Talk:Plurality of gods

Cleanup tag

Clean-up tag was added because editing appears to have been dropped mid-sentence. The article is apparently unfinished. –SESmith 05:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Gods vs. gods

Capital-G God is a supreme being that is worshipped by monotheists, i.e. God the Father. Small-g gods should be used to refer to multiple beings that are not worshipped but are somehow like God. Thus the page more correctly belongs at Plurality of gods than Plurality of Gods, regardless of the usage of caps in the Book of Abraham or in Joseph Smith's writings. –SESmith 04:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the Mormon doctrine of plurality of Gods, and in LDS writings, "Gods" is capitilized. I disagree that the capital "G" only refers to the the single monotheistic God. Joseph Antley 04:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

See HERE. God is capitalized because it is a proper name, like Bill or Susan. If we are referring to men achieving a state of being, we use the non-proper god. Unless, of course, a person's personal name becomes God when they are exalted. You write "God is a god of love", not "God is a God of love".

As the latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style says: "Understanding is best served by capitalizing only what are clearly proper nouns and adjectives in the context under discussion." (p. 347, 15th ed.).

In referring to those men who will be exalted, Doctrine and Covenants 132:20 says "Then shall they be gods".

"Plurality of gods" is not capitalized in the following article by LDS scholars, published in an official magazine of the LDS Church: Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, “Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity,” Ensign, Mar. 1988, 7.

Instances where LDS scriptures refer to "the Gods" (as in Abraham) can always be interpreted as meaning the three individuals of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost—in which case it is entirely appropriate to capitalize "Gods" since they are one God and the object of humankind's worship. But whenever it refers to men becoming exalted, gods is used. Even Paul's statement in the Bible, "are there not gods many" uses the small-g.

Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith used "plurality of gods" in his 1954 book Doctrines of Salvation; see excerpt HERE. So did Apostle John A. Widtsoe in Evidences and Reconcilations; see HERE. In Mormon Doctrine (2d ed.), Apostle Bruce R. McConkie writes that "Adam is a god" and refers to exalted persons passing the "angels and gods"; see HERE. In Are Mormons Christian?, modern LDS writer Stephen Robinson uses "plurality of gods"; see HERE. HERE is another example from a modern LDS writer.

Joseph Smith (or his scribe, rather) may have capitalized it in writing down his sermon, but capitalization rules weren't exactly standardized yet in the 1840s, so I don't think we should read too much into it when there are so many other contrary modern examples. –SESmith 05:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support Sesmith's position here. In my writing I am very clear about using God and gods. There is one Godhead; we worship the same God to which Jesus prayed. God will be the only God that we will ever worship; throughout eternity he will always be God to us. Though we may become like him, co-inheritors with Jesus Christ, or gods as is so often heard in LDS theology and doctrine, we will never be God. Though we might be one with Him through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, he never stops being our God. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll concede as long as the redirect is kept. It's just that where I see it most, it's capitalized, such as in Abraham and hymns like "Praise to the Man" ("mingling with Gods") and "If you could hie to Kolob". I still think it deserves capitalizing, but don't see any harm if it's not. And Storm Rider, I don't think there's anything in the article that implies we will become God -- after all, it's about multiple Gods which implies a different being a different god than God. Joseph Antley 17:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The concept of godhood within the LDS tradition is simply one of children growing to become like their father. It provides meaning to existence. The alternative reason for existence I have heard stated as a function of God's love, but when you get down to it God created man so that we could praise him for eternity in his loving embrace. The alternatives reasons have no basis for mortality being so hard, no reason for trials.

It is interesting, I have never in my life used the term God or Gods for anyone except God the Father; as in God. Even when I think of the Godhead I think of the Father as surpreme. The fact that Jesus prayed to God signals to me that the Father is viewed as such by Jesus.

The dicussion of gods is more often than not an attempt to mischaracterize the LDS position, as if we are going to become the Father. (By non-Mormons and LDS alike) This conflicts with the major focus on children becoming like their Father through the Son. We become one with the Father and the Son without losing identity and by them making us like them. However, that unity is not well explained in LDS theology or doctrine. Many have attempted to expand on the discussion of creating worlds etc, but there are so many questions that result, but absolutely no guidance to clarify. For example, in what capacity are we creating worlds? Are we creating those worlds in unison with the work of the Father? For what purpose are the worlds created? Will there be a need for an atonment on those worlds? Does the role of the Savior carry on for eternity for those worlds? There are things we can say and things we can't say because they simply have not be clarified. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the concept of Godhood in LDS doctrine is children growing to become like their father. But Joseph Smith taught that there were other Gods existing besides God the Father, and obviously he was not referring to our Father's children. Joseph taught that the Father had a Father, which would be another God, at that that was an eternal cycle meaning there is an infinite number of Gods in existance. Joseph said, "I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. ... Iwill show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods". Joseph was very adamant about the there being multiple "Gods". But this article is about the "plurality of Gods", as Joseph put it, in LDS doctrine. Let's not diverge from that. Joseph Antley 23:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What is purpose of the article

I am somewhat confused as to the purpose of this article. There is nothing said here that is not already said elsewhere. What was your motivation? What does this article do that the other articles do not? Quoting a hymn does not provide a reason; also, I dislike quoting a hymn as a way of clarifying doctrine or theology. I dont' see a need or this article currently. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all the information here is either found in Exaltation (LDS Church) (humankind can become gods) or Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (more than one God exist and more than one God created the earth). Perhaps a merge should be proposed with those two articles and this one.

I also agree that quoting a hymn—which is essentially poetry—to expound on religious doctrine is usually intellectually lazy at best and deliberately misleading at worst. The nature of poetry is that it is ambiguous and suffused with multiple means and interpretations—that's why it's poetry and not an instruction manual describing how to perform a religious ordinance or rite. A simple example: LDS hymn #2, "The Spirit of God" says, "the knowledge and power of God are expanding". This could mean:

1. That God as a person is progressing and advancing in knowledge and power—he's learning things all the time and thus gaining more power over the universe—in other words, he is not already omniscient or omnipotent; OR
2. That humankind's knowledge about God is increasing and thus the power of God on earth as expressed through true believers is growing.

If you interpret it as #1, that has some pretty serious implications for Mormon doctrine. Once you realize it might just mean #2, the phrase loses its dramatic ability to be controversial. –SESmith 08:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I created the article because it was listed under the LDS WikiProject in the list of articles needed creation. It was linked to elsewhere, and it seemed to me that the plurality of Gods in LDS doctrine deserved its own article. No, the article isn't finished. If you would like to help finish it, it'd be much appreciated. The hymn was quoted to show that the idea of multiple gods is still alive in LDS thought. And the phrase "When Gods began to be" is hardly as open for interpreation as "the power of God are expanding".

The plurality of gods in Mormonism is a controversial and often misunderstood topic of doctrine that I thought deserved it's own article, though I actually only created it because it was on the list. Joseph Antley 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"When Gods began to be" is not open to multiple interpretations? You can't be serious .... –SESmith 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, in the context of the LDS doctrine of eternal progression and the teachings of Joseph Smith on the plurality of Gods, there isn't a lot of room for interpretation. The obvious interpretation for any Latter-day Saint is that it refers to the eternal cycle of Gods begetting Gods (of course the point of the hymn is that the cycle is infinite and there [i]wasn't[/i] a beginning). Given the context, what other interpretations do you propose? And could we please discuss this in a more congenial way? Joseph Antley 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's my whole point. You interpret the poem based on the context and doctrinal background of what Latter-day Saints believe. It is then circular reasoning to try to argue that the doctrine itself can be shown to exist by the words of the poem. A reader needs a clearer statement of doctrinal background first from a different source, and then the meaning of the poem will be clear to a reader.

I'm not saying your interpretation of the poem is wrong—it most certainly is right and we both know that because we know the doctrinal background. But I am saying that someone without the doctrinal background could interpret the poem in other ways. Poems just aren't a great encyclopedic method of setting out religious doctrine because of this problem, that's all. My example of "The Spirit of God" is a better illustration of the problems that can result, which is why I brought it up. I'll try asking some friends I have who know nothing about Mormonism to interpret "If You Could Hie To Kolob" and see what they come up with. –SESmith 00:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. So let's just improve the article. I think Kolob could have a place in the article as an example of the doctrine still existing in contemporary LDS thought even though the phrase "plurality of Gods" isn't often used today or preached from the pulpit. Joseph Antley 00:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the original issue, I'm still in agreement with Storm Rider that I'm unsure that the article is necessary. I need to look over Godhead (Latter Day Saints) and Exaltation (LDS Church) in more detail and decide if things would be better served by simply including the information there. I'm not comfortable enough with those articles to propose a merge yet, and I'm undecided on whether it would be preferable. –SESmith 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

most famous quote

This article omits the most famous or notorious quote "What man is, God once was; what God is, man may become". If it's authentic, then it should be included in this article, along with its source and some indication of its original context; if it's bogus, then there should be a sourced debunking of it included here... AnonMoos (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As man now is, God once was:
As God now is, man may be.

— Lorenzo Snow (1840)

This is the correct wording for the couplet. See the following citation for more details:

Lund, Gerald N. (1982), "I Have a Question", Ensign {{citation}}: |contribution= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help).

-- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose we merge this article into God in Mormonism. I feel that the elements under "man as gods" can fit into that article as a subsection, in summary style, referring the reader to Exaltation (LDS Church) for further information. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. COGDEN 23:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It'd be a good merge. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur. – Adjwilley (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beyond the Godhead

Read Joseph Smith's sermon on the plurality of gods, and it becomes evident the implications of this teaching extends beyond the Godhead: "I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before. He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys, &c. I know it is good reasoning."

Joseph Smith taught that God the Father performed an atonement for his own spirit brothers and sisters, laid down his life and took it up again--it is a teaching which is so very often ignored by Mormons. This sermon suggests an infinite chain of Gods, the keys being extended from The Father to The Son. Applies whole new meaning to the term " God the Eternal Father ". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the article--mostly because a different part of the sermon was quoted already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.19.217 (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)