-called ‘Bible’ someday, and people 3,000 years from now are going to get all confused about what I’m saying, let me clarify that yes, there are other gods, but I am the only God anyone on earth needs to worry about. Also, although it may be clear that I am God, and not Jesus Christ, the people 3,000 years from now won’t have access to all the information you do, so let me clarify that this is God the Father speaking, not the Son. Not that it matters, since we both say the same things, and my Son is authorized to speak as though he were me, but again, I need to clarify for those other people. Yeah, I know this doesn’t apply to you people right now, and you’re wondering why I even bring this up because it’s all clear to you, but trust me, I need to say this for the sake of the other people 3,000 years from now, even though I’m going to send them the Book of Mormon, prophets and apostles, the Holy Ghost, and all sorts of other things so that they can figure it out on their own fairly easily.” Yes, I suppose God could have added that, but it doesn’t seem to be his way of doing things.

Q: Mormons believe that God used to be a man, like us, and that we can become gods, like God. But this doesn’t seem to make sense if you read the creation story in Genesis 1:1-19.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto bone place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And then in verse 27 it reads “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

First of all, it says “in the beginning” God created the earth. Then in verses 14-15 it says God created the heavens. So if everything was created at this moment, and man isn’t created until later in the chapter, then “man” didn’t exist before this, and therefore to say that God used to be a man doesn’t work, logically, because we see that man didn’t even exist yet when God was already creating all this stuff.

A: The logic of this question is sound…if you make a few assumptions. First, we would have to assume that “the beginning” is referring to the beginning of everything, not just the planet we live on. Second, we would have to assume that “the heavens” means the entire universe. But what else could it mean, you ask? Well, first, let’s think of the word “create” as being a synonym for “organize”. What if this passage of scripture is not talking about the “creation” of the heavens, per se, but rather their organization as we know them? That is, putting earth in its place, putting the other planets in their places and orbits, etc. From our perspective on earth, the “heavens” or the sky as we know it today did not “exist” before because there was no planet where earth currently resides, nor anyone upon it to observe the sky from this vantage point.

This starts to make even more sense when we start reading other Biblical passages, such as 2 Peter 3:13, wherein we read “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” Whether you accept my interpretation that “the heavens” is merely the sky from our particular perspective, or the entire universe, apparently God is in the habit of making “new heavens” on a fairly regular basis, so can we assume that the heavens described in Genesis is the first instance?

Finally, regarding the creation of man on the sixth day, after the heavens, who says that Adam was the first man in the universe? Evidently he was the first man on earth, and the first “man” we are concerned with, but there’s nothing here that says that a man had never been created before, somewhere else.

In a nutshell what Mormons believe is this; that we are all children of God, and that God’s plan is for us to become like him. An important step in that process is our mortal life here on earth. This earth, and our forgetting what went before, provide us with a unique experience to be free to choose for ourselves, unconstrained by any knowledge of who we really are. However, this freedom means we make mistakes, or sin. For every mistake there is an eternal consequence, although these consequences are “delayed” due to this space of time we have on earth. Thus the need for a Savior, Jesus Christ, who, in a way I don’t understand, paid for our sins. Now, instead of having to pay for our own sins (which we are incapable of), we merely have to do what Christ commands us to, that is, if we want the eternal life he promises. If we follow him and do what he wants, then after this life we become purified from the mistakes made in this mortal life, and continue progressing until we become like God, at which point the process repeats itself. New worlds are created, new heavens are created, new “men” are created, and the perpetuation of the “species” goes on.

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.

If Mormons believe that multiple gods exist, but they only worship one of them as God, does that mean Mormons are polytheists or that Mormonism is a form of polytheism?

Mormonism is certainly not polytheistic in the way the Hindu religion is. Mormons do not believe there is any being that can do anything for them other than God. Each individual Hindu might worship one god, but they believe they can change their allegiance to another god if they so desire (at least this is my understand of Hinduism, which is admittedly very limited). I know a bit more about the Greek gods such as Zeus, so perhaps it’s better to use them as an example. In ancient Greek society one might worship Zeus but then switch to Apollo or Hera, believing that each god could grant them favors. Mormons do not believe any such thing. Mormons believe there is only one God they can worship, and that no other god can do anything for them.

Dictionary.com merely defines polytheism as “the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.” Unfortunately, this definition does not define what is meant by “belief”. Belief in this context can mean “worship” or “belief in the existence of”.

TheFreeDictionary.com has a better definition that defines polytheism as “The worship of or belief in more than one god.” Mormons certainly don’t worship more than one God, so if we assume that this definition is using “belief” as a synonym for worship then according to this definition Mormons are not polytheists.

An appeal to an encyclopedic definition of polytheism is probably most helpful. What is described on that webpage is in stark contrast to Mormon beliefs.

Are there passages in the Bible that lead one to believe there is only one God, and no other can exist? Sure, but it depends on your interpretation and assumptions. But as long as we’re in the business of discussing such things, feel free to post all your opinions, thoughts, interpretations, and assumptions and let’s discuss them. As usual, I don’t expect anyone will convince the other, but I always welcome to opportunity to reach greater understanding over each others’ viewpoints.

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?

A: Although this webpage (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/by_sermons_scripture.htm) doesn’t directly address your question, it addresses the underlying issue, which is that Mormons don’t believe that everything a prophet says is scripture (nor can we even be absolutely sure as to whether they’re being quoted accurately). As I’ve mentioned previously, we believe prophets have their own opinions, and those opinions may or may not be correct. Perhaps BT and WW were stating their opinions, and their opinions are wrong. Perhaps they were misquoted. Perhaps the word “knowledge” snuck into what WW was saying but he didn’t mean it to, a sort of speaking “typo”. Or perhaps when he used the word “knowledge” he didn’t mean it exactly the way we’re talking about it here. Whatever the case, if you got BY, WW, and JFS in the same room together to talk about the matter I’m sure they’d all agree.

My understanding of God is perhaps best summed up in this quote by Bruce R. McConkie “There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths. This is false—utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it…. God progresses in the sense that his kingdoms increase and his dominions multiply—not in the sense that he learns new truths and discovers new laws. God is not a student. He is not a laboratory technician. He is not postulating new theories on the basis of past experiences. He has indeed graduated to that state of exaltation that consists of knowing all things.”

Joseph Smith also taught that logically God must be omniscient otherwise it would be plausible that some other being might possess knowledge that God does not, and this knowledge could be used to thwart God’s plans. Such an idea would make exercising faith in God impossible and ruin everything.

So it seems to me that WW, when he used the word “knowledge” was either being misquoted, misspoke, or wasn’t thinking straight at the time. But it’s hard to judge with accuracy what somebody meant without being able to ask them. If we had him right here we could just ask him about all this and maybe he’d say “No, that’s not at all what I meant, what I meant was…”

But again, this is why it’s nice to have living prophets, because they can answer questions like this and clarify what the truth is.

http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm

A: Regarding infinity, our church doesn’t teach what is said in that article, that is, the church doesn’t say anywhere I’ve read that there’s an infinite trail of man > God > man > God, etc.. We do believe that we are children of God and that our ultimate destiny is to become like him, and we do believe that God was once a man like we are and went through the same things we currently go through. But I have no clue how it all began. I’m not sure anyone on this planet knows. I’m sure we’ll find out after we die and that it will be interesting, though.