   |
| The Plurality of Gods and Monotheism |
|
|
The first commandment of the Decalogue establishes God as the unique benefactor of Israel: 2. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Genesis 20:2-3) In the setting of the ancient world, the theology of Israel was unique in their proclamation of their One God. The singleness of God is reiterated in Deuteronomy, chapter 6, verse 4; "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord". This concept was actually not so totally unique if the God of Israel were merely a tribal god, but the God of Israel proclaimed himself the God of all the earth. He was not just related to Israel, but as Malachi stated: "Have we not all one father? hath not one God creates us?. . ." (Malachi 2:10). The New Testament follows the Old Testament sensitivity to the singleness of God. In Mark, Jesus replies to a scribe by reiterating the essence of the first commandment in reciting the declaration of Deuteronomy; "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29). Paul is explicit in his understanding of the nature of God: 4. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (I Corinthians 8:4-6). The Book of Mormon echoes the same sentiment. During their debate, Zeezrom asks Alma if there is more than one God, to which Alma succinctly replies "No" (Alma 11:28-29). On both hemispheres, the scriptures of the ancient world underscore the singleness of God. How should the modern revelation that we may all become gods be reconciled with ancient scripture? The first important point is that there is no real conflict. Regardless of our potential to become as God is now, Mormon theology expressly denies that we may ever become equal to God. Our God is also involved in Eternal Progression, and his increase in Glory is the way in which He progresses. Indeed, our very attainment of the status of godhood so adds to God the Father's Glory that it is impossible that we should ever reach his state, since all that we do merely increases His Glory and Honor. The apparent conflict is no harder to understand than the historical difficulty of Christianity to come to an agreement on the relationship of the three members of the Godhood. The Old Testament imperative of One God is the dominant theological reasoning behind the attempts to make the three into aspects of a single being. This, of course, leaves us with the anomaly of Christ praying to himself when he addressed the Father. The sophistry required to reconcile the very real divinity of the Father and of the Son has produced some of the most confusing theology in all of Christianity. The definitive modern revelation on the nature of the godhead is in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 130, verse 22: 22. The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. There is no question but that there are three personages in the godhead, two of whom have tangible bodies. The physical nature of the bodies of the Father and the Son preclude their ever being the same being. The are one in thought and purpose, not one in actual essence. All of this restates the obvious, however. Mormons have long understood that their position on the triune nature of the godhead was completely opposed to the trinity of mainstream Christianity. We have had our defenses set for our position on that subject since the time of Joseph Smith. The issue here is the conflict arising from the Eternal Reality of three separate beings in the godhead, a world full of potential gods, and the concept of monotheism which was the driving force behind the religion of Israel, and the preaching of the Gospel in both the Old and the New Worlds. The answer lies in the nature of polytheism, which is the opposite concept to monotheism. In a polytheistic society, there are many gods. In such societies, the gods frequently specialize, being know as the god of rain, or the god of the harvest. Not infrequently, there are jealousies among the gods, as witnessed by many of the tales of Greek mythology (the polytheistic system best known in the modern Western world). In a polytheistic society, the realms of the gods were frequently somewhat nebulous, and worshipers might offer sacrifices to several gods for the same favor, just to cover the bases. In a polytheistic society, it is not unusual for bargains to be struck with the gods, whereby sacrifices are promised in exchange for the benefit. There is an implied (and at times explicit) threat that if this particular god is not helpful, the sacrifices will go to another god who will be more accommodating. There is no single entity to which man is responsible, and so the relationship of man to the gods may change with the weather, literally. The preaching of the Gospel in the Old and New Worlds during the times of the ancient scriptures occurred in the midst of polytheistic societies. The issue of allegiance to a single standard under a single God was a revolutionary concept in a world were many gods were available. Contrary to the gods of those societies, there is no way to play one member of the Godhead against the other. The are one in purpose. Though separate, they function as one. Mankind must live by the precepts of the One God, where the many gods were in competition for the affection of humanity. That is the message of monotheism. The theological thrust is not that there is an absolute single being entitled to be God, but that those that hold that station (such as the godhead) are one in purpose. What is said by one comes from all. There is no opportunity to make a deal with the Son which will oppose the will of the Father. There is no conflict between the Mormon message that we may all become as god is and the concept of monotheism as preached anciently. The ancient emphasis on the single god has the same purpose as our declarations of the oneness of purpose of the godhead. |
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1998 |
One of the criticisms
leveled at Mormon doctrine is that the concept of Eternal Progression ultimately leads to a situation in which
there are multiple "gods". If we may become as God is, then God cannot be unique. This appears to contradict
all of the scriptural references to One God. Once again, the answer to the question is to better understand God
and the scriptures.
|
|
 |