Skip to main content

Full text of "The Mormon doctrine of deity : the Roberts-Van der Donckt discussion, to which is added a discourse, Jesus Christ: the revelation of God"

See other formats 


HAROLD  B.  LEE  LmRARY 

«RIGHAM  YOUNG  mi^m 

PROVO,  UTAH 


/   o_  i_ 


^^i^i^z^    ^m- 


THE 


MORMON  DOCTRINE  OF  DEITY 

THE  ROBERTS -VAN  DER  DONCKT  DISCUSSION 

TO  WHICH  IS  ADDED  A  DISCOURSE 

JESUS  CHRIST:  THE  REVELATION  OF  GOD 

BY 

B.   H.  ROBERTS. 


ALSO 

A  COLLECTION  OF  AUTHORITATIVE  MORMON  UTTERANCES 

ON  THE  BEING  AND  NATURE  OF  GOD. 


'  'Jfr  is  the  iJrst  principle  of  the  Gospel  to  hnoto  for  a  certainty 
the  character  of  God;  and  to  know  that  we  may  converse  with 
him  as  one  man  converses  with  anof/c^r."— Joseph   Smith. 

"Ife  who  possesses  a  knowledge  of  God,  and  a  knoidedge  at 
man,  will  not  easily  commit  sin.'' — Talmud. 


THE  DESERET  NEWS, 

Salt  I,ake  City,  Utah. 

1903. 


BRIGHAM  YOUNG  UNTVERSm 
PROVO,  UTAH 


COPYRIGHT      1903 


B.    H.    ROBERTS. 


PREFACE. 

T  N  nothing  have  men  so  far  departed  from  revealed  truth  as 
-'-  in  their  conceptions  of  God.  Therefore,  when  it  pleased 
the  Lord  in  these  last  days  to  open  again  direct  communication 
with  men,  by  a  new  dispensation  of  the  gospel,  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  the  very  first  revelation  given  was  one  that  re- 
vealed himself  and  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  A  revelation  which 
not  only  made  known  the  being  of  God,  but  the  kind  of  a  being 
he  is.  The  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  in  his  account  of  his  first 
great  revelation,  declares  that  he  saw  "two  personages,"  re- 
sembling each  other  in  form  and  features,  but  whose  brightness 
and  glory  defied  all  description.  One  of  these  personages  ad- 
dressed the  prophet  and  said,  as  he  pointed  to  the  other — 

"This  is  my  beloved  t'on,  hear  him." 

This  was  the  revelation  with  which  the  work  of  God  in  the 
last  days  began.  The  revelation  of  God,  the  Father;  and  of 
God,  the  Son.  They  were  seen  to  be  two  distinct  personages. 
They  were  like  men  inform;  but  infinitely  more  glorious  in  ap- 
pearance, because  perfect  and  divine.  The  Old  Testament 
truth  was  reaffirmed  by  this  revelation — "God  created  man  in 
his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  hiT."  Also  the 


IV  PREFACE. 

truth  of  the  New  Testament  was  reaffirmed — Jesus  Christ  was 
shown  to  be  the  express  image  of  the  Father's  person,  hence 
God,  the  Father,  was  in  form  like  the  Man,  Christ  Jesus,  who 
is  also  called  "the  Son  of  Man." 

Again  the  Old  Testament  truth  was  revealed — "The  Gods 
said  let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  and  in  our  likeness."  That 
ia,  more  than  one  God  was  engaged  in  the  work  of  creation. 
Also  the  truth  of  the  New  Testament  was  again  reaffirmed — 
the  Father  and  the  Son  are  seen  to  he  two  separate  and  distinct 
persons  or  individuals;  hence  the  Gochead  is  plural,  a  council, 
consisting  of  three  distinct  persons,  as  shown  at  the  baptism 
of  Jesus,  and  throughout  the  conversations  and  discourses  of 
Jesus  and  his  inspired  apostles. 

All  this,  coming  so  sharply  in  conflict  with  the  ideas  of  an 
apostate  Christendom  which  had  rejected  the  plain  anthropo- 
morphism of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  revelations  of  God; 
also  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  a  plurality  of  Gods,  for  a  false 
philosophy-created  God,  immaterial  and  passionless — all  this, 
I  say,  could  not  fail  to  provoke  controversy;  for  the  revelation 
given  to  Joseph  Smith  challenged  the  truth  of  the  conception 
of  God  held  by  the  modern  world — pagan,  Jew,  Mohammedan 
and  Christian  alike. 

It  was  not  to  be  expected,  then,  that  controversy  could  be 
avoided,  though  it  has  been  the  policy  of  the  Elders  of  the 
Church  to  avoid  debate  as  far  as  possible — debate  which  so 
often  means  contention,  a  mere  bandying  of  words — and  have 
trusted  in  the  reaffirmation  of  the  old  truths  of  revelation, 
accompanied  by  a  humble  testimony  of  their  divinity,  to  spread 


PREFACE.  V 

abroad  a  knowledge  of  the  true  God.  Still,  controversy,  I  re- 
peat could  not  always  be  avoided.  From  the  beginning,  "Mor- 
mon" views  of  Deity  have  been  assailed.  They  have  been  de- 
nounced as  "awful  blasphemy;"  "soul  destroying;"  "the  lowest 
kind  of  materialism;"  destructive  of  all  truly  religious  senti- 
ment;" "the  worst  form  of  pantheism;"  "the  crudest  possible 
conception  of  God;"  "absolutely  incompatible  with  spirituality;" 
"worse  than  the  basest  forms  of  idolatry."  These  are  a  few 
of  the  phrases  in  which  "Mormon"  views  of  Deity  have  been  de- 
scribed. Defense  against  these  attacks  has  been  rendered 
necessary  from  time  to  time;  and  whenever  Elders  of  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints  have  entered  into 
discussions  on  the  subject  of  Deity,  they  have  not  failed  to 
•make  it  clear  that  the  scriptures  sustained  their  doctrine, 
although  they  may  not  always  have  been  successful  in  stopping 
the  denunciations,  sarcasms,  and  ridicule  of  their  opponents. 
This,  however,  is  matter  of  small  moment,  since  making  clear 
the  truth  is  the  object  of  discussion,  not  superior  strength  in 
denunciation,  bitterness  in  invective,  keenness  in  sarcasm,  or 
subtilty  in  ridicule. 

In  the  winter  and  summer  of  1901,  unusual  interest  was 
awakened  in  "Mormon"  views  of  Deity,  in  consequence  of  a 
series  of  lectures  on  the  subject  delis^ered  by  a  i)rominent  sec- 
tarian minister  of  Salt  Lake  City,  and  other  discourses  de- 
livered before  sectarian  conventions  of  one  kind  or  another 
held  during  the  summer  months  of  the  year  named.  Now  it  so 
happened  that  for  that  same  year  the  General  Board  of  the 
Young  Men's  Improvement  Associations  of  the  Church  of  Jesus 


VI  PREFACE. 

Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints  had  planned  a  course  of  theological 
study  involving  consideration  of  this  same  subject — the  being 
and  nature  of  God;  therefore,  when  the  Mutual  Improvement 
Associations  of  the  Salt  Lake  Stake  of  Zion  met  in  conference 
on  the  18th  of  August  of  that  year,  and  the  writer  was  invited 
to  deliver  an  address  at  one  of  the  sessions  of  the  conference, 
the  time  to  him  seemed  opportune  to  set  forth  as  clearly  as 
might  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Christ  as  to  God.  Ac- 
cordingly the  discourse,  which  makes  chapter  one  in  this 
book,  was  delivered.  The  discourse  attracted  some  consider- 
able attention,  being  published  both  in  the  Deseret  News 
and  Improvement  Era:  in  the  latter  publication,  in  revised  form. 
Through  a  copy  of  this  magazine  the  discourse  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  Reverend  C.  Van  Der  Donckt,  of  Pocatello,  Idaho, 
a  priest  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church;  and  he  wrote  a  Reply 
to  it,  which  by  the  courtesy  o^  the  editors  of  the  Improvement 
Era  was  published  in  that  magazine,  and  now  appears  as  chap- 
ter two  in  this  work. 

It  was  very  generally  corceded  that  Rev.  Van  Der 
Donckt's  Reply  was  an  able  paper — a  view  in  which  I  most 
heartily  concur;  and  it  had  the  additional  merit  of  being  free 
from  offensive  personalities  or  any  indulgence  in  ridicule  or 
sarcasms  of  those  principles  which  the  gentleman  sought  to 
controvert. "^  Some  were  of  opiiion  ttat  the  Rev.  gentleman's 
argument  could  not  be  successfully  answered.  This  was  a  view 
in  which  I  did  cot  concur;  for  however  unequal  my  skill  in  de- 
bate might  be  as  compared  with  that  of  the  Rev.  gentleman  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  I  had,  and  have  now,  supreme  confidence 


PREFACE.  VII 

in  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  I  believe  and  advocate;  and  I  was 
sure  this  advantage  of  having  the  truth  would  more  than  out- 
weigh any  want  of  skill  in  controversy  on  my  part.  In  this  confi- 
dence the  Rejoinder  was  written  and  published  in  the  Improvement 
Era,  and  now  appears  as  chapter  three  in  this  work.  How  suc- 
cessfully the  Rejoinder  meets  the  criticism  upon  our  doctrines 
by  the  Rev.  gentleman  who  wrote  the  Reply,  will  of  course, 
be  determined  by  the  individual  reader. 

The  discourse  with  which  this  controversy  begins  appears 
in  chapter  one  as  it  did  in  the  Era;  unchanged  except  by  the 
enlargement  of  a  quotation  or  two  from  Dr.  Draper's  works, 
and  Sir  Robert  Ball's  writings,  and  the  addition  of  one  or  two 
notes,  with  here  and  there  a  mere  verbal  change  which  in  no 
way  affects  the  thought  or  argument  of  the  discourse,  as  I 
recognize  the  fact  that  any  alteration  which  would  change  the 
argument  or  introduce  new  matter  in  the  discourse,  would  be 
unfair  to  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt.  The  Rev.  gentleman's  Reply  is, 
of  course,  exactly  as  it  appeared  in  the  Improvement  Era  for 
August  and  September,  1902.  In  the  Rejoinder  I  have  felt 
more  at  liberty,  and  therefore  have  made  some  few  changes  in 
the  arrangement  of  paragraphs,  and  have  here  and  there 
strengthened  the  argument,  though  even  in  this  division  of  the 
discussion  the  changes  in  the  Era  copy  are  but  slight. 

In  chapter  four  I  publish  another  discourse  —  Jesus 
Christ :  the  Revelation  of  God,  which  I  trust  will  emphasize  and 
render  even  more  clear  than  my  first  discourse  the  belief  of 
the  Church  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  complete  and  perfect  reve- 
lation of  God;  that  such  as  Jesus  Christ  is,  God  is. 


Vlll  PREFACE. 

In  chapters  five,  six,  seven  and  eight  is  a  collection  of 
utterances  from  our  sacred  scriptures,  and  from  some  of  the 
prophets  in  the  Church,  on  the  doctrine  of  Deity,  which  I  may 
say  without  reserve  will  be  found  extremely  valuable  to  the 
student  of  this  great  subject;  and  these  passages  are  so  ar- 
ranged as  to  make  clear  the  fact  that  our  doctrines  on  the 
subject  of  Deity  are  today  what  they  have  been  from  the  com- 
mencement; and  while  there  may  have  been  an  unfolding  of 
the  doctrines,  an  enlargement  of  our  understanding  of  them, 
there  is  nothing  in  our  doctrines  on  Deity  today  but  what  was 
germinally  present  in  that  first  great  revelation  received  by  the 
Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  in  which  God  made  himself  known  once 
m  ore  to  a  prophet,  who  knew  him,  as  Moses  did,  face  to  face 

— as  a  man  knows  his  friend. 

B.  H.  Roberts. 

Salt  Lake  City, 

December,  1903. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER   I. 

PAGE. 

THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF    DEITY 9 

Form  of  God 9 

The  Oneness  of  God 26 

The  Plurality  of  Gods , 29 

The  Future  Possibilities  of  Man 32 

CHAPTER  II. 

REPLY  TO   ELDER   ROBERTS'   "MORMON"  VIEW  OF  DEITY,  BY   REV.  C. 
VAN    DER   DONCKT,    OF  THE    CATHOLIC    CHURCH,     POCATELLO, 

IDAHO 44 

Philosophical  Proofs  of  God's  Simplicity  or  Spirituality 51 

Man  Can  Never  Become  as  God 54 

The  Unity  of  God 58 

CHAPTER  III. 

A   REJOINDER  TO   REV.   C.   VAN   DER   DONCKT'S    REPLY 68 

The  Form  of  God 69 

Of  God  Being  Invisible 79 

Of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God 91 

Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  "Philosophical  Proofs  "  of  the  Form  and 

Nature  of  God 98 

Of  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  Premise 103 

Of  the  Doctrine  of  God's  "Simplicity"  Being  of  Pagan  Rather 

than  of  Christian  Origin 114 


X  CONTENTS. 

Of  Jesus  Christ  Being  Both  Premise  and  Argument  Against  Mr. 

Van  Der  Donckt's  "Philosophical  Argument" 119 

More  of  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  "Philosophy" 123 

Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  Contrast  Betiveen  Man  and  God 130 

"Behold,  the  Man  has  Become  as  One  of  Us" 135 

Of  the  Unity  of  God 137 

Of  the  Father  Alone  Being  God 147 

Of  the  Oneness  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.     Is  it  Physi- 
cal Identity? 149 

Of  the  Lord  our  God  Being  One  God 156 

Of  our  Revelations  From  God  Being  Local 159 

Of  God  Being  One  in  a  Generic  Sense 162 

Of  God,  the  Spirit  of  the  Gods 166 

Concluding  Reflections 169 

CHAPTER  IV. 

JESUS  CHRIST:    THE  REVELATION   OF   GOD 171 

Beliefs  in  India  and  Egypt 173 

The  Religion  of  China 174 

Religion  in  Northern  Europe 175 

Gods  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans 175 

Epicureans 176 

The  Stoics 178 

The  Jews 179 

God  Revealed  to  the  World  in  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ 185 

Evidence  of  Christ's  Divinity  from  the  Scriptures 187 

•Jesus  Christ  is  called  God  in  the  Scriptures 188 

Jesus  Declares  Himself  to  be  God,  the  Son  of  God 189 

Jesus  Christ  to  be  Worshiped,  Hence  God 191 

Jesus  Christ  Equal  with  God  the  Father,  Hence  God —  192 

The  Character  of  God  Revealed  in  the  Life  of  Jesus  Christ 194 

TheHumibtyof  God 195 

The  Obedience  of  God 196 

The  Patience  of  God  Under  Temptation 198 

The  Compassion  and  Impartiality  of  God 200 

God's  Treatment  of  Sinners 202 


CONTENTS.  XI 

The  Severity  of  God 205 

God  Completely  Revealed  Through  Christ 207 

CHAPTER  V. 

A   COLLECTION    OF    PASSAGES    FROM    "MORMON"   WORKS,     SETTING 

FORTH  "mormon"  VIEWS   OF   DEITY 209 

The  Father  and  the  Son  are  Represented  as  Distinct  Persons, 
and  also  as  being  in  the  Form  of  Men,  in  the  First  Vision  of 

the  Prophet  of  the  New  Dispensation 209 

The  Doctrine  of  the  Godhead  According  to  the  Book  of  Mormon.  213 
The  Doctrines  of  the  Godhead  and  Man  According  to  the  Book  of 

Abraham 217 

The  Godhead  According  to  the  Doctrine  and  Covenants 221 

The  "Mormon"  Doctrine  of  Deity  as  Set  Forth  in  the  Discourses 

of  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  and  Early  Church  Publications.  226 

The  King  Follett  Sermon,  April  7,  1844 226 

The  Discourse  of  June  16,  1844 229 

Use  of  the  word  Elohim 234 

Omnipresence  of  God 238 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   PROPHET  JOSEPH   SMITH'S   VIEWS   IN   RELATION    TO   MAN    AND 

THE  PRIESTHOOD 243 

Adam  and  His  Relation  to  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Earth 249 

The  Living  God 251 

Materiality 254 

CHAPTER  VH. 

DISCOURSES  ON   DEITY   AND   MAN 259 

I.  President  Brigham  Young 2.59 

II.  Elder  Orson  Pratt 266 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

"I   KNOW   THAT   MY    REDEEMER   LIVES." 

President  Joseph  F.  Smith  on  the  "Mormon"  Doctrine  of  Deity....  285 


XU  CONTENTS. 

Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost 287 

Jesus  the  Father  of  this  World 289 

Glorious  Possibilities  of  Man 290 

Man  to  Become  Like  Christ 292 

Personal  Testimony 294 


THE    ^^MORMON"   DOCTRINE  OF 
DEITY.* 


CHAPTER  I. 
I. 

FORM  OF  GOD. 

MY  brethren  and  sisters,  there  are  two  things  which  con- 
join to  make  this  conference  of  the  Young  Men's  and 
Young  Women's  Improvement  Associations  of  Salt  Lake  Stake 
of  Zion  an  interesting  occasion.  One  is  the  approaching  work- 
ing season  of  the  Young  Men's  Associations.  They  will  this 
winter  take  up  a  course  of  study  in  "Mormon"  doctrine — the 
first  principles  of  the  Gospel,  or  at  least,  some  of  those  princi- 
ples; and  a  large  division  of  the  Manual  which  has  been  pre- 
pared for  their  use  will  deal  with  the  subject  of  the  Godhead. 
For  this  reason  I  thought  the  time  opportune  to  call  attention 
to  some  of  the  doctrinal  features  pertaining  to  this  subject. 
The  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  made  this  important  statement:  "It 
is  the  first  principle  of  the  Gospel  to  know  for  a  certainty  the 
character  of  God;"  then  he  added  something  which  to  some  ears 


*  A  lecture  originally  delivered  before  the  conference  of  the 
Mutual  Improvement  Associations  of  the  Salt  Lake  Stake  of  Zion,  Aug- 
ust 18,  1901. 


10  THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY. 

is  a  little  offensive — "and  to  know  that  we  may  converse  with 
him,  a3  one  man  converses  with  another."  On  the  same  occa- 
sion, he  also  said:  "God  himself  was  once  as  we  are  now,  and  is 
an  exalted  man,  and  sits  enthroned  in  yonder  heavens.*"  Since, 
then,  to  know  the  character  of  God  is  one  of  the  first  principles 
of  theGospel,  the  subject  of  the  Godhead  is  given  a  prominent 
place  in  the  Manual  for  our  Young  Men's  Associations  during  the 
coming  season.  This  is  one  thing  which  makes  this  conference 
an  interesting  occasion. 

Another  thing  which  contributes  to  the  interest  of  this 
conference,  and  also  to  this  subject  of  the  Godhead,  is  the 
attention  which  of  late  has  been  given  to  what  is  called  the 
"Mormon  view  of  God"  by  sectarian  ministers  among  us.  The 
interest  found  expression  in  a  course  of  lectures  during  the 
past  few  months  by  one  of  the  prominent  ministers  of  Salt  Lake 
City,t  and  also  in  a  discourse  delivered  by  another  minister  be- 
fore the  Teachers'  association  of  the  Utah  Presbytery,^  in 
which  certain  strictures  were  offered  concerning  our  doctrine 
of  God.  It  will  perhaps  be  well  to  read  the  report  of  what  in 
substance  was  said  on  that  occasion  by  the  reverend  gentleman 
who  thought  proper  to  take  up  this  subject  before  that  associa- 
tion. I  read  from  the  synopsis  of  his  discourse  published  in  one 
of  the  morning  papers: 

At  this  point  Dr.  Paden  made  his  address,  first  taking  up  some 
of  the  standard  writings  on  "Mormon"  doctrine  and  reading  from 
them  the  ideas  of  God  as  incorporated  in  the  "Mormon"  faith.  He 
read  from  the  Catechism  in  relation  to  the  Godhead,  wherein  it  is 
stated  that  there  are  not  only  more  Gods  than  one,  but  that  God  is  a 


♦History  of  Joseph  Smith:  Millennial  Star,  Vol.  xxiii,  p.  246. 
fThis  was  Rev.  Alfred  H.  Henry,  Pastor  First  M.  E.  Church. 
J  This  was  Dr.  Paden  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  August  16, 
1901. 


THE  "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY,  11 

being  of  parts,  with  a  body  liije  that  of  a  man.  He  then  read  from 
the  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  where  it  is  stated  that  the  words  of  the 
priesthood  are  the  words  of  God.  After  calling  attention  to  the 
material  view  of  God  as  set  forth  in  these  teachings,  the  speaker 
said  that  he  thought  he  could  see  a  tendency  towards  a  more  spiritual 
idea  of  God  among  the  younger  and  more  enlightened  members  of  the 
dominant  church,  and  noticed  this  in  the  writings  of  Dr.  Talmage 
especially.  Referring  to  the  Adam-God  idea,  the  speaker  said  that 
he  had  not  investigated  it  much,  but  thought  that  the  "Mormon" 
Church  was  ashamed  of  such  an  idea.  He  placed  special  stress  on  the 
idea  that  when  men  attempted  to  give  God  a  human  form  they  fash- 
ioned him  after  their  own  weaknesses  and  frailties.  A  carnal  man, 
he  said,  had  a  carnal  God,  and  a  spiritual  man  a  spiritual  God.  The 
teaching  of  a  material  God,  said  he,  and  of  a  plurality  of  Gods,  I 
think  is  heathenish.  The  material  conception  of  God  is  the  crudest 
possible  conception. 

I  take  it  that  we  may  classify  under  three  heads  the 
complaints  here  made  against  us  with  reference  to  the  doctrine 
of  Deity. 

First,  we  believe  that  God  is  a  being  with  a  body  in  form 
like  man's;  that  he  possesses  body,  parts  and  passions;  that  in 
a  word,  God  is  an  exalted,  perfected  man. 

Second,  we  believe  in  a  plurality  of  Gods. 

Third,  we  believe  that  somewhere  and  some  time  in  the 
ages  to  come,  through  development,  through  enlargement, 
through  purification  until  perfection  is  attained,  man  at  last, 
may  become  like  God — a  God. 

I  think  these  three  complaints  may  be  said  to  cover  the 
whole  ground  of  what  our  reverend  critics  regard  as  our  error 
in  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  Deity. 

The  task  before  me,  on  this  occasion,  is  to  take  this  sub- 
ject and  present  to  you  what  in  reality  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Latter  day  Saints  teaches  with  reference  to  the  God- 
head. 


12  THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF  DEITY. 

Very  naturally,  one  stands  in  awe  of  the  subject,  so  large  it 
is,  and  so  sacred  it  is.  One  can  only  approach  it  with  feelings 
of  reverential  awe,  and  with  a  deep  sense  of  his  own  inability  to 
grasp  the  truth  and  make  it  plain  to  the  understandings  of  men. 
In  the  presence  of  such  a  task,  one  feels  like  invoking  the  pow- 
ers divine  to  aid  him  in  his  undertaking;  and  paraphrasing 
Milton  a  little,  one  could  well  cry  aloud,  what  in  me  is  dark, 
illumine;  what  low,  raise  and  support,  that  to  the  height  of 
this  great  argument  I  may  justify  to  men  the  faith  we  hold  of 
God. 

Here  let  me  say  that  we  are  dependent  upon  that  which 
God  has  been  pleased  to  reveal  concerning  himself  for  what  we 
know  of  him.  Today,  as  in  olden-times,  man  cannot  by  searching 
find  out  God.*  While  it  is  true  that  in  a  certain  sense  the 
heavens  declare  his  glory,  and  the  firmament  showeth  his  handi- 
work, and  proclaim  to  some  extent  his  eternal  power  and  God- 
head, yet  nothing  absolutely  definite  with  respect  of  God  may 
be  learned  from  those  works  of  nature.  I  will  narrow  the  field 
atill  more,  and  say  that  such  conceptions  of  God  as  we  entertain 
must  be  in  harmony  with  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Testament 
on  this  subject;  for  accepting  as  we  do,  the  New  Testament  as 
the  word  of  God — at  least,  as  part  of  it— any  modern 
revelation  which  we  may  claim  to  possess  must  be  in  harmony 
with  that  revelation.  Consequently,  on  this  occasion,  all  we 
have  to  do  is  to  consider  the  New  Testament  doctrine  with 
reference  to  the  Godhead.  This,  I  believe,  will  simplify  our 
task. 

Start  we  then  with  the  teachings  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
It  is  to  be  observed  in  passing  that  Jesus  himself  came  with  no 
abstract  definition  of  God.  Nowhere  in  his  teachings  can  you 
find  any  argument  about  the  existence  of  God.  That  he  takes 
for  granted;  assumes  as  true;  and  from  that  basis  proceeds  as  a 

*  Job  ii:  7. 


THE  "mormon"   doctrine   OP   DEITY.  13 

teacher  of  men.  Nay  more;  he  claims  God  as  his  Father.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  quote  texts  in  proof  of  this  statement;  the 
New  Testament  is  replete  with  declarations  of  that  character. 
What  may  be  of  more  importance  for  us  at  the  present  moment 
is  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  God  himself  also  acknowledged 
the  relationship  which  Jesus  claimed.  Most  emphatically  did 
he  do  so  on  the  memorable  occasion  of  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  in  the  river  Jordan.  You  remember  how  the  scriptures, 
according  to  Matthew,  tell  us  that  as  Jesus  came  up  out  of  the 
water  from  his  baptism,  the  heavens  were  opened,  and  the 
Spirit  of  God  descended  like  a  dove  upon  him;  and  at  the  same 
moment,  out  of  the  stillness  came  the  voice  of  Godi  saying, 
"This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  On 
another  occasion  the  Father  acknowledges  the  relationship — 
at  the  transfiguration  of  Jesus  in  the  mount,  in  the  presence 
of  three  of  his  apostles,  Peter  and  James  and  John,  and  the 
angels  Moses  and  Elias.  The  company  was  overshadowed  by  a 
glorious  light,  and  the  voice  of  God  was  heard  to  say  of  Jesus, 
"This  is  my  beloved  Son;  hear  him."  Of  this  the  apostles  in 
subsequent  years  testified,  and  we  have  on  record  their  testi- 
mony. So  that  the  existence  of  God  the  Father,  and  the 
relationship  of  Jesus  to  him,  is  most  clearly  shown  in  these 
scriptures.  "  But  Jesus  himself  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 
and  in  this  connection  there  is  clearly  claimed  for  him  divinity, 
that  is  to  say,  Godship.  Let  me  read  to  you  a  direct  passage 
upon  that  subject;  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  gospel  according  to 
St.  John,  and  reads  as  follows: 

In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God, 
and  the  Word  was  God.  *  *  *  ^^^j  ^]^Q  Word  was 
made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  tis,  (and  we  beheld  his  glory,  the 
glory  as  of  the  c  nly  begotten  of  the  Father)  full  of  grace  and 
truth.* 

*  John  1. 


14  THE    "mormon"   doctrine  OF   DEITY. 

The  identity  between  Jesus  of  Nazareth — "the  Word  made 
flesh" — and  the  "Word"  that  was  "with  God  from  the  begin- 
ning," and  that  "was  God,"  is  so  clear  that  it  cannot  possibly 
be  doubted.  So  the  Son  is  God,  as  well  as  the  Father  is  God. 
Other  evidences  go  to  establish  the  fact  that  Jesus  had  the 
Godlike  power  of  creation.  In  the  very  passage  I  have  just 
read,  it  is  said: 

All  things  were  made  by  him  [that  is,  by  the  Word,  who  is  Jesus]; 
and  without  him  was  not  anything  made  that  was  made.  In  hira  was 
life;  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men.* 

One  other  scripture  of  like  import,  but  perhaps  even  more 
emphatic  than  the  foregoing,  is  that  saying  of  Paul's  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews: 

God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  time 
past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken 
unto  us  by  his  Son,  whom  he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all  things,  by 
whom  also  he  made  the  worlds,  f 

Not  only  one  world,  but  many  "worlds,"for  the  word  is  used 
in  the  plural  So  that  we  find  that  the  Son  of  God  was  God  the 
Father's  agent  in  the  work  of  creation,  and  that  under  the 
Father's  direction  he  created  many  worlds.  There  can  be  no 
question  then  as  to  the  divinity,  the  Godship,  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, since  he  is  not  only  God  the  Son,  but  God  the  Creator  also 
— of  course  under  the  direction  of  the  Father. 

Again,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  spoken  of  in  the  scriptures  as 
God.  I  tnink,  perchance,  the  clearest  verification  of  that  state- 
ment is  to  be  found  in  connection  with  the  circumstance  of 
Ananias  and  his  wife  attempting  to  deceive  the  apostles  with 
reference  to  the  price  for  which  they  had  sold  a  certain  parcel 
of  land  they  owned,  which  price  they  proposed  putting  into  the 


*  Verses  3,  4. 
t  Heb.  1:  1-3. 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  15 

common  fund  of  the  Church;  but  selfishness  asserted  itself,  and 
they  concluded  to  lie  as  to  the  price  of  the  land,  and  only  con- 
secrate a  part  to  the  common  fund  It  was  an  attempt  to  get 
credit  for  a  full  consecration  of  what  they  possessed,  on  what 
was  a  partial  dedication  of  their  goods.  They  proposed  to  live 
a  lie,  and  to  tell  one  if  necessary  to  cover  the  lie  they  proposed 
to  live.  When  Ananias  stood  in  the  presence  of  the  apostles, 
Peter  put  this  very  pointed  question  to  him:  "Why  hath  Satan 
filled  thine  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost?"  *  *  *  "Thou 
hast  not  lied  unto  men,  but  unto  God."*  To  lie  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  to  lie  to  God,  because  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God.  And 
frequently  in  the  scriptures  the  Holy  Spirit  is  spoken  of  in  this 
way. 

These  three,  the  Father,  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  is  true, 
are  spoken  of  in  the  most  definite  manner  as  being  God;  but  the 
distinction  of  one  from  the  other  is  also  clearly  marked  in  the 
scriptures.  Take  that  circumstance  to  which  I  have  already 
alluded — the  baptism  of  Jesus.  There  we  may  see  the  three 
distinct  personalities  most  clearly.  The  Son  coming  up  out  of 
the  water  from  his  baptism;  the  heavens  opening  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  descending  upon  him ;  while  out  of  heaven  the  voice  of 
God  is  heard  saying,  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased."  Here  three  Gods  are  distinctly  apparent.  They  are 
seen  to  be  distinct  from  each  other.  They  appear  simultane- 
ously, not  as  one,  but  as  three,  each  one  doing  a  different  thing, 
so  that  however  completely  they  may  be  one  in  spirit,  in  pur- 
pose, in  will,  they  are  clearly  distinct  as  persons — as  individuals. 

In  several  instances  in  the  scriptures  these  three  person- 
ages are  accorded  equal  dignitv  in  the  Godhead.  An  example 
is  found  in  the  commission  which  Jesus  gave  to  his  disciples 
after  his  resurrection,  when  he  sent  them  out  into  the  world  to 

*  Acts  5. 


16  THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY. 

preach  the  gospel  to  all  nations.     He  stood  in  the  presence  of 
tha  eleven,  and  said: 

All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye, 
therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.* 

Each  of  the  three  is  here  given  equal  dignity  in  the  God- 
head.    Again,  in  the  apostolic  benediction: 

May  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  love  of  God,  and  the 
communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be  with  you  all. 

•  In  one  particular,  at  least,  Jesus  came  very  nearly  exalting 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  a  seeming  superiority  over  the  other  person- 
ages in  the  Godhead;  for  he  said: 

All  manner  of  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto  men;  but 
the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  not  be  forgiven  unto 
men.  And  whosoever  speaketh  a  word  against  the  Son  of  Man,  it 
shall  be  forgiven  him:  but  whosoever  speaketh  agaist  the  Holy 
Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in 
the  world  to  come.f 

I  take  it,  however,  that  this  seeming  superior  dignity 
accorded  to  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  Son  of  God,  is  owing  to  the 
nature  of  the  third  personage  in  the  Trinity,  and  the  kind  of 
testimony  he  can  impart  unto  the  soul  of  man  because  of  his 
being  a  personage  of  spirit — a  testimony  that  is  better  than 
the  seeing  of  the  eye,  more  sure  than  the  hearing  of  the 
ear,  because  it  is  spirit  testifying  to  spirit — soul  communing 
with  soul — it  is  the  soul  of  God  imparting  to  the  soul  of  man; 
and  if  men,  after  receiving  that  Witness  from  God  shall  blas- 
pheme against  him,  farewell  hope  of  forgiveness  for  such  a  sin, 
in  this  world  or  in  the  world  to  come! 


*lMatt.  28:  18-20. 
t  Matt.  12:  31,  32. 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  17 

These  three  personages  then  are  of  equal  dignity  in  the 
Godhead,  according  to  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  teachings,  I  pray  you  keep  in  mind,  we  most  heartily 
accept. 

This  simple  Christian  teaching  respecting  the  Godhead, 
gave  birth  to  what  in  ecclesiastical  history  is  called  "The 
Apostles'  Creed."  A  vague  tradition  hath  it  that  before  the 
Apostles  dispersed  to  go  into  the  world  to  preach  the  gospel 
they  formulated  a  creed  with  respect  of  the  Church's  belief  in 
God.  Whether  that  tradition  be  true  or  not,  I  do  not  know, 
and  for  matter  of  that,  it  makes  little  difference.  Suffice  it  to 
say  that  the  so-called  "Apostles'  Creed,"  for  two  centuries 
expressed  the  faith  of  the  early  Christians  upon  the  question 
of  God.    It  stands  as  follows: 

I  believe  in  God,  the  Father,  Almighty;  and  in  Jesus  Christ,  his 
only  Begotten  Son,  our  Lord,  who  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  buried,  arose 
from  the  dead  on  the  third  day,  ascended  to  the  heavens,  and  sits  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  whence  he  will  come,  to  judge  the  living 
and  the  dead;  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

•  This  was  the  first  formulated  Christian  creed  upon  the  subject 
of  the  Godhead,  so  far  as  known;  and  the  ancient  saints  were  con- 
tent to  allow  this  expression  of  their  belief  to  excite  their  rever- 
ence without  arousing  their  curiosity  as  to  the  nature  of  God. 
Happy,  perhaps,f  or  this  world,  certainly  it  would  have  contributed 
to  the  honor  of  ecclesiastical  history,  had  this  simple  formula  of 
the  New  Testament  doctrine  respecting  God  been  allowed  to 
stand  sufficient  until  it  should  please  God  to  raise  the  curtain 
yet  a  little  more  and  give  definite  revelation  with  respect  of 
himself  and  especially  of  his  own  nature.  But  this  did  not 
satisfy  the  so-called  Christians  at  the  close  of  the  third  and 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  By  a  succession  of  most 
bitter  and  cruel   persecutions,   the   great,   strong   characters 


18  THE   "mormon"   doctrine    OF   DEITY. 

among  the  Christians  by  that  time  had  been  stricken  down; 
and,  as  some  of  our  historians  record  if,  only  weak  and 
timorous  men  were  left  in  the  church  to  grapple  with  the  rising 
power  of  "science,  falsely  so-called."*  For  a  long  time 
the  paganization  of  the  Christian  religion  had  been  going  on. 
The  men  who  esteemed  themselves  to  be  philosophers  must 
needs  corrupt  the  simple  truth  of  the  "Apostles'  Creed" 
respecting  the  three  persons  of  the  Godhead,  by  the  false 
philosophies  of  the  orient,  and  the  idle  speculations  of  the 
Greeks;  until  this  simple  expression  of  Christian  faith  in  God 
was  changed  from  what  we  find  it  in  the  "Apostle's  Creed" 
to  the  "Athanasian  Creed,"  and  those  vain  philosophiaings  and 
definitions  which  have  grown  out  of  it,  and  which  reduce  the 
dignity  of  the  Godhead  to  a  mere  vacuum— to  a  '  being"  im- 
personal, incorporeal,  without  .body,  without  parts,  without 
passions;  and  I  might  add  also,  without  sense  or  reason  or 
any  attribute — an  absolute  nonentity,  which  they  placed  in  the 
seat  of  God,  and  attempted  to  confer  upon  this  conception 
divine  powers,  clothe  it  with  divine  attributes,  and  give  it 
title,  knee  and  adoration — in  a  word,  divine  honors! 

Let  us  now  consider  the  form  of  God.  In  those  scriptures 
which  take  us  back  to  the  days  of  creation,  when  God  created 
the  earth  and  all  things  therein — God  is  represented  as  saying 
to  someone: 

Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness.  *  *  *  So  God 
created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him, 
male  and  female  created  he  them. 

Now,  if  that  were  untouched  by  "philosophy,"  I  think  it 
would  not  be  difficult  to  understand.  Man  was  created  in 
the  image  and  likeness  of  God.     What  idea  does  this  language 


*  See  Mosheim's  Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  iv.  bk.  ii,  eh.  i,  (note.) 


THE   "mormon"    doctrine   OF  DEITY.  19 

convey  to  the  mind  of  man,  except  that  man,  when  his  creation 
was  completed,  stood  forth  the  counterpart  of  God  in  form? 
But  our  philosophers  have  not  been  willing  to  let  it  stand  so. 
They  will  not  have  God  limited  to  any  form.  They  will  not 
have  him  prescribed  by  the  extensions  of  his  person  to  some 
line  or  other  of  limitation.  No;  he  must  needs  be  in  his 
person,  as  well  as  in  mind  or  spirit,  all-pervading,  filling  the 
universe,  with  a  center  nowhere,  with  a  circumference  every- 
where. We  must  expand  the  person  of  God  out  until  it  fills  the 
universe.  And  so  they  tell  us  that  this  plain,  simple,  straight- 
forward language  of  Moses,  which  says  that  man  was  created 
in  the  image  of  God — and  which  everybody  can  understand — 
means,  not  the  image  of  God's  personality,  but  God's  "moral 
image!"  Man  was  created  in  the  "moral  image"  of  God,  they 
say. 

It  is  rather  refreshing  in  the  midst  of  so  much  nonsense 
that  is  uttered  upon  this  subject,  in  order  to  hide  the  truth  and 
perpetuate  the  false  notions  of  a  paganized  Christianity,  to  find 
now  and  then  a  Christian  scholar  who  rises  out  of  the  vagaries 
of  modern  Christianity  and  proclaims  the  straightforward  truth. 
Let  me  read  to  you  the  words  of  such  an  one — the  Rev  Dr.  Charles 
A.  Briggs;  and  this  note  will  be  found  in  the  Manual  that  your 
Improvement  Associations  will  use  the  coming  winter.  It  may 
be  said,  of  course,  by  our  Presbyterian  friends,  that  Dr.  Briggs 
is  a  heretic;  that  he  has  been  cast  out  of  their  church.  Grant 
it;  but  with  open  arms,  he  has  been  received  by  the  Episcopal 
church,  and  ordained  into  its  priesthood;  and  has  an  influence  that 
is  considerable  in  the  Christian  world,  notwithstanding  the  door 
of  the  Presbyterian  church  was  shut  in  his  face.  But  however 
heretical  Dr.  Briggs'  opinions  may  be  considered  by  his  former 
Presbyterian  brethren,  his  scholarship  at  least  cannot  be 
challenged.  Speaking  of  man  being  formed  in  the  image  and 
likeness  of  God,  he  says: 


20  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

Some  theologians  refer  the  form  to  the  higher  nature  of  man  [that 
is,  to  that  "moral  image"  in  likeness  of  which  it  is  supposed  man  was 
created];  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  text  or  context  to  suggest 
such  an  interpretation.  The  context  urges  us  to  think  of  the 
entire  man  as  distinguished  from  the  lower  forms  of  creation,— 
that  which  is  essential  to  man,  and  may  be  communicated  by 
descent  to  his  seed. — The  bodily  form  cannot  be  excluded  from  the 
representation.* 

I  say  it  is  rather  refreshing  to  hear  one  speak  like  that  whose 
scholarship,  at  least,  is  abo^e  all  question.  And  yet  still  another 
voice;  and  this  time  from  one  who  stands  high  in  scientific 
circles,  one  who  has  written  a  work  on  the  "Harmony  of  the 
Bible  and  Science,"  which  is  a  most  valuable  contribution  to 
that  branch  of  literature.  The  gentleman  I  speak  of  is  a  Fellow 
of  the  Royal  Astronomical  Society,  and  principal  of  the  College 
at  Highbury  New  Park,  England.  On  this  subject  of  man  being 
created  in  the  image  of  God,  he  says: 

I  think  the  statement  that  man  was  made  in  the  Divine  image  is 
intended  to  be  more  literal  than  we  generally  suppose;  for  judging 
from  what  we  read  throughout  the  scriptures,  it  seems  very  clear 
that  our  Lord,  as  well  as  the  angels,  had  a  bodily  form  similar  to  that  of 
man,  only  far  more  spiritual  and  far  more  glorious;  but  which, 
however,  is  invisible  to  man  unless  special  capabilities  of  sight  are 
given  him,  like  that  experienced  by  Elisha's  servant  when,  in  answer 
to  the  prophet's  prayer,  he  saw  the  heavenly  hosts  surrounding  the 
city  of  Dothan. 

After  discussing  this  question  at  some  length,  and 
bringing  to  bear  upon  it  numerous  Biblical  'llustrations,  this 
celebrated  man — Dr.  Samuel  Kinns — whose  scientific  and 
scholarly  standing  I  have  already  referred  to,  speaks  of  the 


*  Messianic  Prophecy,  p.  70. 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  21 

effect  of  this  belief  upon  man,  and  thus  concludes  his  state- 
ment on  that  head: 

I  am  sure  if  a  man  would  only  consider  a  little  more  the  divinity 
of  his  human  form,  and  would  remember  that  God  has  indeed 
created  him  in  his  own  image,  the  thought  would  so  elevate  and  re- 
fine him  that  he  would  feel  it  his  duty  to  glorify  God  in  his  body  as 
well  as  in  his  spirit. 

But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  care  not  a  fig  for  the  state- 
ments of  either  learned  divines  or  scientists  on  this  subject;  for 
the  reason  that  we  have  higher  and  better  authority  to  v^^hich 
we  can  appeal — the  scriptures.  And  here  I  pass  by  that 
marvelous  appearance  of  God  unto  Abraham  in  the  plains  of 
Mamre,  when  three  "men"  came  into  his  tent,  one  of  whom  was 
the  Lord,  who  conversed  with  him,  and  partook  of  his  hospitality, 
and  disclosed  to  him  his  intention  with  reference  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.* 

I  pass  by  also  that  marvelous  revelation  of  God  to  Joshua, 
when  Joshua  drew  near  to  Jericho  and  saw  a  person  in  the  form 
of  a  man  standing  with  sword  in  hand.  Joshua  approached  him 
and  said:  "Art  thou  for  us,  or  for  our  adversaries?"  "Nay," 
replied  the  person,  "but  as  captain  of  the  host  of  the  Lord  am  I 
now  come."  And  Joshua  bowed  himself  to  the  very  earth  in 
reverence,  and  worshiped  that  august  warrior.f  Do  not  tel) 
me  that  it  was  an  "angel;"  for  had  it  been  an  angel,  the 
divine  homage  paid  by  Israel's  grand  old  warrior  would  have 
been  forbidden.  Do  you  not  remember  the  time  when  John,  the 
beloved  disciple,  stood  in  the  presence  of  an  angel  and  awed  by 
the  glory  of  his  presence  he  bowed  down  to  worship  him,  and  how 
the  angel  quickly  caught  him  up  and  said:  "See  thou  do  it  not; 


*  Gen.  18. 

t  Joshua  5: 13,  14. 


22  THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OP  DEITY. 

for  I  am  thy  fellow-servant,  and  of  thy  brethren  the  prophets, 
and  of  them  which  keep  the  sayings  of  this  book:  worship  God!"* 
The  fact  that  this  personage  before  whom  Joshua  bowed  to  the 
earth  received  without  protest  divine  worship  from  him,  pro- 
claims trumpet-tongued  that  he  indeed  was  God.  Furthermore, 
he  bade  Joshua  to  remove  the  shoes  from  his  feet,  for  even  the 
ground  on  which  he  stood  was  holy. 

I  also  pass  by  that  marvelous  vision  given  of  the  Son  of  God 
to  the  pagan  king  of  Babylon.  This  king  had  cast  the  three 
Hebrew  children  into  the  fiery  furnace,  and  lo!  before  his  startled 
vision  were  '  four  men"  walking  about  in  the  furnace,  "and,"  said 
he,  "the  form  of  the  fourth  is  like  the  Son  of  God."t  I  pass 
by,  I  say,  such  incidents  as  these,  and  come  to  more  important 
testimony. 

The  great  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  writing  to  the  Colossian 
saints,  speaks  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  "in  whom  we  have  re- 
demption through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins," 
as  being  in  the  "image  of  the  invisible  God."J  Again,  writing 
to  the  Hebrew  saints,  and  speaking  of  Jesus,  he  says: 

Who  being  the  brightness  of  his  [the  Father's]  glory,  and  the 
express  image  of  his  [the  Father's]  person,  and  upholding  all  things 
by  the  word  of  his  power,  when  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins, 
sat  down  on  the  right  band  of  the  Majesty  on  high.§ 

In  the  face  of  these  scriptures,  will  anyone  who  belives  in 
the  Bible  say  that  it  is  blasp'iemy  to  speak  of  God  as  being 
possessed  of  a  bodily  form?  We  find  that  the  Son  of  God 
himself  stood  among  his  fellows  a  man,  with  all  the  limitations 
as  to  his  body  which  pertain  to  man's  body ;  with  head,  trunk, 


*  Rev.  22:  8,  9.     Also  Rev.  19:  10. 
t  Dan.  3:25. 
t  Col.  1:15. 
§  Heb.  1:  1,2. 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY,  23 

and  limbs;  with  eyes,  mouth  and  ears;  with  affections,  with 
passions;  for  he  exhibited  anger  as  well  as  love  in  the  course 
of  his  ministry;  he  was  a  man  susceptible  to  all  that  man  could 
suffer,  called  by  way  of  pre-eminence  the  "man  of  sorrows,"  and 
one  "acquainted  with  grief;"  for  in  addition  to  his  own,  he  bore 
yours  and  mine,  and  suffered  that  we  might  not  suffer  if  we 
would  obey  his  gospel.  And  yet  we  are  told  that  it  is  blas- 
phemy to  speak  of  God  as  being  in  human  form — that  it  is 
"heathenism."  In  passing,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  our  sectarian  friends  are  pretending  to  the  use  of  gentb 
phrases  now.  They  do  not  propose  to  hurt  our  feelings  at  all 
by  harshness  We  are  to  be  wooed  by  gentle  methods.  And 
yet  they  denounce  a  sacred  article  of  our  faith  as  "heathen- 
ism." I  think  if  we  were  to  use  such  language  with  reference 
to  them,  or  their  creeds,  they  could  not  commend  it  for  its 
gentleness. 

But  I  have  a  text  to  propose  to  them: 
"  What  think  ye  oj  Christ?" 

I  suppose  that  thousands  of  sermons  every  year  are 
preached  from  that  text  by  Christian  ministers.  And  now  I  ar- 
raign them  before  their  favorite  text,  and  I  ask  them.  What 
think  ye  of  Christ?  Is  he  God?  Yes.  Is  he  man?  Yes — 
there  is  no  escaping  it.  His  resurrection  and  the  immortality 
of  his  body  as  well  as  of  his  spirit  that  succeeds  his  resurrection 
is  a  reality.  He  himself  attested  it  in  various  ways.  He  ap- 
peared to  a  number  of  the  apostles,  who,  when  they  saw  him, 
were  seized  with  fright,  supposing  they  had  seen  a  spirit;  but  he 
said  unto  them,  "Why  are  ye  troubled?  And  why  do  thoughts 
arise  in  your  hearts?  Behold  ray  hands  and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I 
myself:  handle  me  and  see;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones, 
as  ye  see  me  have."*    Then,  in  further  attestation  of  the  reality 


*  Luke  24:  36-39. 


24  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

of  his  existence,  as  if  to  put  away  all  doubt,  he  said,  "Have  ye 
here  any  meat?"  And  they  brought  him  some  broiled  fish  and 
honeycomb,  and  "he  did  eat  before  them."*  Think  of  it!  A 
resurrected,  immortal  person  actually  eating  of  material  food! 
I  wonder  that  our  spiritually-minded  friends  do  not  arraign  him 
for  such  a  material  act  as  that  after  his  resurrection!  A 
Scotch  Presbyterian  is  particularly  zealous  for  a  strict  observ- 
ance of  the  Sabbath.  One  who  was  a  little  liberal  in  his  views 
of  the  la';^  pertaining  to  the  Sabbath  was  once  arguing  with  an 
orthodox  brother  on  the  subject,  and  urged  that  even  Jesus  so 
far  bent  the  law  pertainig  to  the  Sabbath  that  he  justified  his 
disciples  in  walking  through  the  fields  of  corn  on  the  Sabbath, 
and  rubbing  the  ears  of  corn  in  their  hands,  blowing  away  the 
chaff,  and  eating  the  corn.  "0  weel,"  says  Donald,  "mebbe  the 
Lord  did  that;  but  it  doesna  heighten  him  in  my  opeenion."  And 
so  this  resurrected,  second  personage  of  the  Godhead  ate  mate- 
rial food  after  his  resurrection;  but  I  take  it  that  the  fact  does 
not  "heighten"  him  in  the  opinion  of  our  ultra  spiritually-minded 
folk.  It  comes  in  conflict,  undoubtedly,  with  their  notions  of 
what  life  ought  to  be  after  the  resurrection. 

But  not  only  did  he  do  this,  but  with  his  resurrected  hands 
he  prepared  a  meal  on  the  sea  shore  for  his  own  disciples,  and 
invited  them  to  partake  of  the  food  which  he  with  his  resur- 
rected hands  had  provided.f  Moreover,  for  forty  days  he 
continued  ministering  to  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection, 
eating  and  drinking  with  them;$  and  then,  as  they  gathered 
together  on  one  occasion,  lo!  he  ascended  from  their  midst,  and 
a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their  sight.  Presently  two  per- 
sonages in  white  apparel  stood  beside  them  and  said:  "Ye  men 


*  Luke  24:  41-43. 

t  John  21:  9-13  and  Acts  10:41. 

t  Acts  10:  41,  and  Acts  1:  2,3. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  25 

of  Galilee,  why  stand  ye  gazing  up  into  heaven?  This  same 
Jesus,  which  is  taken  up  frorii  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come 
in  like  manner  as  ye  have  seen  him  go  into  heaven."*  What! 
With  his  body  of  flesh  and  bones,  with  the  marks  in  his  hands  and 
in  his  feet?  Shall  he  come  again  in  that  form?  The  old  Jewish 
prophet,  Zechariah,  foresaw  that  he  would.  He  describes  the 
time  of  his  ghirious  coming,  when  his  blessed,  nail-pierced 
feet  shall  touch  the  Mount  of  Olives  again,  and  it  shall  cleave 
in  twain,  and  open  a  great  valley  for  the  escape  of  the  dis- 
tressed house  of  Judah,  sore  oppressed  in  the  siege  of  their 
great  city  Jerusalem.  We  are  told  that  "They  shall  look  upon  him 
whom  they  have  pierced,  and  they  shall  mourn  for  him  as  one 
mourneth  for  his  only  son,"  and  one  shall  look  upon  him  in  that 
day  and  shall  say,  "What  are  these  wounds  in  thy  hands  and  in 
thy  feet?"  and  he  shall  answer,  "These  are  the  wounds  that  I 
received  in  the  house  of  my  friends."t 

What  think  ye  of  Christ?  Is  he  God?  Yes.  Is  he  man? 
Yes.  Will  that  resurrected,  immortal,  glorified  man  ever  be 
distilled  into  some  bodiless,  formless  essence,  to  be  diffused  as 
the  perfume  of  a  rose  is  diffused  throughout  the  circumambient 
air?  Will  he  become  an  impersonal,  incorporeal,  immaterial 
God,  without  body,  without  parts,  without  passions?  Will  it 
be?  Can  it  be?  What  think  ye  of  Christ?  Is  he  God?  Yes. 
Is  he  an  exalted  man?  Yes;  in  the  name  of  all  the  Gods  he  is. 
Then  why  do  sectarian  ministers  arraign  the  faith  of  the 
members  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints 
because  they  believe  and  affirm  that  God  is  an  exalted  man,  and 
that  he  has  a  body,  tangible,  immortal,  indestructible,  and  will 
so  remain  embodied  throughout  the  countless  ages  of  eternity? 
And  since  the  Son  is  in  the  form  and  likeness  of  the  Father,  being, 


*  Actsl:  11. 

t  Zech.  the  12th,  13th  and  14th  chapters. 

2 


26  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

as  Paul  tells,  "in  the  express  image  of  his  [the  Father's]  person" 
— so,  too,  the  Father  God  is  a  man  of  immortal  tabernacle,  glor- 
ified and  exalted:  for  as  the  Son  is,  so  also  is  the  Father,  a  per- 
sonage of  tabernacle,  of  flesh  and  of  bone  as  tangible  as  man's, 
as  tangible  as  Christ's  most  glorious,  resurrected  body. 


II. 


THE  oneness   of  GOD. 

There  are  some  expressions  of  scripture  to  consider 
which  speak  of  the  "oneness"  of  God.  Speaking  of  the  question 
which  agitated  the  early  Christian  Church  about  eating  meats 
which  had  been  offered  to  idols,  Paul  says:  "We  know  that  an 
idol  is  nothing  in  the  world,  and  that  there  is  none  other  God 
but  one."*  Moreover,  Jesus  himself  made  this  strange  remark 
— that  is,  strange  until  one  understands  it:  "I  and  my  Father 
are  one;"  and  so  much  one  are  they  that  he  said:  "He  that  hath 
seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father.  *  *  *  Believest  thou  not  that  I 
am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me?  the  words  that  I  speak 
unto  you  I  speak  not  of  myself;  but  the  Father  that  dwelleth  in 
me,  he  doeth  the  works.  Believe  me  that  I  am  in  the  Father, 
and  the  Father  in  me."t  Consequently  our  philosophers,  es- 
pecially those  who  lived  when  the  present  Christian  creeds 
concerning  God  were  forming,  thought  that  by  some  leger- 
deirain  or  other  they  must  make  the  three  Gods — the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost — just  one  person — one  being;  and 
therefore  they  set  their  wits  at  work  to  perform  the  operation. 

Let  us  seek  out  some  reasonable  explanation  of  the  lan- 
guage used.  I  refer  again  to  the  passage  I  just  quoted  from 
the  writirgs  of  Paul  with  reference  to  there  being  "none  other 


*  I  Cor.  8:  4. 
t  John  14. 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  27 

God  but  one."     Immediately   following  what   I   read  on  that 
point  comes  this  language: 

For  though  there  be  that  are  called  Gods,  whether  in  heaven  or 
in  earth  (as  there  be  Gods  many,  and  Lords  many).  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.* 

Now  I  begin  to  understand.  "To  us,"  that  is,  pertaining 
to  us,  "there  is  but  one  God."  Just  as  to  the  English  subject 
there  is  but  one  sovereign,  so  "to  us"  there  is  but  one  God.  But 
that  no  more  denies  the  existence  of  other  Gods  than  the  fact 
that  to  the  Englishman  there  is  but  one  sovereign  denies  the 
existence  of  other  rulers  over  other  lands  While  declaring 
that  "to  us  there  is  but  one  God,"  the  passage  also  plainly  says 
that  there  "be  Gods  many  and  Lords  many,"  and  it  is  a  mere 
assumption  of  the  sectarian  ministers  that  reference  is  made 
only  to  heathen  gods. 

Again,  we  shall  find  help  in  the  following  passage  in  the 
14th  chapter  of  John: 

At  that  day  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  ye  in  me, 
and  I  in  you. 

Observe  this  last  scripture,  I  pray  you.  "I  in  you,"  and  "ye 
in  me,"  as  well  as  Jesus  being  in  the  Father.  This  oneness 
existing  between  God  the  Father  and  God  the  Son  can  amount 
to  nothing  more  than  this:  that  Jesus  was  conscious  of  the 
indwelling  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  within  him, 
hence  he  spoke  of  himself  and  his  Father  as  being  one,  and  the 
Father  within  him  doing  the  works.  But  mark  you,  not  only 
are  the  disciples  to  know  that  the  Father  is  in  him,  that  is,  in 
Christ,  and  that  Jesus  is  in  the  Father,  but  the  disciples  also 
are  to  be  in  Jesus.    In  what  way?   Jesus  himself  has  furnished 

*  I  Cor.  8:  4-6. 


28  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

the  explanation.  When  the  solemn  hour  of  his  trial  drew  near, 
and  the  bitter  cup  was  to  be  drained  to  the  very  dregs,  Jesus 
sought  God  in  secret  prayer,  and  in  the  course  of  that  prayer  he 
asked  for  strength  of  the  Father,  not  only  for  himself,  but  for 
his  disciples  also.     He  said: 

And  now  I  am  no  more  in  the  world,  but  these  [referring  to  his 
disciples]  are  in  the  world,  and  I  come  to  thee.  Holy  Father,  keep 
through  thy  name  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be 
one,  as  we  are.* 

Now  I  begin  to  see  this  mystery  of  "oneness."  What 
does  he  mean  when  he  prays  that  the  disciples  that  God  had 
given  him  should  be  one,  as  he  and  the  Father  are  one?  Think 
of  it  a  moment,  and  while  you  are  doing  so  I  will  read  you 
this; 

Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  be- 
lieve on  me  through  their  word;  that  they  all  may  be  one:  as  thou, 
Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  ws.f 

Does  that  mean  that  the  persons  of  all  these  disciples, 
whose  resurrection  and  individual  immortality  he  must  have 
foreknown,  shall  all  be  merged  into  one  person,  and  then 
that  one  fused  into  him,  or  he  into  that  one,  and  then  the  Father 
consolidated  into  the  oneness  of  the  mass?  No;  a  thousand  times, 
no,  to  such  a  proposition  as  that.  But  as  Jesus  found  the  indwell- 
ing Spirit  of  God  within  himself,  so  he  would  have  that  same 
Spirit  indwelling  in  his  disciples,  as  well  as  in  those  who  should 
believe  on  him  through  their  testimony,  in  all  time  to  come; 
and  in  this  way  become  of  one  mind,  actuated  by  one  will.  It 
must  have  been  thoughts  such  as  these  that  prompted  Paul  to 
say  to  the  Ephesians: 


*  John  17. 
t  John  17. 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine  OP  DEITY.  29 

For  this  cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  of  whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and  earth  is 
named,  that  he  would  grant  you,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  glory, 
to  be  strengthened  with  might  by  his  spirit  in  the  inner  man:  that 
Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts  by  faith;  that  ye,  being  rooted  and 
grounded  in  him,  may  be  able  to  comprehend  with  all  saints  what  is 
the  breadth,  and  length,  and  depth,  and  height;  and  to  know  the  love 
of  Christ,  which  passeth  knowledge,  that  ye  might  be  filled  with  all 
the  fullness  of  God.* 

So  then,  this  oneness  is  not  a  oneness  of  persons,  not  a 
oneness  of  individuals,  but  a  oneness  of  mind,  of  knowledge,  of 
wisdom,  of  purpose,  of  will,  that  all  might  be  uplifted  and  par- 
take of  the  divine  nature,  until  God  shall  be  all  in  all.  This  is 
the  explanation  of  the  mystery  of  the  oneness  both  of  the  God- 
head and  of  the  disciples  for  which  Jesus  prayed. 

Ill 

THE   PLURALITY  OF  GODS. 

There  are  several  other  items  in  this  branch  of  the  subject 
that  would  be  of  interest  to  discuss;  but  I  must  pay  a  little  at- 
tention to  the  indictment  brought  against  us  by  sectarian 
ministers  on  the  question  of  a  plurality  of  Gods. 

We  have  already  shown  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  are  three  separate  and  distinct  persons,  and,  so  far 
as  personality  is  concerned,  are  three  Gods.  Their  "oneness" 
consists  in  being  possessed  of  the  same  mind;  they  are  one,  too, 
in  wisdom,  in  knowledge,  in  will  and  purpose;  but  as  individuals 
they  are  three,  each  separate  and  distinct  from  the  other,  and 
three  is  plural.  Now,  that  is  a  long  way  on  the  road  towards 
proving  the  plurality  of  Gods.  But,  in  addition  to  this,  1 
would  like  to  know  from  our  friends — the  critical  sectarian 
ministers  who  complain  of  this  part  of  our  faith — the  meaning 

*  Eph.  3:  14-19. 


30  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  op  deity. 

of  the  following  expressions,  carefully  selected  from  the  scrip- 
tures: 

"The  Lord  your  God  is  God  of  Gods,  and  Lord  of  Lords."* 
That  is  from  Moses. 

"The  Lord  God  of  Gods,  the  Lord  God  of  Gods,  he  knoweth, 
and  Israel  he  shall  know."t     That  is  from  Joshua. 

"0  give  thanks  ucto  the  God  of  Gods!  *  *  0  give  thanks 
to  the  Lord  of  Lords !"J     That  is  David. 

"And  shall  speak  marvelous  things  against  the  God  of 
Gods."§    That  is  Daniel. 

"The  Lamb  shall  overcome  them:  for  he  is  Lord  of  Lords, 
and  King  of  K^'ngs."||  That  is  the  beloved  disciple  of  Jesus — 
John  the  Revelator. 

Had  I  taken  such  expressions  from  the  lips  of  the  pagan 
kings  or  false  prophets  who  are  sometimes  represented  as 
speaking  in  the  scriptures,  you  might  question  the  propriety 
of  making  such  quotations  in  support  of  the  doctrine  I  teach; 
but  since  these  expressions  come  from  prophets  and  recognized 
servants  of  God,  I  ask  those  who  criticize  our  faith  in  the  mat- 
ter of  a  plurality  of  Gods  to  explain  away  those  expressions  of 
the  scriptures.  Furthermore,  there  is  Paul's  language,  in  his 
letter  to  the  Corinthians,  already  quoted,  where  he  says,  "that 
there  be  Gods  many  and  Lords  many,  whether  in  heaven  or  in 
earth."  Had  his  expression  been  confined  to  those  that  are 
called  gods  in  earth  it  is  possible  that  there  might  be  some  good 
ground  for  claiming  that  he  had  reference  to  the  heathen  gods, 
and  not  true  Gods;  but  he  speaks  of  those  that  "are  Gods  in 


*  Deut.  10:  17. 
t  Josh.  22:  22. 
t  Psalm  137;  2,  3. 
§  Daniel  11:  36. 
II  Rev.  17:  14. 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine  OF  DEITY.  31 

heaven"  as  well  as  gods  in  earth.  Right  in  line  with  this  idea 
is  the  following  passage  from  the  Psalms  of  the  Prophet  David: 
"God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of  the  mighty;  he  judgeth 
among  the  Gods."*  These,  undoubtedly,  are  the  Gods  in  heaven 
to  whom  Paul  alludes,  among  whom  the  God  referred  to  stands; 
among  whom  he  judges.  This  is  no  reference  to  the  heathen 
gods,  but  to  the  Gods  in  heaven,  the  true  Gods. 

In  this  same  Psalm,  too,  is  the  passage  which  seems  to  in- 
troduce some  telling  evidence  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self, viz:  "I  have  said  ye  are  Gods,  and  all  of  you  are  the  chil- 
dren of  the  Most  High."  You  remember  how  on  one  occasion  the 
Jews  took  up  stones  to  stone  Jesus,  and  he  called  a  halt  for 
just  a  moment,  for  he  wanted  to  reason  with  them  about  it.  He 
said: 

Many  good  works  have  I  shown  you  from  the  Father;  for  which 
of  these  works  do  ye  stone  me? 

Their  answer  was: 

For  a  good  work  we  stone  thee  not;  but  for  blasphemy;  and 
because  that  thou,  being  a  man,  makest  thyself  God. 

What  an  opportunity  here  for  Jesus  to  teach  them  that 
there  was  but  one  God!  How  easily  too,  had  he  been  so  dis- 
posed, he  could  have  explained  about  his  "human  nature"  and 
his  "divine  nature,"  and  shown  to  them  the  distinction;  for  these 
words  have  become  part  of  the  phraseology  of  Christian 
polemics.  But  he  did  not  do  that.  On  the  contrary,  he  affirmed 
the  doctrine  of  a  plurality  of  Gods.     He  said  to  them: 

7s  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  can- 
not be  broken;  say  ye  of  him,  whom   the  Father  hath  sanctified  and 


*  Psalm  82:  1. 


S2  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

sent  into  the  world,  Thou  blasphemest;  because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son 
of  God?  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not.  But 
if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works. 

Higher  authority  on  this  question  cannot  be  quoted  than 
the  Son  of  God  himself.  While  there  is  much  more  that  could 
and  doubtless  ought  to  be  said  on  that  branch  of  the  subject,  I 
must  leave  it  here,  because  I  have  still  another  matter  to  pre- 
sent to  you,  on  another  branch  of  th?  subject;  and  that  is,  our 
belief  that  there  is  a  possibility,  through  development,  through 
growth,  through  doing  what  Jesus  admonished  his  disciples  to 
do — "Be  ye  perfect,  even  as  your  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect" 
— that  the  sons  of  God,  somewhere  and  some  time,  may  rise  to 
a  dignity  that  the  Father  and  our  Elder  Brother  have  already  at- 
tained unto. 

IV. 

THE   future   possibilities   FOR  MAN. 

Is  there  any  doubt  about  men  being  the  sons  of  God?  If  I 
thought  there  was  any  in  your  minds,  I  would  like  to  read  to  you 
the  words  of  an  authority  upon  this  question.  Paul,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  unknown  God  to  whom  the  Athenians  had  erected  an 
altar,  said  to  them: 

God  that  made  the  world  and  all  things  therein  *  *  ♦  hath 
made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of 
the  earth,  and  hath  determined  the  times  before  appointed  and  the 
bounds  of  their  habitation;  that  they  should  seek  the  Lord,  if  haply 
they  might  feel  after  him,  and  find  him,  though  he  be  not  far  from 
every  one  of  us:  for  in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being; 
as  certain  also  of  your  own  poets  have  said,  For  we  are  also  his  off- 
spring. Forasmuch  then  as  we  are  the  offspring  of  God,  we  ought 
not  to  think  that  the  Godhead  is  like  unto  gold,  or  silver,  or  stone, 
graven  by  art  and  man's  device.* 


*  Acts  17:  24-29, 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  33 

Why  ought  they  not  to  think  that  the  Godhead  is  like 
unto  gold  or  silver,  graven  by  art  and  man's  device?  Because 
the  very  divinity  within  them,  their  own  kinship  with  God,  ought 
to  have  taught  them  better  than  to  bow  down  to  images  of 
wood  and  stone,  the  creation  of  man's  hands.  "Ye  are  the 
offspring  of  God,"  said  the  apostle.  And  David,  as  quoted  a 
moment  ago,  said:  "I  have  said:  Ye  are  Gods,  and  all  of  you 
are  children  of  the  Most  High."  Upon  which  passage,  it  must 
be  remembered,  Jesus  fixed  the  seal  of  lis  approval,  as  shown  a 
moment  ago,  where  he  quotes  it  in  controversy  with  the  Jews. 

Is  it  a  strange  and  blasphemous  doctrine,  then,  to  hold 
that  men  at  the  last  shall  rise  to  the  dignity  that  the  Father 
has  attained?  Is  it  "heathenish"  to  believe  that  the  offspring 
shall  ultimately  be  what  the  parent  is?  My  soul,  I  wonder  why 
men  at  all  conscious  of  the  marvelous  powers  within  themselves 
should  question  this  part  of  our  faith.  Think  for  a  moment 
what  progress  a  man  makes  within  the  narrow  limits  of  this  life. 
Regard  him  as  he  lies  in  the  lap  of  his  mother,  a  mere  piece  of 
organized,  red  pulp — a  new-born  babe!  There  are  eyes,  indeed, 
that  may  see,  but  cannot  distinguish  objects;  ears  that  may 
hear,  but  cannot  distinguish  sounds;  hands  as  perfectly  fash- 
ioned as  yours  or  mine,  but  helpless,  withal;  feet  and  limbs,  but 
they  are  unable  to  bear  the  weight  of  his  body,  much  less 
walk.  There  lies  a  man  in  embryo,  but  helpless.  And  yet, 
within  the  span  of  three  score  years  and  ten,  by  the  marvelous 
working  of  that  wondrous  power  within  that  little  mass  of  pulp, 
what  a  change  may  be  wrought!  From  that  helpless  babe  may 
arise  one  like  Demosthenes,  or  Cicero,  or  Pitt,  or  Burke,  or 
Fox,  or  Webster,  who  shall  compel  listening  senates  to  hear 
him,  and  by  his  master  mind  dominate  their  intelligence  and 
their  will,  and  compel  them  to  think  in  channels  that  he  shall 
mark  out  for  them.  Or  from  such  a  babe  may  come  a  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, or  an  Alexander,  or  a  Napoleon,  who  shall  found 


34  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  op  deity. 

empires  or  give  direction  to  the  course  of  history.  From 
such  a  beginning  may  come  a  Lycurgus,  a  Solon,  a  Moses,  or  a 
Justinian,  who  shall  give  constitutions  and  laws  to  kingdoms, 
empires  and  republics,  blessing  happy  millions  unborn  in  their 
day,  and  direct  the  course  of  nations  along  paths  of  orderly 
peace  and  virtuous  liberty.  Prom  the  helpless  babe  may  come 
a  Michael  Angelo,  who  from  some  crude  mass  of  stone  from 
the  mountain  side  shall  work  out  a  heaven-born  vision  that 
shall  hold  the  attention  of  men  for  generations,  and  make 
them  wonder  at  the  God-like  powers  of  man  that  has  created 
an  all  but  living  and  breathing  statue.  Or  a  Mozart,  a  Beetho- 
ven, or  a  Handel,  may  come  from  'the  babe,  and  call  out  from 
the  silence  those  melodies  and  the  richer  harmonies  that  lift 
the  soul  out  of  its  present  narrow  prison  house  and  give  it 
fellowship  for  a  season  with  the  Gods.  Out  from  that  pulp- 
babe  may  arise  a  master  mind  who  shall  seize  the  helm  of  the 
ship  of  state,  and  give  to  a  nation  course  and  direction  through 
troublesome  times,  and  anchor  it  at  last  in  a  haven  of  peace, 
prosperity  and  liberty;  crown  it  with  honor,  too,  and  give  it  a 
proud  standing  among  the  nations  of  the  earth;  while  he,  the 
savior  of  his  country,  is  followed  by  the  benedictions  of  his 
countrymen. 

And  all  this  may  be  done  by  a  man  in  this  life!  Nay,  it 
has  been  done,  between  the  cradle  and  the  grave — within  the 
span  of  one  short  life.  Then  what  may  not  be  done  in  eternity 
by  one  of  these  God-men?  Remove  from  his  path  the  incident 
of  death;  or,  better  yet,  contemplate  him  as  raised  from  the 
dead;  and  give  to  him  in  the  full  splendor  of  manhood's  estate, 
immortality,  endless  existence,  what  may  we  not  hope  that 
he  will  accomplish?  What  limits  can  you  venture  to  fix  as 
marking  the  boundary  of  his  development,  of  his  progress? 
Are  there  any  limits  that  can  be  conceived?  Why  should  there 
be  any  limits  thought  of?    Grant  immortality  to  man  and  God 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  35 

for  bisguide,  what  is  there  in  the  way  of  intellectual,  moral, 
and  spiritual  development  that  he  may  not  aspire  to?  If  within 
the  short  space  of  mortal  life  there  are  men  who  rise  up  out 
of  infancy  and  become  masters  of  the  elements  of  fire  and 
water  and  earth  and  air,  so  that  they  well-nigh  rule  them  as  Gods, 
what  may  it  not  be  possible  for  them  to  do  in  a  few  hundreds 
or  thousands  of  millions  of  years?  What  may  they  not  do  in 
eternity?  To  what  heights  of  power  and  glory  may  they  not 
ascend? 

It  is  idle  today  to  ask  men  to  be  satisfied  with  the  old 
sectarian  notions  of  man's  future  life,  where  at  best  he  is  to  be 
but  one  of  a  minstrelsy  twanging  harps  and  singing  to  the 
glory  of  an  incorporeal,  bodiless,  passionless,  immaterial  in- 
comprehensible God,  Such  conceptions  of  existence  no  longer 
satisfy  the  longings  of  the  intelligent  or  spiritual- minded  man.* 


*  On  this  subject  Sir  Robert  Ball,  the  great  English  astronomer 
and  man  of  science,  and  who  is  feelingly  spoken  of  as  '"a  man  with 
singular  capacity  for  popularizing  science  without  debasing  it'' — has 
the  following  passage: 

"The  popular  notion  that  man,  once  escaped  from  the  confine- 
ment of  the  body,  does  nothing  except  sit  on  a  cloud  and  sing  psalms 
to  the  glory  of  a  God,  whose  glory  is  so  perfect  without  him  that  he 
was  content  when  man  was  not  in  being,  rests  upon  no  evidence, 
whether  of  reason  or  revelation,  and  seems  to  us  derived  either  from 
man's  long  experience  of  overtoil  and  misery  and  his  enjoyment, 
therefore,  of  their  absence,  or  from  the  inherent  Asiatic  dislike  of 
exertion.  Why  should  we  not  work  forever  as  well  as  now?  If  man 
can  live  again,  and  grow  in  that  new  life,  and  exert  himself  to  carry 
out  the  always  hidden,  but  necessarily  magnificent  purpose  of  the 
Creator,  then  indeed,  his  existence  may  have  some  importance,  and 
the  insignificance  of  his  place  of  origin  be  forgotten.  For  he  has  an 
inherent  quality  which  does  not  belong,  so  far  as  the  mind  can  see 
what  must  always  remain  partially  dark,    even    the  Divine;   he  is 


36  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

Growth,  enlargement,  expansion  for  his  whole  nature,  as  he 
recognizes  that  nature  in  its  intellectual,  moral,  spiritual  and 
social  demands,  are  what  his  soul  calls  for;  and  the  systems  of 
theology  that  rise  not  to  the  level  of  these  hopes  are  un- 
worthy man's  attention. 

Keep  these  thoughts  in  mind  for  a  moment,  I  pray  you. 
That  is,  remember  the  powers  in  man,  what  he  has  attained  to 
in  this  life,  and  what  it  is  conceivable  for  him  to  attain 
unto  after  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  when  death  shall 
have  been  removed  from  his  pathway.  Keep  this  in  mind, 
while  1  bring  to  bear  on  the  theme  under  consideration  another 
line  of  facts. 

Let  us  consider,  just  for  a  moment,  and  in  a  very  simple 
manner,  the  universe  in  which  man  lives.  And  let  us  start  with 
what  we  know,  and  keep  well  within  those  lines.  First  of  all, 
then,  as  to  the  earth  itself:  Thanks  to  the  knowledge  man  now 
has  respecting  the  earth  it  is  n3  longer  regarded  as  the 
center  of  the  universe,  around  which  revolve  sun  and  moon 
and  stars,  that  in  the  ages  of  darkness  were  thought  to  have 
been  created  for  the  sole  purpose  of  giving  light  by  day  and 
by  night  to  the  earth.  No;  man  has  learned  the  true  relation  of 
the  earth  to  these  other  objects  in  the  universe.  He  knows 
that  the  earth  is  but  one  of  a  number  of  planets — one  of  a 
group  of  eight  major  planets,  and  a  larger  number  of  minor 
ones,that  revolve  regularly  around  the  sun — and  one  of  the  small- 
est of   the   group  of  major  planets  at  that.     Outside  of  this 


capable  of  effort,  and  in  the  effort  and  through  the  effort,  not 
only  of  growing  greater  than  before,  but  of  adding  force  to  an 
inanimate  thing  like  his  own  body.  What  if  that  power  of  effort 
should  be  slowly  aggrandized  until  man,  now  a  little  higher  than  the 
monkey,  became  a  really  great  being?"  ("Self  Culture"  for 
March,  1899.) 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  37 

group  of  planets,  with  whose  motions  and  laws  man  has 
become  familiar,  is  a  vast  host  of  what  are  called  "fixed  stars;" 
that  is,  stars  that  apparently  have  no  motion,but  which  really  do 
move,  only  their  orbits  are  so  immense  that  man  with  the  unaided 
eye  can  not  discern  their  movements — hence  we  call  them  "fixed 
stars."*  Our  astronomers  have  learned  that  these  "fixed  stars" 
are  not  like  the  planets  which  move  in  their  orbits  about 
our  sun,  but,  on  the  contrary,  are  like  the  sun  itself,  self- 
luminous  bodies,  and  doubtless  like  the  sun  the  center  of  opaque 
planetary  group?;  or  at  least  we  may  say  that  reasoning  from 
analogy,  that  is  regarded  as  a  very  probable  fact. 

Sir  Robert  Ball  in  speaking  of  these  worlds  and  the 
probability  of  their  being  inhabited  says: 

We  know  of  the  existence  of  thirty  millions  of  stars  or  suns, 
many  of  them  much  more  magnificent  than  the  one  which  gives  light 
to  our  system.  The  majority  of  them  are  not  visible  to  the  eye,  or 
even  recognizable  by  the  telescope,  but  sensitized  photographic 
plates — which  are  for  this  purpose  eyes  that  can  stare  unwinking  for 


*  "To  the  unassisted  eye,  the  stars  seem  to  preserve  the  same 
relative  positions  in  the  celestial  sphere  generation  after  generation. 
If  Job,  Hipparchus,  or  Ptolemy  should  again  look  upon  the  heavens, 
he  would,  to  all  appearance  see  Aldebaran,  Orion,  and  the  Pleiades 
exactly  as  he  saw  them  thousands  of  years  ago,  without  a  single 
star  being  moved  from  its  place.  But  the  refined  methods  of  modern 
astronomy,  in  which  the  telescope  is  brought  in  to  measure  spaces 
absolutely  invisible  to  the  eye,  have  shown  that  this  seeming  un- 
changeability  is  not  real,  but  that  the  stars  are  actually  in  motion, 
only  the  rate  of  change  is  so  slow  that  the  eye  would  not,  in  most 
cases,  notice  it  for  thousands  of  years.  In  ten  thousand  years 
quite  a  number  of  stars,  especially  the  brighter  ones,  would  be  seen 
to  have  moved,  while  it  would  take  a  hundred  thousand  years  to  in- 
troduce a  very  noticeable  change  in  the  aspect  of  the  constellations." 
(Newcomb's  Astronomy,  pp.  464-5.) 


38  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

hours  at  a  time— have  revealed  their  existence  beyond  all  doubt  or 
question,  though  most  of  them  are  almost  inconceivably  distant, 
thousands  or  tens  of  thousands  of  times  as  far  off  as  our  sun.  A 
telegraphic  message,  for  example,  which  would  reach  the  sun  in  eight 
minutes,  would  not  reach  some  of  these  stars  in  eighteen  hundred 
years.  The  human  mind,  of  course,  does  not  really  conceive  such 
distances,  though  they  can  be  expressed  in  formula  which  the  human 
mind  has  devised,  and  the  bewildering  statement  is  from  one  point 
of  view  singularly  depressing.  It  reduces  so  greatly  the  probable 
importance  of  man  in  the  universe.  It  is  most  improbable,  almost 
impossible,  that  these  great  centers  of  light  should  have  been  created 
to  light  up  nothing,  and  as  they  are  far  too  distant  to  be  of  use  to 
us,  we  may  fairly  accept  the  hypothesis  that  each  one  has  a  system 
of  planets  around  it  like  our  own.  Taking  an  average  of  only  ten 
planets  to  t  ach  san,  that  hypothesis  indicates  the  existence,  within 
the  narrow  range  to  which  human  observation  is  still  confined,  of  at 
least  three  hundred  millions  of  separate  worlds,  many  of  them  doubt- 
less of  gigantic  size,  and  it  is  nearly  inconceivable  that  those  worlds 
can  be  wholly  devoid  of  living  and  sentient  beings  upon  them. 
Granting  the  to  us  impossible  hypothesis  that  the  final  cause  of  the 
universe  is  accident,-  a  fortuitious  concourse  of  self-existent  atoms, 
still  the  accident  which  produced  thinking  beings  upon  this  little  and 
inferior  world  must  have  frequently  repeated  itself:  while  if,  as 
we  hold,  there  is  a  sentient  Creator,  it  is  difficult  to  believe, 
without  a  revelation  to  that  effect,  that  he  has  wasted  such  glorious 
creative  power  upon  mere  masses  of  insensible  matter.  God 
cannot  love  gases.  The  high  probability,  at  least,  is  that  there 
are  millions  of  worlds — for,  after  all,  what  the  sensitized  paper 
sees  must  be  but  an  infinitesimal  fraction  of  the  whole — occupied  by 
sentient  beings.* 

On  this  subject  Richard  A.  Proctor,  in   his  "Other  Worlds 
Than  Ours,"  also  remarks: 

To  sum  up  what  we  have  learned  so  far  from  the  study  of  the 


Self  Culture  for  March,  1899, 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  39 

starry  heavens — we  see  that,  besides  our  sun  there  are  myriads  of 
other  suns  in  the  immensity  of  space;  that  these  suns  are  large  and 
massive  bodies  capable  of  swaying  by  their  attraction  systems  of 
worlds  as  important  as  those  which  circle  around  our  own  sun;  that 
these  suns  are  formed  of  elements  similar  to  those  which  constitute 
our  own  sun,  so  that  the  worlds  which  circle  round  them  may  be 
regarded  as  in  all  probability  similar  in  constitution  to  this  earth; 
and  that  from  these  suns  all  forms  of  force  which  we  know  to  be 
necessary  to  the  existence  of  organized  beings  on  our  earth  are 
abundantly  emitted.  It  seems  reasonable  to  conclude  that  these 
suns  are  girt  round  by  dependent  systems  of  worlds.  Though 
we  cannot,  as  in  the  case  of  the  solar  system,  actual  see  such  worlds, 
yet  the  mind  presents  them  before  us,  various  in  size,  various 
in  structure,  infinitely  various  in  their  physical  condition  and 
habitudes.* 

With  the  unaided  eye  there  is  ordinarily  within  the  range 
of  our  vision  some  five  or  six  thousand  of  these  "fixed  stars." 
With  the  aid  of  the  telescope,  however,  there  is  brought 
within  the  range  of  man's  vision  between  forty  and  fifty  millions 
of  fixed  stars;  with  the  probability  existing  that  all  these,  as 
well  as  those  fixed  stars  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  be  within  the 
range  of  our  unaided  vision,  are,  like  our  own  sun,  the  centers  of 
groups  of  opaque  planets,  which,  because  they  are  opaque,  cannot 
be  seen  by  us.  But  this  is  but  the  beginning  of  the  story  of  the 
universe.  Immense  as  are  the  numbers  of  "fixed  stars"  to  which 
I  have  called  attention,  and  their  distances  so  great  that  in 
some  cases  it  would  take  a  ray  of  light  a  million  years  to  reach 
us  from  them,  though  light  moves  through  space  at  such  speed 
that  ic  will  travel  some  eight  times  around  the  earth  in  a 
single  second — immense,  I  say,  as  are  these  numbers  of  "fixed 
stars"  revealed  to  man  by  the  telescope,  they  are  after  all 
but  as  the  first  "street  lamps"  of  God's  great  universe — but  a 


'Other  Worlds  Than  Ours."  p.  240. 


40  THE   "muRMON"   doctrine   OF   DEITY. 

few  of  the  motes  in  God's  sunbeam.  Let  me  explain.  You 
have  seen  a  ray  of  sunlight  dart  into  a  room  through  the  half 
drawn  curtains,  and  have  observed  that  it  reveals  the  existence 
of  innumerable  motes  floating  about  in  the  sunbeam.  You  know 
that  if  the  sunbeam  should  shift  into  another  part  of  the  room 
it  will  reveal  the  existence  of  motes  in  that  part  of  the  room  also 
— millions  of  them.  So  you  know  that  the  atmosphere  in  the 
whole  room  is  filled  with  such  motes;  that  the  atmosphere  in 
every  room  in  your  house  is  in  the  same  condition — that  is, 
filled  with  motes;  so  all  the  rooms  in  all  the  houses  of  your 
friends,  or  in  the  city;  so  also  the  whole  circumambient  air  of 
the  whole  earth.  Well,  what  man  has  discovered  in  space 
pertaining  to  the  existence  of  "fixed  stars" — great,  self- 
luminous  bodies,  unquestionably  the  centers  of  planetary  systems 
the  same  as  our  sun  is — all  this,  1  say,  is  but  as  the  sunbeam 
revealing  the  existence  of  a  few  of  the  motes  that  exist 
in  some  little  corner  of  a  room:  for  out  on  the  farthest  edge 
of  space  explored  by  man's  vision  aided  by  the  most  power- 
ful helps  he  can  devise,  man  in  contemplation  can  stand  and  con- 
ceive of  still  greater  stretches  of  space  filled  by  still  more 
numerous  suns,  the  centers  of  planetary  systems,  than  has  yet 
come  within  the  range  of  his  vision.  And  standing  thus  in 
the  midst  of  the  universe,  he  begins  to  comprehend  that  great 
truth  uttered  by  Joseph  Smith  when  he  contemplated  the 
creations  of  the  Gods:  "There  is  no  ^pace  where  there  is 
no  kingdom  [created  world],  and  there  is  no  kingdom  where 
there  is  no  space,  either  a  greater  or  a  lesser  space."*  But  this 
is  beside  the  subject. 

What  I  want  you  to  do  is  to  think  how  small  and  insignifi- 
cant this  earth  of  ours  is,  even  in  comparison  with  some  of  the 
planets  of  our  own   system,  some  of    which  are  hundreds  of 


*  Doc.  &  Coy.  sec.  88:  36,  37. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OP  DEITY.  41 

times  larger  than  our  earth.*  And  then  the  sun,  the  center  of 
the  system,  itself — what  a  speck  it  is  in  the  universe!  Though 
outweighing  the  combined  mass  of  all  the  planets  of  which  he 
is  the  center  seven  hundred  and  thirty  times  over,  still  he  is 
but  a  point  in  the  universe!  To  quote  the  words  of  an  eminent 
author: 

As  there  are  other  globes  like  our  earth,  so,  too,  there  are 
other  worlds  like  our  solar  system.  There  are  self-luminous  suns 
exceeding  in  number  all  computation.  The  dimensions  of  this  earth 
pass  into  nothingness  in  comparison  with  the  dimensions  of  the  solar 
system,  and  that  system,  in  its  turn,  is  only  an  invisible  point  if 
placed  in  relation  with  the  countless  hosts  of  other  systems  which 
form,  with  it,  clusters  of  stars.  Our  solar  system,  far  from  being 
alone  in  the  universe,  is  only  one  of  an  extensive  brotherhood,  bound 
by  common  laws  and  subject  to  like  influences.  Even  on  the  very 
verge  of  creation,  where  imagination  might  lay  the  beginning  of 
the  realms  of  chaos,  we  see  unbounded  proofs  of  order,  a  regularity 
in  the  arrangement  of  inanimate  things,  suggesting  to  us  that 
there  are  other  intellectual  creatures  like  us,  the  tenants  of  those 
islands  in  the  abysses  of  space.  Though  it  may  take  a  beam  of  light 
a  million  of  years  to  bring  to  our  view  those  distant  worlds,  the  end 
is  not  yet.  Far  away  in  the  depths  of  space  we  catch  the  faint 
gleams  of  other  groups  of  stars  like  our  own.  The  finger  of  a  man 
can  hide  them  in  their  remoteness.  Their  vast  distances  from  one 
another  have  dwindled  into  nothing.  They  and  their  movements 
have  lost  all  individuality;  the  innumerable  suns  of  which  they  are 
composed  blend  all  their  collected  lights  into  one  pale  milky  glow. 

Thus  extending  our  view  from  the  earth  to  the  solar  system, 
from  the  solar  system  to  the  expanse  of  the  group  of  stars  to  which 
we  belong,  we  behold  a  series  of  gigantic  nebular  creations  rising  up 


*  The  planet  Jupiter,  for  example,  has  a  diameter  of  about  85,- 
000  miles,  while  the  earth's  diameter  is   but  abjut  8,000  miles.     In 
volume  Jupiter  exceeds  our  earth  about  1,300  times,  while  in  mass  it 
exceeds  it  213  times.     (See  "Newcomb's  Astronomy,"  p.  339.) 
3 


42  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

one  above  another,  and  forming  greater  and  greater  colonies  of 
worlds.  No  numbers  can  express  them,  for  they  make  the  firmament 
a  haze  of  stars.  Uniformity,  even  though  it  be  the  uniformity  of 
magnificence,  tires  at  last,  and  we  abandon  the  survey,  for  our  eyes 
can  only  behold  a  boundless  prospect  and  conscience  tells  us  our  own 
unspeakablein  significance.* 

And  the  earth  itself,  then,  what  of  that?  What  an  insig- 
nificant thing  it  is  in  the  creations  of  God !  With  all  its  islands 
and  continents,  its  rivers,  lakes  and  mighty  oceans;  its  moun- 
tains and  its  valleys;  its  towns,  cities  and  all  the  tribes  of  men, 
together  with  all  their  hopes  and  fears  and  petty  ambitions — 
all  is  but  a  mote  in  God's  sunbeam — less  than  a  single  grain 
of  sand  on  the  sea  shore! 

What  I  want  to  ask  in  the  light  of  these  reflections  is 
this:  Is  it  such  a  wonderful  thing  to  believe  that  at  the  last, 
one  of  God's  sons  shall  preside  over  this  little  earth  as  the  God- 
president  or  God  of  it?  That  our  Father  Adam,  the  "Grand 
Patriarch"  of  our  race — the  "Ancient  of  Days"— "Michael,  the 
Archangel" — give  him  what  title  you  will  out  of  the  many 
which  are  his — is  it  so  hard  to  believe  that  he  will  eventually 
attain  to  the  dignity  of  the  governorship  of  this  earth,  when  it 
is  redeemed  and  sanctified  and  becomes  one  of  the  glorified 
spheres  of  God? 

Some  of  the  sectarian  ministers  are  saying  that  w.e  "Mor- 
mons" are  ashamed  of  the  doctrine  announced  by  President 
Brigham  Young  to  the  effect  that  Adam  will  thus  be  the  God 
of  this  world.  No,  friends,  it  is  not  that  we  are  ashamed  of 
that  doctrine.  If  you  see  any  change  come  over  our  counte- 
nances when  this  doctrine  is  named,  it  is  surprise,  astonish- 
ment, that  any  one  at  all  capable  of  grasping  the  largeness  and 
extent  of  the  universe—  the  grandeur  of  existence  and  the  pos- 


*  Draper's  "Intellectual  Development  of  Europe,"  vol.  2,  p.  292. 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  43 

sibilities  in  man  for  growth,  for  progress,  should  be  so  lean  of 
intellect,  should  have  such  a  paucity  of  understanding,  as  to 
oall  it  in  question  at  all.  That  is  what  our  change  of  counte- 
nance means — not  shame  for  the  doctrine  Brigham  Young  taught. 
I  feel  that  I  must  have  wearied  you  with  so  long  a  dis- 
course; I  know  very  well  I  have  wearied  myself;  and  yet  I  am 
loth  to  quit  this  splendid  field  for  thought.  The  subject,  and 
our  conception  of  it,  must  ever  be  grander  than  it  is  within  our 
ability  to  express.  It  is  beyond  our  power  to  grasp  it  and  make 
it  plain  in  words.  I  can  see  in  this  "Mormon"  doctrine  of  God 
the  highest  spirituality  that  the  mind  of  man  is  capable  of 
grasping.  If  our  sectarian  friends  think' that  in  us  there  is  any 
drifting  away  from  the  teachings  of  our  prophets  up:n  this  sub- 
ject, any  shadow  of  turning,  and  that  we  of  modern  days  are 
growing  more  spiritual  than  were  they,  it  is  not  that  we  are 
changing,or  leaving  the  old  moorings  of  our  faith ;  but  it  is  because 
they  themselves  are  giving  a  little  more  careful  attention  to  our 
doctrines,  and  begin  to  catch  their  first  sight  of  the  grand 
spirituality  which  all  the  while  has  pervaded  our  belief  in  the 
Gods  and  their  government,  and  the  heights  of  glory  to  which 
men — the  offspring  of  the  Gods — may  finally  attain. 


CHAPTER  II. 

REPLY  TO  ELDER  ROBERTS'  MORMON  VIEWS  OF  DEITY,*  BY  REV. 

C.  VAN  DER  DONCKT,  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH, 

POCATELLO,  IDAHO. 

I 

I  am  very  grateful  for  the  privilege  of  being  allowed 
space  in  your  magazine  to  reply  to  Mr.  B.  H.  Roberts'  defense 
of  the  "Mormon  Views  of  the  Deity." 


*  The  following  note  preceded  Rev.  Van  Der  Uonckt's  reply> 
when  published  in  {he  Improvement  Era:  "In  the  first  two  numbers  of 
the  present  volume  of  the  Era,  an  article  on  the  Characteristics  of  the 
Deity  from  a  *  'Mormon"  View  Point,  appeared  from  the  pen  of  Elder  B. 
H.  Roberts.  It  was  natural  that  ministers  of  the  Christian  denomina- 
tions should  differ  from  the  views  there  expressed.  Shortly  after  its 
appearance,  a  communication  was  received  from  Reverend  Van  Der 
Donckt,  of  the  Catholic  church,  of  Pocatello,  Idaho,  asking  that  a 
reply  which  he  had  written  might  be  printed  in  the  Era.  His  article 
is  a  splendid  exposition  of  the  generally  accepted  Christian  views  of 
God,  well  written  and  to  the  point,  and  which  we  think  will  be  read 
with  pleasure  by  all  who  are  interested  in  the  subject.  We  must,  of. 
course,  dissent  from  many  of  the  deductions  with  which  we  cannot 
at  all  agree,  but  we  think  the  presentation  of  the  argument  from 
the  other  side  will  be  of  value  to  the  Elders  who  go  forth  to  preach 
the  Gospel,  as  showing  them  what  they  must  meet  on  this  subject. 
It  is  therefore  presented  in  full;  the  Era,  of  course,  reserving  the 
right  to  print  any  reply  that  may  be  deemed  necessary. — Editors." 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY-  45 

1.  First,  Mr.  Roberts  asserts:  "Jesus  came  with  no  ab- 
stract definition  of  God-"  He  certainly  gave  a  partial  defini- 
tion of  God  when  declaring:  "God  is  a  spirit"  (John  4:  24). 
Now,  although  we  must  believe  whatever  God  reveals  to  us 
upon  one  single  word  of  his,  just  as  firmly  as  upon  a  thousand, 
nevertheless,  I  will  add  that  St.  Paul,  who  solemnly  testifies 
that  he  received  oj  the  Lord  that  which  he  delivered  unto  the 
Christians,  (I  Cor.  11:  23)  also  states:  "The  Lord  is  a  spirit" 
(II  Cor.  3:  17). 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  Latter-day  Saints  interpret  those 
texts  as  meaning  a  spirit  clothed  with  a  body,  but  what  nearly 
the  whole  of  mankind,  Christians,  Jews,  and  Mohammedans, 
have  believed  for  ages  cannot  be  upset  by  gratuitous  assertions 
of  a  religious  innovator  of  this  last  century.  Again,  the  con- 
text of  the  Bible  admits  of  no  such  interpretation.  And  if 
anyone  should  still  hesitate  to  accept  the  universally  received 
meaning  of  tlie  word  spirit,  our  risen  Savior  settles  the  mat- 
ter. As  his  disciples,  upon  first  seeing  him  after  his  resurrec- 
tion, were  troubled  and  frightened,  supposing  they  beheld  a 
spirit,  Jesus  reassured  them,  saying,  "A  spirit  hath  not  flesh 
and  bones  as  you  see  me  to  have"     (Luke  24:  87-39). 

2.  Another  very  strong  and  explicit  statement  is:  "Bless- 
ed art  thou,  Simon  Bar-Jona  [son  of  John]  because  flesh  and 
Mood  hath  not  revealed  it  to  thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in 
heaven"  (Matt.  16:  17).  As  Christ  has  asked,  "What  do  men 
say  the  Son  of  Man  is"  (Matt.  16:  13).  There  is  an  evident 
antithesis  and  contrast  between  the  opinion  of  men  and  the 
profession  of  Peter,  which  is  based  upon  revelation.  The  strik- 
ing opposition  between  men,  flesh  and  blood,  and  the  Father, 
evidently  conveys  the  sense  that  God  hath  not  flesh  and  blood 
like  man,  but  is  a  spirit. 

3.  That  God  is  a  spirit  is  proved  moreover  by  the  fact 
that  he  is  called   invisible  in  the  Bible.     All   material  beings 


46  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

are  visible.  Absolutely  invisible  beings  are  immaterial  or 
bodiless:  God  is  absolutely  invisible,  therefore  God  is  imma- 
terial or  bodiless. 

Moses'  unshaken  faith  is  thus  described  by  St.  Paul:  "He 
was  strong  as  seeing  him  that  is  invisible"  (Heb.  11:  27). 

'"No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time"  ([  John  4:  12). 

"The  King  of  kings — whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can  see." 
(I  Tim.  15:  16). 

In  the  light  of  these  clear,  revealed  statements,  how  shall 
we  explain  the  various  apparitions  of  God  mentioned  in  the 
Bible?  Tertuliian,  (A.  D.  160-245),  Ambrose  (330-397),  Au- 
gustine (354-430)  and  other  Fathers,  whose  deep  scholarship  is 
acknowledged  by  Protestants  and  Catholics  alike,  informs  us 
that  God  the  Father  is  called  invisible  because  he  never  ap- 
peared to  bodily  eyes;  whereas  the  Son  manifested  himself  as 
an  angel,  or  through  an  angel,  and  ]as  man  [after  his  incarna- 
tion. He  is  the  eternal  revelation  of  the  Father.  It  is  neces- 
sary to  remark'that  whenever  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  or  angels 
at  God's  behest,  showed  themselves  to  man,  they  became  visible 
only  through  a  body  or  a  material  garb  assumed  for  the  occa- 
sion (see  Cardinal  Newman's  "Development  of  Christian  Doc- 
trine," 9th  edition,  pp.  136  and  138). 

I  am  well  aware  of  St.  Paul's,  "We  now  see  as  through  a 
glass  darkly,  but  then  face  to  face"  (I  Cor.  12:  13.)  "In  thy 
light  we  shall  see  light  (Ps.  35:  10.) 

The  first  and  chief  element  of  the  happiness  of  heaven 
will  consist  in  the  beatific  vision;  that  is,  in  seeing  God  face 
to  face,  unveiled  as  he  really  is.  The  "face  to  face"  however 
is,  literally  true  only  of  our  blessed  Savior  who  ascended  into 
heaven  with  his  sacred  body.  Otherwise,  as  God  is  a  spirit,  he  has 
no  body  and  consequently  no  face.  In  paradise,  spirits  (angels 
and  our  souls)  see  spirits.  We  shall  see  God  and  angels,  not 
with  the  eye  of  the  body,   nor  by   the  vibrations   of  cosmic 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF   DEITY.  47 

light,  but  with  the  spiritual  eye,  with  the  soul's  intellectual 
perception,  elevated  by  a  supernatural  influx  from  God.  As  in 
ordinary  vision,  the  image  of  an  object  is  impressed  on  the 
retina,  so  in  the  beatific  vision,  the  perfect  image  of  God 
will  be  reflected  on  the  soul,  impressing  on  it  a  vivid  re- 
presentation of  him.  We  shall  thus  enjoy  an  intellectual 
possession  of  him,  very  different  from  our  possession  of  earthly 
things. 

4.  That  angels  as  well  as  God  are  bodiless  beings,  is  also 
clearly  proved  by  Holy  Writ.  To  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at 
any  time:  "Sit  on  my  right  hand  till  I  make  thy  enemies  thy 
footstool?  Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits  sent  to  minister 
for  them  who  shall  receive  the  inheritance  of  salvation?" 
(Heb.  1:  13,  14.)  Again,  "Our  wrestling  is  not  against  flesh 
and  blood,  but  against  the  rulers  of  the  world  of  this  darkness, 
against  the  spirits  of  wickedness"  (Eph.  6:  12). 

Could  plainer  words  be  found  to  teach  that  angels,  both 
good  and  bad,  are  spirits,  devoid  of  bodies?  Now,  the  Creator 
is  certainly  more  perfect  than  his  creatures,  and  pure  minds 
are  more  perfect  than  minds  united  to  bodies  (men).  ["The 
corruptible  body  is  a  load  upon  the  soul,  and  the  earthly 
habitation  presseth  down  the  mind"  (Wis.  9:  15.)  "Who  shall 
deliver  me  from  this  body  of  death?"  (St.  Paul).]  Therefore,  the 
Creator  is  a  pure  spirit. 

5.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  all  men,  after  the  ex- 
ample of  the  inspired  Writings,  make  frequent  use  of  the 
figure  called  anthropomorphism,  attributing  to  the  Deity  a 
human  body,  human  members,  human  passions,  etc. ;  and  that  is 
done,  not  to  imply  that  God  is  possessed  of  form,  limbs,  etc., 
but  simply  to  make  spiritual  things  or  certain  truths  more 
intelligible  to  man,  who,  while  he  tarries  in  this  world,  can 
perceive  things  and  even  ideas  only  through  his  senses  or 
through  bodily  organs. 


48  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

That  even  the  Latter-day  Saints  thus  understand  such  ex- 
pressions is  evident  from  their  catechism  (chapter  5:  Q.  9). 
Yet  it  is  from  certain  expressions  of  the  same  inspired  Book 
that  they  conclude  that  God  has  a  body.  Now  I  contend  that, 
if  we  must  understand  the  Bible  literally  in  those  passages 
(God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  (Genesis  1 :  27,  and  Genesis 
32:  24,  etc.,  and  Exodus  24:  9,  etc.)  from  which  they  attempt 
to  prove  that  God  has  a  body,  we  must  interpret  it  literally  in 
other  similar  passages:  so  that  if  Moses,  etc.,  really  saw  the 
feet  of  God  (Rxodus  24:  10),  then  we  must  hold  that  the 
real  hand  of  God  is  meant  by  David  in  (Psalm  138)  (Hebrew 
Bible  Ps.  139;  13:  9;  9;  10):  "If  I  take  my  wings  early  in  the 
morning,  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  part  of  the  sea,  even  there 
shall  thy  hand  lead  me,  and  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me." 
And  as  the  Psalmist  says  also:  "Whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy 
face?  If  I  ascend  into  heaven,  thou  art  there;  if  I  descend  into 
hell,  thou  art  there"  (Psalm  139:  7,  8).  Have  we  then  ac- 
cording to  "Mormon"  standards,  not  the  right  to  infer  that 
God  has  such  a  long  hand  as  to  extend  to  the  uttermost  parts 
of  the  sea,  and  such  an  extremely  long  face,  reaching  from 
heaven  to  hell?  To  this,  I  am  sure,  even  the  gloomiest 
Protestants  would  object.  By  the  way,  should  we  not  also 
conclude  that  David  had  wings?  ("If  I  take  my  wings  early  in 
the  morning,  and  fly,"  etc.)  unless  we  admit  that  the  royal 
Prophet  anticipated  our  modern  scientists,  the  Brazilian  Santos- 
Dumont,  Professor  Zahm  of  Notre  Dame,  Ind.,  etc.,  in  experi- 
menting with  flying  machines. 

6.  A  sixth  proof  of  the  truth  that  God  has  not  a  body, 
and  therefore  is  not  an  exalted  man,  is  the  fact  of  the  incarna- 
tion of  the  Son  of  God.  The  "Mormons"  admit  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Great  I  Am,  (from  all  eternity  to  all  eternity) 
therefore,  God  (Doctrine  and  Covenants  section  39).  By  the 
by,  I  see  no  mention  of  this  fundamental  Christian  truth  of  the 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  49 

incarnation,  in  the  sacred  books  of  the  Latter-day  Saints,  not 
even  in  their  catechism.  Yet  what  is  more  capable  of  winning 
cold  hearted,  careless  people  to  the  love  of  God  than  the  ex- 
position of  this  mystery  which  has  been  hidden  for  ages  and 
generations,  but  now  is  made  manifest  to  his  saints:  (Col.  1:26) 
"God  so  loved  the  world  as  to  give  us  his  only  begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  beliveth  in  him  may  not  perish  but  may  have 
everlasting  life"  (John  3:  16.) 

So  the  "Mormons"  admit  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God  for  all 
eternity.  The  Bible  teaches  that  Jesus  Christ  became  a  man  at 
a  specified  time;  therefore,  Jesus  Christ,  or  God  was  not  man 
before  that  specified  time. 

"In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with 
God  and  the  Word  was  God.  And  the  Word  was  made  flesh  and 
dwelt  among  us"  (John  1:  1-14).  It  is  plain  that  the  Son  of 
God  became  flesh  only  at  the  time  of  his  sojourn  on  earth.  Now, 
had  he  been  flesh,  or  man,  before,  as  "Mormons"  hold,  how 
could  he  become  what  he  was  already  from  all  eternity? 
No;  not  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  but  only  now  once, 
at  the  end  of  ages,  he  (Jesus)  hath  appeared  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  sin,  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself.  When  he  came  into 
the  world,  he  said:  "Sacrifice  and  oblation  thou  wouldst  not, 
but  a  body  thou  hast  fitted  to  me."  Then  said  I:  "Behold  I 
come"  (Heb.  9:  26  and  10:  5,  7.)  "Let  this  mind  be  in  you 
which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  being  in  the  form  (nature, 
glory,  majesty)  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
God  (deemed  it  not  fitting  to  assume  to  his  human  nature  the 
glory  and  majesty  due  him  without  labor  and  suffering)  but 
emptied  (stripped)  himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  being 
made  in  the  likeness  of  men  and  in  habit  (in  his  whole  exterior) 
found  as  a  man  (Philip.  2 : 5,)  etc.  Again :  "In  him  (Christ)  d well- 
eth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  corporally"  (Col.  2:  9.)  Had 
God  a  body  (Latin  corpus)  what  sense  would  there  be  in  St.  Paul's 


50  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  op  deity. 

corporally  or  bodily?  All  save  "Mormons,"  understand  St.  Paul 
to  mean  that  in  Christ  the  true  God  manifested  himself  in  the 
flesh,  or  as  man. 

"Because  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he 
also  himself  in  like  manner  hath  been  partaker  of  the  same,  that 
through  death  he  might  destroy  him  who  hath  the  empire  of 
death.  For  nowhere  doth  he  take  hold  of  the  angels,  but  the 
seed  of  Abraham,  he  taketh  hold,  wherefore,  it  behooved  him 
in  all  things  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren"  (Heb.  2:  14-16.) 
"Every  spirit  which  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh  is  of  God"  (I  John  4:  2).  "Many  seducers  are  gone  out  into 
the  world  who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh" 
(II  John  1:7).  Why  do  the  New  Testament  writers  lay  so  much 
stress  upon  the  taking  of  flesh  by  Jesus  Christ  ?  Evidently  we 
must  see  in  those  expressions  (the  Word  was  made  flesh,  etc.) 
more  than  a  Hebraism,  for  "He  became  man"  (Gen.  6:  12;  Is. 
40:  5).  The  inspired  authors  want  to  teach  us  humility  by  im- 
pressing upon  our  minds  the  excessive  abasement  of  the  Eternal 
Son  of  God  in  uniting  his  Divinity,  not  to  the  nature  of  an  angel, 
but  to  that  of  an  inferior  creature,  as  man  is.  They  have  still  the 
further  aim  of  impuning  the  heretics,  of  the  early  days  of  the 
Church  the  Docetse,  Cerinthus,  Ebion,  etc.,  who,  attributing  the 
flesh  to  an  evil  principle,  and  therefore  holding  it  as  utterly  pol- 
luted, maintained  that  Christ  had  not  a  real  body  of  flesh  but 
only  an  apparent  body.  This  we  learn  from  SS.  Irenaeus,  Jerome, 
Clem,  of  Alex.,  etc. 

7.  Another  proof  that  God  is  not  an  exalted  man;  that  is, 
that  he  was  not  what  we  are  now,  and  became  perfected  into 
God,  is  the  direct  statement  of  the  Bible:  "God  is  not  as  a 
man  that  he  should  lie,  nor  as  the  Son  oj  man  that  he  should  be 
changed"  (Num.  23:  19).  "I  will  not  execute  the  fierceness 
of  my  wrath  because  I  am  God  and  not  man"  (Psalm  11:  19). 

8.     Another  most  striking  proof  is  to  be  found  in  God's 


THE    '"MORMON"   DOCTRINE   OF   DEITY.  51 

immutability.  The  Latter-day  Saints  teach  that  God  was  once 
imperfect,  as  man  is;  the  Bible  teaches  the  very  opposite: 
''Thou  art  always  the  self-same"  (Psalm  101: 26).  "/am  the  Lord 
and  I  change  not"  (Mai.  3:  6).  "lAe  Father  of  lights  with  whom 
there  is  no  change  nor  shadow  of  alteration."  (The  Latin  alter 
means  other.  So  the  Lord  is  never  other  from  all  eternity). 
(James  1:  17). 

9.  Finally,  the  Latter-day  Saints'  theory  of  the  Man- God 
supposes  a  past  and  present  with  God.  The  Bible  excludes  that 
succession  of  time,  and  speaks  ofGod  as  the  Everlasting  Present- 
"I  Am  Who  Am."  "Before  Abraham  was,  I  am."  "From  etern- 
ity and  to  eternity  thou  art  God"  (Psalm  89:  2).  "His  power 
is  an  everlasting  power"  (Daniel  7:  14). 

PHILOSOPHICAL   PROOFS    OF    GOD'S    SIMPLICITY   OR  SPIRITUALITY. 

The  "Mormons"'  admit  that  God  existed  from  all  eternity; 
consequently,  there  was  no  time  at  which  God  did  not  exist. 
Therefore,  the  Eternal  Being,  or  God,  must  be  simple. 

A  compound  is,  at  least  by  nature,  posterior  to  its  com- 
ponent parts.  If  God  is  a  compound,  he  is  posterior  to  his 
component  parts.  Therefore,  he  would  not  be  eternal;  therefore, 
not  God. 

Illustration.  The  Latter-day  Saints  believe  that  God  cre- 
ates the  souls  of  men,  long  before  their  conception.  Man  is  a 
composite  being,  spirit  and  flesh  being  the  component  parts. 
Man  is  evidently  posterior  to  his  elements;  in  other  words,  be- 
fore a  human  being  can  exist,  there  must  first  be  a  spirit,  a  soul; 
and  in  the  second  place  there  must  be  the  embryo  (or  foetus); 
and,  thirdly,  both  of  these  existing  elements  must  be  united  be- 
fore a  human  being  comes  into  existence.  No  need  of  more  il- 
lustration. Fancy  a  clock,  an  engine,  a  shoe,  or  any  com- 
posite being.    The  parts  must  exist  before  the  whole.     Then  to 


52  THE  "mormon'*  doctrine  of  deity. 

have  the  compound,  some  one  or  something  must  do  the  com- 
pounding, or  put  the  ingredients  or  elements  together.  Who 
then  did  compound  the  Eternal  ?  Not  himself,  as  no  one  can 
work  before  he  exists:  not  another  being,  as  no  other  being 
existed  before  it  was  created  by  God.  God  is  the  necessary 
Being;  i.  e.  who  could  not  not  exist.  Something  exists;  there- 
fore, there  exists  the  Necessary  Being.  Everything  that  exists 
is  produced  or  unproduced.  Now  all  things  connot  be  pro- 
duced; for  whatever  is  produced  or  made  is  produced  by  another, 
(otherwise  it  would  have  made  itself,  which  is  impossible,  as 
nothing  can  act  before  it  exists).  This  other  (the  producer)  is 
either  a  necessary  being  or  a  produced  being.  If  produced,  it 
must  have  been  produced  by  another.  Thus  we  must  finally 
come  to  a  being  that  was  not  produced,  or  a  necessary  being. 
That  necessary  being  (who  was  not  made  and  who  always  ex- 
isted) is  God. 

If  God  were  an  aggregate  of  parts,  these  parts  would  be 
either  necessary  beings  or  contingent  (that  do  not  necessarily 
exist);  or  some  would  be  necessary  and  some  contingent.  None 
of  these  suppositions  are  tenable,  therefore,  God  is  not  an  ag- 
gregate of  parts. 

First  supposition:  If  the  parts  of  God  were  necessary  be- 
ings there  would  be  several  independent  beings,  which  the  infin- 
ity of  God  precludes.  God  would  not  be  infinite,  if  thera  were 
even  one  other  being  independent  of  him,  as  his  power,  etc., 
would  not  reach  that  being. 

Second  supposition:  The  Necessary  Being  would  be  the 
aggregate  of  several  contingent  beings.  An  unreasonable  sup- 
position: contingent  beings  cannot  by  their  addition  or  collec- 
tion lose  their  essential  predicate  of  contingency;  in  other 
words,  the  nature  of  the  parts  clings  to  the  whole. 

The  third  supposition  is  equally  absurd,  for  if  some  part 
exit  necessarily,  it  must  be  infinite  in  every  perfection;  there- 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  58 

fore,  it  would  of  itself  be  sufficient  to  constitute  God,  and  could 
not  be  improved  by  the  addition  of  other  parts. 

The  Necessary  Being  must  be  infinite,  or  illimitable.  Noth- 
ing is  done  without  a  cause.  No  cause  of  limitation  to  the 
Necessary  Being  can  be  found. 

If  finite,  or  limited,  he  must  be  limited  by  his  own  essence, 
or  by  another,  or  by  himself. 

a.  He  cannot  be  limited  by  his  own  essence,  for  his 
essence,  is  actual  Being  or  existence:  /  Am  Who  Am.  No 
perfection  is  repugnant  to  that  essence;  for  every  perfection  is 
some  existence,  something  that  is.  No  defect  necessarily  flows 
from  that  essence,  for  defect  is  in  a  thing  only  in  as  much  as  that 
thing  is  not  in  some  sense  or  regard;  now  in  the  notion  or  in 
the  concept  of  him  who  is  Being  itself  (I  Am  Who  Am)  is  not 
contained  the  concept  that  he  is  not  in  some  regard;  for  some- 
thing is  limited  not  because  it  is,  but  because  it  is  this  or  that, 
for  instance,  a  stone,  a  plant,  a  man. 

b.  He  cannot  be  limited  by  another,  because  he  depends 
on  no  other,  and  has  not  received  his  being  from  another. 

c.  He  could  not  be  limited  by  himself  as  he  is  not  the 
cause  of  his  existence,  but  the  sufficient  reason  thereof. 

The  Infinite  Being  is  most  simple,  or  not  compound.  Were 
he  compound,  his  parts  would  be  either  all  finite,  or  infinite,  or 
one  infinite  and  the  others  finite.  None  of  these  suppositions  are 
possible,  therefore,  he  is  not  compound. 

1.  Several  finite  things  cannot  produce  an  infinite  or  an 
illimitable,  as  there  would  always  be  a  first  and  a  last. 

2.  Many  infinite  beings  are  inconceivable;  for,  if  there 
were  several,  they  would  have  to  diflfer  from  each  other  by 
some,  perfection.  Now  from  the  moment  one  would  have  a  per- 
fection, the  other  one  lacks,  the  latter  would  not  be  infinite. 
Therefore,  God  cannot  be  a  compound  of  infinite  parts. 

3.  If  one  is  infinite,  nothing  can  be  added  to  it.     Finite 


54  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

parts  could  not  belong  to  the  infinite  essence,  else  they  would 
communicate  their  limitations  to  God. 

Therefore,  the  Infinite  Being  is  not  composite,  but  simple 
or  spiritual.  Therefore,  he  is  not,  nor  ever  was,  a  man,  who  is 
a  composite  being. 

II. 

Above,  1  proved  God's  immutability  from  the  Bible;  now  I 
prove  it  from  philosophy,  or  the  light  of  reason. 

Mutation  or  change  is  the  passing  from  one  state  into 
another.  The  Infinite  Being  is  not  liable  to  change,  as  change  im- 
plies an  imperfection  in  the  being  susceptible  of  it,  as  that  being 
had  not  in  the  previous  state  what  it  has  in  the  subsequent,  or 
vice  versa.  God  having  all  perfections  must  be  unchangeable. 
Therefore,  he  is  not  a  man  grown  into  a  God. 

The  Necessary  Being  is  such  that  he  could  not  exist,  nor 
exist  otherwise.  He  cannot  receive  his  existence,  nor  lose  it.  So  he 
cannot  change  with  regard  to  his  existence;  nor  can  he  change 
with  regard  to  his  mode  of  existence.  His  perfections  being  in- 
finite cannot  increase;  nor  can  they  wane  or  decrease,  else  there 
would  be  an  imperfection  in  him,  and  he  would  no  longer  be 
infinite,  or  God.  Therefore,  God  is  unchangeable.  Therefore,  he 
never  was  what  we  are. 

God  is  pure  essence  (I  Am  Who  I  Am),  pure  actuality  or  act. 

Change  implies  potentiality,  liability  to  become  what  it  is  not. 

As  God  is  infinitely  perfect,  all  potentiality  is  excluded  from 
him;  in  other  words,  there  is  no  room  for  growth  or  more  perfec- 
tion. Consequently,  no  possibility  of  change.  Therefore,  God  was 
never  without  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead,  consequently,  never 
a  man. 

nor  can  man  ever  become  a  god. 

Man  is  finite  or  limited  in  everything,  ever  changeable  and 
changing,  ever  susceptible  of  improvement.     What  is  finite  can 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  55 

never  become  infinite.  Supposing  man  grown  or  improved  for  bil- 
lions of  years;  after  that  immense  period,  he  could  begin  over 
again  improving  for  billions  of  years,  and  yet  ever  remain  short 
of  infinite  perfection,  as  no  number  of  finite  things  can  make  the 
infinite.  There  is  and  always  shall  be  a  first  and  a  last,  to  which 
could  be  added  more  and  more.  "When  a  man  hath  done,  then  he 
shall  begin,  and  when  he  leaveth  off,  he  shall  be  at  a  loss" 
(Ecclesiasticus  18:2). 

A  being  cannot  be  at  the  same  time  infinite  and  finite,  neces- 
sary and  contingent,  compound  and  simple,  unchangeable  and 
changeable,  eternal  and  temporary,  omnipotent  and  weak,  actual 
being  and  potentiality,  etc.,  etc. 

Now  if  God  were  an  exalted  man,  he  would  have  all  those 
contradictory  attributes  at  the  same  time,  which  is  absurd. 
Therefore,  it  is  an  utter  impossibility  that  God  should  be  an 
exalted  man. 

As  to  man  becoming  God,  the  idea  is  absurd.  With  far  more 
reason  might  we  contend  that  the  gnat  will  develop  into  a  lion, 
and  the  animalcules  which  we  swallow  in  a  sip  of  water  will  grow 
into  gigantic  giraffes  and  colossal  elephants,  as  there  is  infinitely 
less  distance  or  difference  between  those  respective  animals  than 
between  the  most  perfect  creature  and  the  Creator,  the  finite  and 
the  infinite.  Bring  all  the  scientists  of  the  world  together,  the 
Darwins,  the  Huxleys,  theTyndalls,  thePasteurs,  the  Kochs,  the 
Teslas,  the  Edisons,  etc.,  etc.,  supply  them  with  the  most  ingen- 
ious machinery,  and  the  most  complicated  instruments,  and  with 
unlimited  material,  let  them  make,  I  will  not  say  an  imitation  sun 
or  moon,  but  simply  a  little  worm  as  we  often  unconsciously  crush 
under  our  feet,  or  let  them  produce  not  the  magnificent  lily  or 
rose,  but  a  tiny  blade  of  grass.  Before  such  a  task,  apparently  so 
insignificant,  those  profound  mathematicians,  naturalists  and 
chemists,  will  throw  up  their  hands  in  utter  impotence.  Expert 
mixers  can  indeed  make  wines  in  their  laboratories,  but  will  Presi- 


56  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

dent  Roosevelt  or  Emperor  William,  or  other  sovereigjns,  ever  give 
them  an  order  to  manfacture  a  little  bunch  of  grapes  or  a  few  of 
the  commonest  berries? 

What  frequent  accidents  are  there  on  our  railroads,  despite 
most  careful  and  most  attentive  trainmen!  Yet  a  collision  never 
occurred  between  the  millions  of  suns,  stars  and  planets  that 
whirl,  rush,  tear  and  bound  wildly  along  their  prescribed  path- 
ways for  thousands  or  millions  of  years,  at  the  rate  of  over  one 
thousand  miles  a  minute  (our  earth),  and  three  thousand  miles 
a  minute  (the  planet  Arcturus).  Notwithstanding  the  bewilder- 
ing speed  of  their  movements,  the  stars  and  planets  float  through 
space  with  such  regularity  and  precision,  and  along  such  well 
defined  paths,  deviating  neither  to  the  right  nor  to  the  left, 
that  astronomers  can  foretell  to  a  nicety — to  within  a  minute — 
at  what  point  in  the  heavens  they  may  be  found  at  any  future 
time,  say  next  month,  next  year,  or  even  next  century.  They 
can  indeed  predict  transits  and  eclipses;  but  suppose  astrono- 
mers from  New  Zealand  on  their  way  to  America  to  observe 
this  fall's  moon  eclipse,  meet  with  an  accident  in  mid-ocean, 
would  they  at  once  send  this  wireless  telegram  to  the  United 
States'  star-gazers  assembled  say  at  Lick  Observatory:  "Belated 
by  leak.  Please  retard  eclipse  two  hours  that  we  may  not  miss 
it."  As  well  might  all  the  telescopemen  in  the  world  combined, 
attempt  to  fetch  down  the  rings  of  Saturn  for  the  construction 
of  a  royal- race  track  as  pretend  to  control  movements  of  the 
heavenly  bodies. 

The  helpless  babe  of  yesterday  may  indeed  rival  Mozart, 
Hayden  and  Paderewski,  but  tomorrow  he  may  rise  with  lame 
hands  and  pierced  ear-drums;  and  millions  of  worshipers  of  the 
shattered  idol  are  powerless  to  restore  it  to  the  musical  world. 
Still  Jesus  healed  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  the  palsied,  by  a  mere 
act  of  his  will,  even  without  speaking  a  word. 

"We  have  this  treasure  in  earthen  vessels"  (II  Cor.  4 : 7). 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OP   DEITY.  57 

"Seeing  I  have  once  begun,  I  will  speak  to  my  Lord  whereas 
I  am  dust  and  ashes"  (Genesis  IS  :  27).  "In  the  morning  man 
shall  grow  up  like  grass  and  flourish,  in  the  evening  he  shall  fall, 
grow  dry  and  wither"  (Psalm  89  :  6).  ''Can  man  he  compared 
with  God,  even  though  he  were  of  perfect  knowledge"  (Job  22:2). 
"None  is  good  but  God  alone"  (Luke  18  :  19).  "Of  his  greatness 
there  is  no  end"  (Pdalm  144  :  8).  "All  nations  are  before  him 
as  if  they  had  no  being  at  all,  and  are  counted  to  him  as  nothiog 
and  vanity.  To  whom  then  have  you  likened  God,  or  what 
image  will  you  make  for  him?  It  is  he  that  sitteth  upon  the 
globe  of  the  earth,  and  the  inhabitants  thereof  are  as  locusts: 
he  that  stretcheth  out  the  heavens  as  nothing,  and  spreadeth 
them  out  as  a  tent  to  dwell  in.  All  flesh  is  grass,  and  all  the 
glory  thereof  as  the  flower  of  the  field.  The  grass  is  withered, 
and  the  flower  is  fallen  because  the  wind  of  the  Lord  had  blown 
upon  it.  Indeed,  the  people  is  grass"  (Isaiah  40:  17,  18,  22,  6, 
7).  "He  that  bringeth  the  searches  of  secrets  to  nothing,  that 
hath  made  the  judges  of  the  earth  as  vanity — hath  measured 
the  waters  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand,  and  weighed  the  heavens 
with  his  palm?  Who  hath  poised  with  three  fingers  the  bulk  of 
the  earth,  and  weighed  the  mountains  in  scales,  and  the  hills  in 
a  balance"  (Isaiah  40:23-12). 

An  Ingersoll  might  sneer  and  cry  out:  Surely  Isaias  had 
no  idea  of  the  size  of  the  earth.  Even  though  he  did  not  know 
that  the  globe  is  such  an  immense  ball,  and  that  the  volume  of 
the  sun  is  one  million  two  hundred  thousand  times  greater  than 
the  earth,  and  three  hundred  thousand  times  its  weight,  God 
who  inspired  the  prophet  knew  infinitely  more  about  it  than  our 
conceited  astronomers, 

I  fear  Mr.  B.  H.  Roberts  will  be  inclined  to  think  God  jeal- 
ous because  he  gives  man  no  show  for  comparison  with  him. 
This  would  certainly  be  a  less  blunder  of  the  Utah  man  ("  I  will 
not  give  my   glory  to  another")  (Isaiah  42:  8)  than  his  conten- 


58  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

tion,  which  is  a  mere  echo  of  Satan's  promise  in  Paradise;  "You 
shall  be  as  gods."  (Genesis  3:  5). 

Man  is  indeed  capable  of  progress,  but  his  forward  move- 
ment is  slow,  and  in  some  matters  his  attainments  remain  sta- 
tionary; for  instance,  nothing  has  been  added  to  philosophy 
since  the  days  of  Aristotle,  and  nothing  to  geometry  since 
Euclid.  Both  of  these  geniuses  lived  over  three  hundred  years 
before  Christ.  Conclude  we,  then,  with  the  Psalmist:  "All  my 
bones  shall  say:  Lord,  who  is  like  to  thee?  (Psalm  34:  10), 

the  unity  of  god. 

1.  The  first  chapter  of  the  Bible  reveals  the  supreme  fact 
that  there  is  One  Only  and  Living  God,  the  Creator  and  moral 
Governor  of  the  universe.  As  Moses  opened  the  sacred  Writ- 
ings by  proclaiming  him,  so  the  Jew  in  all  subsequent  gener- 
ations, has  continued  to  witness  for  him,  till  from  the  household 
of  Abraham,  faith  in  the  one  only  living  and  true  God  has  spread 
through  Jerusalem,  Christianity  and  Mahometanism  well-nigh 
over  the  earth.* 

Primeval  revelations  of  God  had  everywhere  become  cor- 
rupted in  the  days  of  Moses,  save  among  the  chosen  people. 
Therefore,  the  first  leaf  of  the  Mosaic  record,  as  Jean  Paul 
says,  has  more  weight  than  all  the  folios  of  men  of  science  and 
philsophers. 

While  all  nations  over  the  earth  have  developed  a  religious 
tendency  which  acknowledged  a  higher  than  human  power  in 
the  universe,  Israel  is  the  only  one  which  has  risen  to  the 
grandeur  of  conceiving  this  power  as  the  One  Only  Living  God. 
If  we  are  asked  how  it  was  that  Abraham  possessed  not  only 
the  primitive  conception  of  the  Divinity,  as  he  had  revealed 
himself  to  all  mankind,  but    passed   through  the  denial  of  all 


"Hours  with  the  Bible,"  by  Geikie,  vol.  1,  chapters  1,  2. 


THE  "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  59 

other  gods,  to  the  knowledge  of  the  One  God,  we  are  content 
to  answer,  that  it  was  by  a  special  divine  revelation* 

The  record  of  this  divine  revelation  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Bible:  "Hear,  Israel:  Our  God  is  one  Lord."  "I  alone  am,  and 
there  is  no  other  God  besides  me"  (Deut.  6:  4  and  32:  39).  "I 
am  the  first  and  I  am  the  last,  and  after  me  there  shall  be  none" 
(Isaiah  44:  6;  43:  10.)  "I  will  not  give  my  glory  to  another" 
(Isaiah  42:  8;  45:  5,  etc.,  etc.) 

And  as  Mr.  Roberts  admits  that  our  conception  of  God 
must  be  in  harmony  with  the  New  Testament,  it  as  well  as  the 
Old  witnesses  continually  to  One  True  God.  Suffice  it  to  quote: 
"One  is  good,  God"  (Matthew  19:  17;)  "Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God"  (Luke  10:  27);  "My  Father  of  whom  you  say 
that  he  is  your  God"  (John  8:  54).  Here  Christ  testified  that 
the  Jews  believed  in  only  one  God. 

"The  Lord  is  a  God  of  all  Knowledge"  (I  Kings  2).  ("Mor- 
mon" Catechism  v.  Q.  10  and  Q.  11). 

"Of  that  day  and  hour  no  one  knoweth,  no  not  the  angels 
of  heaven,  but  the  Father  alone"  (Matthew  24:  36). 

No  one  knoweth  who  the  Son  is  but  the  Father  (Luke  10: 
22). 

Therefore,  no  one  is  God  but  one,  the  Heavenly  Father. 

In  another  form:  The  All-knowing  alone  is  God.  The 
Father  alone  is  all-knowing.  Therefore  the  Father  alone  is 
God.* 

From  these  clear  statements  of  the  Divine  Book  it  is  evi- 
dent that  all  the  texts  quoted  by  Mr.  Roberts  do  not  bear  the 


*  "Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,"  by  Max  Muller,  vol.  1,  pp. 
345-372. 

t  To  the  exclusion  of  another  or  separate  divine  being,  but  not  to 
the  denial  of  the  distinct  Divine  Personalities  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  One  Divine  Being. 


60  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

inference  he  draws  from  them;  on  the  contrar3%  they  directly 
make  against  him,  plainly  proving  the  unity  of  God. 

First,  then,  if  God  so  emphatically  declares,  both  in  the 
Old  and  in  the  New  Testament,  that  there  is  but  one  God,  has 
anyone  the  right  to  contradict  him  and  to  say  that  there  are 
several  or  many  Gods?  But  Mr.  Roberts  insists  that  the  Bible 
contradicts  the  Bible;  in  other  words,  that  God,  the  author  of 
the  Bible,  contradicts  himself.  To  say  such  a  thing  is  down- 
right blasphemy. 

The  liability  to  self-contradiction  is  characteristic  of 
human  frailty.  It  is  incompatible  with  God's  infinite  perfec- 
tions. Therefore,  I  most  emphatically  protest  that  there  is  no 
real  contradiction  in  the  Bible,  though  here  and  there  may  exist 
an  apparent  one. 

Let  me  premise  that  the  name  God,  Elohim,  is  applied  (1) 
to  the  one  true  God;  (2)  to  false  gods  and  idols;  (3)  to  represent- 
atives of  God,  such  as  angels,  judges,  kings;  (4)  to  the  devil,  at 
least  in  this  phrase:  the  god  of  this  world. 

I  beg  to  observe,  first,  that  whenever  the  plural  gods 
occurs  in  Holy  Writ,  it  is  in  sense  (2)  or  (3);  i.e.,  it  is  meant  of 
false  gods  or  representatives  of  God;  secondly,  that  plural  is 
generally  put  in  opposition  to  the  singular  Jehovah  or  Lord, 
who  is  emphatically  mentioned  as  the  sovereign  of  the  gods  in 
every  instance,  alleged  or  allegable.* 

Now,  all  these  Bible  expressions  point  to  the  clear  infer- 

*  "There  is  none  like  thee  among  the  gods,  0  Lord"  (Psalm  85: 
8).  "Our  God  is  not  like  their  gods"  (Deut.  32:  31).  "Who  is  God 
besides  the  Lord"  (Psalm  17:  32).  "Their  gods  have  no  sense"(Baruch 
6:  41).  "The  Lord  is  terrible  over  all  the  Gods:  because  all  the  gods 
of  the  gentiles  are  devils;  but  the  Lord  hath  made  the  heavens" 
(Psalm  95:  4,  5).  "Neither  is  there  any  nation  so  great  that  hath 
gods  so  nigh  them  as  our  God  is  present  to  all  our  petitions"  (Deut. 
4:7). 


THE  "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  61 

ence  that  this  Sovereign  or  Supreme  God  is  the  only  true  God. 
Consequently,  these  very  texts,  instead  of  proving  Mr.  Roberts' 
contention,  plainly  disprove  it,  demonstrating  that  there  is  but 
one  God.     "Thou  alone  art  God"  (Psalm  85:  11). 

Two  of  these  texts,  for  instance,  have  the  significant  qual- 
ification: Being  called  gods.  A  man  must  not  be  a  lawyer  to 
know  that  the  fact  that  not  a  few  quacks  and  clowns  are  called 
doctors  does  not  make  them  such.  "Although  there  be  that 
are  called  gods  either  in  heaven  or  on  earth  (for  there  be  gods 
many  and  lords  many);  yet  to  us  there  is  but  one  God"  (I  Cor- 
inthians 8:  5,  6).  Jesus  answered,  referring  to  Psalm  82:  6, 
"Is  it  not  written  in  your  law:  I  said  you  are  Gods?  If  he  called 
them  gods  to  whom  the  word  of  God  was  spoken"  *  *  * 
(John  10:  34,  35).  Neither  Christ  nor  Paul  say  that  they  are 
or  were  gods,  but  simply  that  they  are  called  gods.  Bear  with 
me  for  further  quoting:  "I  have  said  you  are  gods,  and  all  of 
you  the  sons  of  the  Most  High.  But  you  shall  die  like  men," 
etc,  (Psalm  82:  6,  7).  How  unlike  the  true  God,  the  Immortal 
King  of  ages. 

Wherever  Elohim  occurs  in  the  Bible  in  sense  1,  (meaning 
the  True  God)  it  is  employed  with  singular  verbs  and  singular 
adjectives. 

Had  the  "Mormon"  Church  leaders  known  Hebrew,  the 
original  language  of  the  Book  of  Moses,  and  nearly  the  whole 
of  the  Old  Testament,  they  w^uld  not  have  been  guilty  of  the 
outrageous  blunders  perpetrated  by  the  writers  of  the  Pearl  of 
Great  Price  and  of  the  Catechism,  as  appears  on  pages  24,  25, 
26,  27,  of  the  latter  book:  "They  organized  and  formed  (that 
is,  the  Gods,)  the  heavens  and  the  earth  *  *  *  ^j^^  ^-j^e 
Spirit  of  the  Gods  was  brooding  upon  *  *  *  What  did  the 
Gods  do  on  the  second  day?  etc.  The  Gods  said,  Let  there  be 
light  *  *  *  and  they  [the  Gods]  comprehended  the  light,  for  it 
was  bright"    (Whoever  heard  of  a  dark  light?     But  even  had 


62  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

the  light  lacked  brightness,  would  the  gods  have  been  power- 
less to  comprehend  it?)  The  original  had  singular  verbs 
in  all  these  sentences  and,  unlike  our  imperfect  English,  which 
has  the  same  form  in  the  singular  and  in  the  plural,  the  Hebrew, 
the  Greek,  the  Latin,  the  Syriac,  etc.,  have  different  terminations 
in  the  plural  from  the  singular. 

Had  Joseph  Smith  and  his  partners  not  been  ignorant  of 
those  ancient  languages  in  which  were  written  the  original  text 
and  the  oldest  versions  of  the  Bible,  their  revelations  would,  at 
least  in  reference  to  the  Creator  have  tallied  with  the  revela- 
tions of  Moses. 

One  of  the  strongest  and  clearest  proofs  of  the  unity  of 
God,  is  God's  solemn  revelation  of  himself  as  Jehovah,  prefaced 
by  the  emphatic  statement:  "/am  Who  Am.  Thou  shalt  say  to 
the  sons  of  Israel:  I  Am  sent  me  to  you,  (that  is:  The  one  who 
said,  I  Am  Who  Am,  sentme  toyou)"  (Exodu.i  3:14).  "Jehovah, 
the  God  of  your  fathers — I  am  Jehovah"  (Exodus  6:2). 

If  there  ever  was  an  occasion  en  which  God  should  have 
disclosed  his  unity  or  his  plurality,  it  was  certainly  then  when 
Moses  ventured  to  demand  the  credentials  of  his  mission.  God 
used  singular  verbs  whenever  referring  to  himself.  He  said:  / 
am,  not  we  are.  He  calls  himself  by  the  singular  noun  Jehovah, 
which,  unlike  the  plural  Elohim,  is  applied  only  to  the  one  true 
God.  This  name  Jehovah  occurs  one  hundred  and  sixty  times  in 
Genesis  alone.* 

II.  The  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  one  and  the 
same  identical  Divine  Essence  or  Being. 

A.  "I  and  the  Father  are  one"  (John  10-30).  Christ  as- 
serts his  physical,  not  merely  moral,  unity  with  the  Father. 

"My  sheep  hear  my  voice    *    *    *    and  I  give  them  ever- 


L.      *J.    Corluy  S.  J.  " Spicilegium,"  Volume  1.  Com.  2.     See  also 
Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  word  God. 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  63 

lasting  life;  and  they  shall  not  perish  forever,  and  no  man  shall 
pluck  them  out  of  my  hand." 

The  following  argument  by  which  Christ  proves  that  no 
man  shall  pluck  his  sheep  from  his  hand,  proves  his  consubstan- 
tiality,  or  the  unity  of  his  nature  or  essence  with  his  Father's: 

My  Father  who  gave  me  the  sheep  is  greater  than  all  men  or 
creatures,  (v.  29)  and  therefore  no  one  can  snatch  the  sheep  or 
aught  else  from  his  hand.  (Supreme  or  almighty  power  is  here 
predicated  of  the  Father). 

Now,  I  and  the  Father  are  one  (thing,  one  being)  v.  30. 
(Therefore,  no  one  can  snatch  the  sheep  or  aught  else  from  my 
hand.) 

To  perceive  the  full  meaning  and  strength  of  Jesus'  argu- 
ment, one  must  read  and  understand  the  original  text  of  St. 
John's  Gospel,  that  is,  the  Greek;  or  the  Latin  translation:  Fgo 
et  Pater  unum  sumus. 

If  Christ  had  meant  one  in  mind  or  one  morally  and  not  sub- 
stantially, he  would  have  used  the  masculine  gender,  Greek  eis, 
(unus) — and  not  the  neuter  en,  (unum) — as  he  did.  No  better 
interpreters  of  our  Lord's  meaning  can  be  found  than  his  own 
hearers.  Had  he  simply  declared  his  moral  union  with  the 
Father,  the  Jews  would  not  have  taken  up  stones  in  protest 
against  his  making  himself  God,  and  asserting  his  identity  with 
the  Father.  Far  from  retracting  his  statement  or  correcting 
the  Jews'  impression,  Jesus  insists  that  as  he  is  the  Son  of  God, 
he  has  far  more  right  to  declare  himself  God  than  the  Scripture 
had  to  call  mere  human  judges  gods,  and  he  corroborates  his 
affirmation  of  his  physical  unity  with  his  Father  by  saying:  "The 
Father  is  in  me,  and  I  am  in  the  Father,"  which  evidently  sig- 
nifies the  same  as  verse  30:  I  and  the  Father  are  one  and  the 
same  individual  being,  the  One  God. 

The  preceding  argument  is  reinforced  by  John  14,  8-11: 
"Philip  sal th  to  him:  Lord,  show  us  the  Father,     *    *    *    Jesus 


64  THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY. 

saith:  So  long  a  time  have  I  been  with  you  and  thou  hast  not 
known  me.  Philip,  he  that  seeth  me  seeth  the  Father  also.  How 
sayest  thou:  Show  us  the  Father.  Do  you  not  believe  that  I 
am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  me?  The  words  that  I  speak 
I  speak  not  of  myself.  But  the  Father  who  abideth  in  me,  he  doth 
the  works.  Believe  me  that  I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father 
is  in  me.  What  things  soever  the  Father  doth,  these  the  Son 
also  doth  likewise  (John  5:19). 

These  words  are  a  clear  assertion  of  the  physical  unity  of 
the  Son  and  the  Father.  It  is  plain  from  the  context  that 
Christ  means  more  than  a  physical  resemblance,  no  matter  how 
complete,  between  him  and  his  Father.  Of  mere  resemblance 
and  moral  union  could  never  be  said  that  one  is  the  other,  and 
that  the  words  uttered  by  one  are  actually  spoken  by  the  other. 

To  see  the  Son  and  the  Father  at  the  same  time  in  the  Son, 
the  Son  and  the  Father  must  be  numerically  one  Being.  Now 
Christ  says:  He  that  seeth  me  seeth  the  Father."  Therefore, 
he  and  the  Father  are  numerically  one  Being. 

Again,  if  the  speech  and  the  acts  of  the  Son  are  physically 
the  words  and  the  works  of  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Father 
are  physically  one;  indivisible,  inseparably  one  principle  of  ac- 
tion, therefore,  one  Being.  Now  Christ  tells  us  that  his  words 
and  works  are  physically  the  words  and  works  of  his  Father. 
Therefore,  the  Son  and  the  Father  are  one  indivisible,  insepar- 
able principle,  and  therefore  identical  Being:  Let  no  one  object: 
Is  not  the  word  and  the  deed  of  the  agent,  the  word  and  the 
deed  of  his  master  or  employer?  Christ  is  more  than  his 
Father's  agent.  An  agent  could  indeed  say  that  his  utterances 
and  his  actions  are  dictated  or  prompted  by  his  master,  but  he 
could  never  say  what  Christ  said:  The  words  I  utter  are  actually, 
physically  spoken  by  my  Father  while  I  speak  them;  and  the 
works  I  perform  are  actually,  physically,  performed  by  my 
Father.     Is  the  Son,  then,  like  the  phonograph  or  the  machine, 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  65 

the  instrument  of  the  Father?  Nay,  he  is  more  than  that. 
Being  together  with  his  Father,  the  one  equally  intelligent  and 
equally  efficient  principle  of  action,  the  words  and  works  are 
simultaneously  both  the  Son's  and  the  Father's. 

There  remains  to  prove  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  inseparably 
one  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  There  are  three  who  give  testi- 
mony in  heaven,  and  these  three  are  one  (1  John  5:8). 

As  Christ  proved  his  identity  and  unity  with  the  Father  by 
texts  quoted:  "TAe  words  that  I  speak  I  speak  not  of  myself.  But 
the  Father  who  abideth  in  me  he  doth  the  works,"  so  he  now  shows 
his  unity  with  the  Holy  Ghost  by  almost  the  selfsame  sentences: 
"When  the  Spirit  of  Truth  will  have  come,  he  will  teach  you  all 
truth;  for  he  will  not  speak  of  himself  but  he  will  speak  whatever 
he  will  hear,  and  will  announce  to  you  the  things  to  come.  He 
will  glorify  me,  because  he  will  receive  of  mine  and  announce  to 
you:  whatever  the  Father  hath  are  mine.*  Therefore  I  said:  be- 
cause he  will  receive  of  mine  and  announce  it  to  you"  (John 
16:13-15). 

That  the  Holy  Ghost  is  one  with  the  Son,  or  Jesus,  is  proved 
also  by  the  fact  that  the  Christian  baptism  is  indiscriminately 
called  the  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Baptism  in  or  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  the  Baptism  of  or  in  Jesus:  "He  [Christ]  shall 
baptize  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire"  (that  is  the  Holy  Ghost 
acting  as  purifying  fire)  (Matthew  3:11);  "have  you  received  the 
Holy  Ghost?  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  a 
Holy  Ghost."  He  said:  "In  what  then  [in  whose  name  then]  were 
you  baptized?"  Who  said:  "In  John's  baptism     *     *     *     Having 


*  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  foreknowledge  of  future  events  was 
ever  .spoken  of  as  an  incommunicable  attribute  of  Jehovah  (Isaiah 
41:22,  28;  44:7;  45:11;  Daniel  2:22,  47;  13;  42,  etc.)  As  whatever 
the  Father  hath  is  the  Son's,  therefore,  also,  the  knowledge  of  the 
future. 


66  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

heard  these  things  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus"  (Acts  9:2,  5).  All  we  who  are  baptized  in  Christ  Jesus" 
(Romans  6:3). 

B.  Although  the  systematic  doctrine  of  the  Blessed 
Trinity,  that  i^  of  three  Divine  Persons  (not  three  Gods)  in 
one  God,  is  a  gradual  development  in  the  Church,  nevertheless 
the  distinction  of  the  human  and  divine  natures  in  Christ  is 
found  in  the  writings  of  St.  Ignatius,  disciple  of  the  Apostle 
St.  John,  and  Bishop  of  Antioch,  who,  because  of  his  faith, 
was  devoured  by  lions  by  order  of  Trajan,  A.  D.  107.  Fifty 
and  sixty  years  later,  different  Fathers,  among  whom  TertuUian 
("Adv.  Marc"  IV.  25,  and  "Adv.  Wax."  2),  Athenagoras  ("Leg" 
10:  24,  44),  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  ("Strom"  III:  12) 
are  the  most  famous,  taught  there  are  three  Divine  Persons 
in  one  God;  that  these  three,  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  are  equal  to  each  other  and  are  one  in  substance.* 

III.  Pagan  Witness  to  the  Unity  of  the  Christian's  God. 

As  the  Roman  historian  Tacitus,  in  his  account  of  the  Jews, 
wrote:  "The  Jews  have  no  notion  of  any  more  than  one  Divine 
Being,  and  that  known  only  to  the  mind."    Other  pagans  bore 


*  The  manifestation  of  the  three  Divine  Persons  at  our  Lord's 
baptism  could  be  interpreted  as  if  there  were  three  distinct  beings  in 
God,  or  three  Gods,  if  such  interpretation  were  not  precluded  by 
God's  emphatic  revelation  of  his  Divine  Unity.  There  was,  on  that 
memorable  occasion,  a  twofold  divine  witnessing  to  Christ  as  Son  of 
God  come  in  the  flesh  to  redeem  mankind.  In  order  to  find  in  that 
event  anything  in  support  of  the  ''Mormon"  tenets,  there  should  have 
appeared  above  the  Son  two  glorious  exalted  men  both  pointing  to 
him;  whereas,  only  a  voice  was  heard,  and  a  dove  was  seen.  Nor  can 
we  argue  from  the  voice  that  the  Father  must  have  a  mouth,  and 
therefore  a  body;  with  greater  reason  might  we  maintain  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  a  pigeon,  as  a  dove  was  visible;  whereas,  the  organ  of 
the  voice  was  not. 


THE   "mormon"    doctrine   OF   DEITY.  67 

similar  testimony  concerning  the  unity  of  God.  In  his  letter  to 
the  Emperor  Trajan,  (A.  D.  98-117)  Pliny  governor  of  Pontus, 
said  among  other  things:  "They  [the  Christians]  assemble  on 
certain  days  before  sunrise  to  sing  hymns  of  praise  to  Christ, 
their  God.  *  *  They  submit  to  torture  and  death  rather  than 
invoke  the  gods." 

And  Celsus,  the  forerunner  of  our  modern  infidels,  thus 
slandered  the  early  Christians:  "Confessing  that  these  are 
worthy  of  their  God,  they  desire  to  convert  but  fools,  and  vulgar 
and  stupid  and  slavish  women  and  boys." 

One  more.  Cgecilius  wrote:  "What  monstrous  notions 
*  *  *  they  [the  Christians]  fabricate  that  that  God  of  theirs, 
whom  they  can  neither  show  nor  see,  should  be  inquiring 
diligently  into  the  characters,  the  acts,  nay  the  words  and  secret 
thoughts  of  all  men !  *  *  *  Most  of  you  are  in  want,  cold, 
toil,  hunger,  and  your  God  suffers  it. 


CHAPTER  III. 

A  REJOINDER  TO  REV.  C.  VAN  UER  DONCKT'S  REPLY. 

I  have  read  with  great  interest  and  I  trust  with  due  care 
the  Rev.  C.  Van  Der  Donckt's  Reply  to  my  discourse  on  "Mor- 
mon Doctrine  of  Deity."  With  regard  to  his  Reply  in  general, 
I  observe  three  things:  first,  the  Reverend  gentleman  labors 
with  some  pains  to  demonstrate  that  "Mormon"  views  of  Deity 
with  respect  to  the  form  and  nature  of  God  are  at  variance 
with  the  Catholic  and  even  the  orthodox  Protestant  views  on 
that  subjjct;  second,  the  "Mormon"  views  of  Deity  are  in  con- 
flict with  the  accepted  Christian  philosophy;  third,  that 
"Mormon"  doctrines  stand  in  sharp  contrast  to  both  Catholic 
and  Protestant  ideas  repecting  the  unity  of  God.  All  this  is 
easily  proved;  and  would  have  been  conceded  cheerfully  without 
proofs.  "Mormons"  not  only  admit  the  variances  but  glory  in 
them.  The  foregoing,  however,  is  not  the  issue  between  Mr. 
Van  Der  Donckt  and  myself.  After  the  variances  referred  to 
are  admitted,  these  questions  remain:  Which  is  most  in  agree- 
ment with  what  God  has  revealed  concerning  his  form  and 
nature,  "Mormon"  or  orthodox  Christian  doctrine?  Which  is 
most  in  harmony  with  sound  reason  and  the  scriptures,  "Mor- 
mon" doctrine,  or  the  commonly  accepted  Christian  philosophy? 
Which  in  their  teaching  presents  the  true  doctrine  of  God's 
unity,  "Mormons"  or  orthodox  Christians?  These  are  the 
issues;  and  so  far  as  the  Reverend  gentleman  has  maintained 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  69 

the  orthodox  Christian  doctrine  against  the  "Mormon"  doctrine, 
I  undertake  to  controvert  his  arguments. 

1. 

THE  FORM  OF  GOD. 

Following  the  order  of  my  treatise,  the  gentleman  first 
deals  with  ihe  form  of  God.  His  first  premise  is  that  "God  is 
a  Spirit,"  quoting  the  words  of  the  Savior  (John  4:  24;)  and 
Paul's  words,  "The  Lord  is  a  spirit,"  (II  Cor.  3:  17.)  He  then 
argues  that  a  spirit  is  different  from  a  man,  and  quotes  the 
remark  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  when  he  appeared  to  them 
after  his  resurrection:  "A  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones 
as  ye  see  me  have"  (Luke  24:  37-39).  Also  the  words  of  Jesus 
to  Peter,  "Flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  [that  is,  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ]  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven." 
(Matt.  16:  17.)  The  gentleman  in  all  this  sees  a  striking 
contrast  between  men,  flesh  and  blood,  and  the  Father;  which 
"conveys  the  sense  that  God  hath  not  flesh  and  blood  like  man, 
but  is  a  spirit." 

That  God  is  a  spirit  Mr.  V.  holds  is  proved  also  from  his 
being  called  "invisible"  in  the  Bible;  and  from  this  premise 
argues:  "All  material  beings  are  visible.  Absolutely  invisible 
beings  are  immaterial,  or  bodiless:"  and  therefore,  to  help  the 
gentleman  out  a  little,  not  like  man  in  form. 

With  reference  to  the  passage — "Flesh  and  blood  hath  not 
revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven,"  and 
the  Reverend  gentleman's  remarks  thereon,  I  wish  to  say,  in 
passing,  that  the  antithesis  between  man  and  God  in  the  passage 
extends  merely  to  the  fact  that  the  source  of  Peter's  revelation 
was  God,  not  man;  and  is  no  attempt  at  defining  a  difference 
between  the  nature  of  God  and  the  nature  of  man.  Here  also 
I  may  say  that  the  Latter-day  Saints  do  not  hold  that  God  is  a 
personage  of  flesh  and  blood,  but  a  personage  of  flesh  and  bone, 


70  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  op  deity. 

inhabited  by  a  spirit,  just  as  Jesus  was  after  his  resurrection. 
Joseph  Smith  taught  concerning  the  resurrection  that  "all 
[men]  will  be  raised  by  the  power  of  God,  having  spirit  in  their 
bodies,  and  not  blood"*  Again,  in  speaking  of  the  general  assem- 
bly and  church  of  the  first  born  in  heaven  (Heb.  12:  23),  he  said: 
"Flesh  and  blood  cannot  go  there;  but  flesh  and  bones,  quickened 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  can."t  So  that  it  must  be  remembered 
throughout  this  discussion  that  the  Latter-day  Saints  do  not 
believe  that  God  is  a  personage  of  flesh  and  blood;  but  a 
personage  of  flesh  and  bone  and  spirit,  united. 

I  would  remind  the  reader,  also,  that  while  Jesus  said, 
"God  is  a  spirit,"  and  that  a  spirit  "hath  noc  flesh  and  bone  as 
ye  see  me  have,"  he  nowhere  says  that  a  spirit  is  immaterial  or 
not  substance.  That  is  a  conclusion  drawn  by  the  theologians 
from  the  false  philosophy  of  the  ancient  pagans. 

But  let  us  examine  these  premises  and  arguments  of  Mr. 
Van  DerDonckt,  more  in  detail.  The  inspired  apostle  says:  ''Our 
God  is  a  consumirig  fire"  (Heb.  12:  29).  "Now,"  to  use  the 
words  of  Mr,  V.,  "although  we  must  believe  whatever  God 
reveals  to  us  upon  one  single  word  of  his,  just  as  firmly  as 
upon  a  thousand;  nevertheless,  I  will  add"  that  Moses,  who 
splemnly  received  the  word  from  God  which  he  delivered  unto 
Israel,  also  says,  "The  Lord  thy  God  is  a  consuming  fire" 
(Exod.  4:  24).  Ts  Mr.  V.  ready  to  believe  on  these  solemn 
assertions  of  scripture— hence  of  the  Lord — that  God  is  a  fire, 
and  therefore  that  fire  is  God?  Or  would  he  insist  upon 
interoreting  these  passages  by  others,  and  by  reason?  Would- 
he  not  want  to  quote  Moses  again  where  he  says,  "Thy  God  is 


*  Discourse  delivered  at  Xauvoo,  March  20,  1842.  Mill.  Star, 
Vol.  xix,  p.  213. 

t  Discourse  delivered  at  Nauvoo,  Oct.  9,  1843.  Mill.  Star,  Vol. 
xxii,  p.  231. 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  71 

*  *  *  as  a  consuming  fire"  (Ex  9:  3),  and  accept  this  as  a 
reasonable  interpretation  of  the  passage  stating  so  definitely 
that  "God  is  a  fire"? 

Again,  "God  is  light"  (I  John  1 :  5).  Would  Mr.  V.  from 
that  definition  of  God  believe  and  teach  that  God  is  light,  mere 
cosmic  light?  Or  would  he  find  an  interpretation,  or  explana- 
tion necessary?  And  still  again,  "God  is  love"  (I  John  4: 
7,  16).  Love  is  an  attribute  of  mind,  of  spirit;  must  one 
conclude  then  from  this  definition  that  God  is  a  mere  attribute 
of  mind?  These  reflections  will  demonstrate  that  these  defini- 
tions of  God,  so  far  as  they  are  such,  together  with  the  one 
with  which  Mr.  V.  commences  his  argument,  "God  is  a  Spirit," 
need  defining.  He  endeavors  to  anticipate  the  "Mormon"  an- 
swer to  this  argument  by  saying: 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  Latter-day  Saints  interpret  those  texts 
as  meaning  a  spirit  clothed  with  a  body,  but  what  nearly  the  whole  of 
mankind.  Christians.  Jews,  and  Mohammedans,  have  believed  for  ages, 
cannot  be  upset  by  the  gratuitous  assertions  of  a  religious  innovator 
of  this  last  century. 

At  this  point  I  will  not  appeal  to  or  quote  the  "gratuitous 
assertions  of  a  religious  innovator  of  this  last  century" — mean- 
ing Joseph  Smith.  There  is  no  need  of  that.  If  I  were  an 
unbeliever  in  the  true  Deity  of  Christ,  I  might  take  up  the 
gentleman's  argument  in  this  way:  You  say  God  is  a  spirit,  and 
hence  bodiless,  immaterial?  His  answer  must  be,  "Yes."  But 
Jesus  says,  "a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones  as  ye  see  me  have" 
— hence  Jesus  is  not  God,  because  he  is  a  personage  of  flesh 
and  bone,  in  the  form  of  man — not  bodiless  or  immaterial. 
This,  of  course,  is  not  my  point.  I  merely  refer  to  it  in  the 
beaten  way  of  good  fellowship.,  and  by  way  of  caution  to  my 
Catholic  friend,  who,  I  am  sure,  in  his  way,  is  as  anxious  to 
maintain  the  true  Deity  of  the  Nazarene  as  I  am;  but  his  method 


72  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  op  deity. 

of  handling  the  text,  "God  is  a  spirit,"  might  lead  him  into  ser- 
ious difficulty  in  upholding  the  truth  that  Jesus  was  and  is  true 
Deity,  if  in  argument  with  an  infidel. 

But  now  for  the  "Mormon"  exposition  of  the  text.  Is 
Jesus  Christ  God?  Was  he  God  as  he  stood  there  among  his 
disciples  in  his  glorious  and,  to  use  Mr.  V.'s  own  word, 
"sacred,"  resurrected  body?  There  is  but  one  answer  that  the 
Reverend  Catholic  gentleman  or  any  orthodox  Protestant  can 
give,  and  that  is  in  the  affirmative — "yes,  Jesus  is  God."*  But 
"God  is  a  spirit!"  True,  he  is;  but  Jesus  is  a  spirit  inside  a 
body — inside  an  immortal,  indestructible  body  of  flesh  and  bone; 
therefore,  if  Jesus  is  God,  and  God  is  a  spirit,  he  is  an  embodied 
spirit,  just  as  the  Latter-day  Saints  teach. 

Now  let  it  be  understood  that  Latter-day  Saints  are  not  so 
foolish  as  to  believe  that  so  much  phosphate,  lime,  carbon, 
hydrogen,  and  oxygen  as  may  compose  the  body  of  a  perfected 
man,  is  God.  They  recognize  the  fact  that  the  body  without 
the  spirit  is  dead,  being  alone;  but  the  spirit  having  through 
natural  processes  gathered  to  itself  a  body,  and  that  body 
having  been  purified  by  the  power  of  God — who  has  promised 
in  holy  scripture  that  he  will  "change  our  vile  body,  that  it 
may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to  the 
working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to  subdue  all  things  unto 
himself"  (Phil.  3:  20,  21) — when  this  is  done,  even  the  body 
takes  upon  it  some  of  the  divine  nature.  It  indeed  becomes 
"sacred,"  and  something  more  than  "sacred"— it  becomes  incor- 
porated with  and  forever  united  to,  a  spirit  that  is  divine,  and 
henceforth  becomes  an  integral  part  of  God.  Of  which  process, 
of  a  divine  spirit  taking  on  a  body  of  flesh  and  bone,  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  most  perfect  example. 


*  "His  acts  proved  his  Deity;  Jesus  is  Jehovah,  and  therefore 
we  sing  unto  him  as  the  Lord."  "Treasury  of  David''  (Spurgeon). 
Vol.  iv,  p.  371. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  73 

At  this  point,  I  shall  pass  for  the  present  a  few  items  that 
stand  next  in  order  in  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  argument,  that 
I  may  consider  some  statements  and  arguments  of  his  made 
further  on  in  the  "Reply,"  because  they  are  immediately  related 
to  what  has  just  been  said.  Mr.  V.  holds  that  it  is  proved  by 
Holy  Writ  that  "angels  as  well  as  God  are  bodiless  beings." 
After  quoting  passages  of  scripture  in  support  of  this  state- 
ment, he  then  adds:  "Could  plainer  words  be  found  to  teach 
that  angels,  both  good  and  bad,  are  spirits,  devoid  of  bodies? 
Now,  the  Creator  is  certainly  more  perefct  than  his  creatures, 
and  pure  minds  are  more  perfect  than  minds  united  to  bodies* 
(men)."  In  support  of  which  he  quotes  the  following:  '"The 
corruptible  body  is  a  load  upon  the  soul,  and  the  earthly  hab- 
itation presseth  down  the  mind"  (Wisdom  9:  15)t;  and  Paul's 
saying,  "who  shall  deliver  me  from  this  body  of  death ?J"  (Rom. 
6:24).     Iherefore  the  Creator  is  a  pure  spirit. 

I  fear  Mr.  V.  in  these  statements  has  run  into  more  diffi- 
culty. Let  us  see.  According  to  his  doctrine,  "Angels  as  well 
as  God  are  bodiless  beings."  "Angels,  both  good  and  bad,  are 
spirits,  devoid  of  bodies.  The  Creator  is  more  perfect  than  his 
creatures,  and  pure  minds  [minds  separated  from  bodies]  are 
more  perfect  than  minds  united  to  bodies.  *  *  *  There- 
fore the  Creator  is  a  pure  spirit."  But  where  does  this  leave 
Jesus? 

Was  and  is  Jesus  God— true  Deity? 

Yes. 

But  Jesus  is  a  spirit  and  body  united  into  one  glorious 

*  Italics  are  mine. 

t  This  is  a  book  received  by  the  Catholic  Church  on  alleged 
apostolical  tradition,  but  not  found  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  nor  Protes- 
tant versions  of  the  Bible. 

t  Quoted  thus  by  Mr.  V.  In  both  Catholic  and  Protestant  Bibles 
it  stands:  "Who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death?" 

5 


74  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  op  deity. 

personage.  His  mind  was  and  is  now  united  to  and  dwelling  in 
a  body.  Our  Catholic  friend  says,  "pure  minds  [i.  e.  minds  not 
united  to  bodies]  are  more  perfect  than  minds  united  to 
bodies."  He  also  says,  "Angels,  both  good  and  bad,  are  spirits 
(i.  e.  minds)  devoid  of  bodies."  Therefore,  it  must  follow  from 
his  premises  and  argument  that  angels  are  superior  to  Jesus 
since  his  spirit  is  united  to  a  body,  while  they  are  minds  not 
united  to  bodies!  I  will  not  press  the  point,  that  the  same 
conclusionscould  be  drawn  from  his  premises  and  argument  with 
reference  even  to  bad  spirits,  whom  he  says  are  bodiless,  and 
hence,  upon  his  theory,  superior  to  minds  or  spirits  united  to  bod- 
ies, for  that  would  be  ungenerous  upon  my  part,  and  would  lay 
upon  his  faulty  argument  the  imputation  of  awful  blasphemy, 
which  I  am  sure  was  not  intended  and  would  be  as  revolting  to 
him  as  it  would  be  to  myself.  Mr.  V.,  I  am  sure,  would  contend 
as  earnestly  as  I  would  that  Jesus  is  superior  to  the  angels, 
though  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  he  is  a  spirit  united  to  a  body. 
"When  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins,  [Jesus]  sat  down  on 
the  right  hand  of  the  majesty  on  high;  being  made  so  much 
better  than  the  angels,  as  he  hath  by  inheritance  obtained  a 
more  excellent  name  than  they.  *  *  *  And  again,  when  he 
bringeth  in  the  first  begotten  into  the  world,  he  saith,  and  let  all 
the  angels  of  God  worship  him.  And  of  the  angels  he  saith,  who 
maketh  his  angels  spirits,  and  his  ministers  a  flame  of  fire.  But 
unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever  and 
ei;er"  (Heb.  1:3-8).  In  this  passage  the  superiority  of  Jesus 
over  the  angels  is  manifested  in  four  ways:  first,  by  the  direct 
affirmation  of  God,  that  he  was  made  "better"  than  the  angels; 
second,  that  by  inheritance  he  obtained  a  more  fxalted  name; 
third,  that  the  angels  are  commanded  to  worship  him;  fourth, 
God,  the  Father,  addressing  Jesus,  said,  "Thy  throne,  0  God,  is 
for  ever  and  ever."  In  this  passage  the  Father  directly  ad- 
dresses Jesus  by  the  title  "God."    And  as  God  is  exalted  above 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  75 

all  angels,  Jesus  must  be  superior  to  angels,  for  he  is  "God," 
if  we  may  believe  the  words  of  the  Father  —whom  to  disbelieve 
would  be  blasphemy. 

Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  admits  in  his  argument.'of  course,  that 
Jesus  is  God;  and  also  admits  the  persistence  of  him  in  the 
physical  condition  in  which  he  left  the  earth  with  his  resur- 
rected body.  For  in  explaining  the  scripture  passage  about 
seeing  God  "face  to  face,"  he  remarks: 

The  first  and  chief  element  of  the  happiness  of  heaven  will  con- 
sist in  the  beatific  vision;  that  is,  in  seeing  God  face  to  face,  un- 
veiled, as  he  really  is.  The  "face  to  face,"  however,  is  literally  true 
only  of  our  blessed  Savior,  who  ascended  into  heaven  with  his  sacred 
body.  Otherwise,  as  God  is  a  spirit,  he  has  no  body,  and,  conse- 
quently, no  face. 

From  this  it  is  clear  that,  in  the  mind  of  the  Reverend  gen- 
tleman, Jesus  not  only  ascended  into  heaven  with  his  "sacred 
body,"  but  now  dwells  there  spirit  and  body  united;  and  the 
blessed,  who  shall  inherit  heaven  will  see  him  there  literally 
face  to  face."*  Otherwise  than  this  "face  to  face"  view  of 
Jesus — according  to  Mr.  V. — we  shall  only  see  God,  since  he  is 
a  spirit,  "with  the  spiritual  eye;  with  the  soul's  intellectual  per- 
ception, elevated  by  a  supernatural  influx  from  God!"  This 
admission  with  reference  to  Jesus  and  his  existence  as  an  im- 
mortal personage  of  flesh  and  bone,  and  our  literal  view  of  him 


*  In  an  article  for  the  Improvement  Era,  on  the  Doctrines  and 
Claims  of  the  Catholic  Church,  Bishop  Scanlan,  of  Salt  Lake  City,  also 
said  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ;  "The  Catholic  Church  teaches  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  not  a  mere  elect  child  or  special  creation  of  God,  or  in 
any  sense  or  manner  a  creature,  but  that  he  is  the  eternal  and  only 
Son  of  God,  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light;  the  expression  of  the  Eternal 
Father,  with  whom  he  is  one  in  nature  and  substance,  and  to  whom 
he  is  equal  in  all  divine  attributes,  power  and  glory." — Improvement 
Era,  vol.  i,  p.  14. 


76  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

in  heaven  "face  to  face,"  dra^^s  with  it  some  consequences 
which  my  Catholic  friend  evidently  overlooked.  In  the  creed 
usually  named  after  St.  Athanasius,  it  is  said:  "Such  as  the 
Father  is,  such  is  the  Son"  I  take  it  that  this,  in  the  view 
of  those  who  accept  the  Athanasian  3reed,  has  reference  to  the 
"substance  of  the  Father,"  as  well  as  to  other  things  pertaining 
to  him;  for,  according  to  that  creed,  the  "substance"  of  the 
Father  and  Son  is  one  and  undivided.  "We  worship  one  God 
in  Trinity,  and  Trinity  in  Unity,"  says  the  creed;  "neither  con- 
founding the  persons  nor  dividing  the  substance."  It  must  be, 
therefore,  according  to  Mr.  V.'s  creed,  that  all  the  "substance" 
of  God  there  is,  is  in  Jesus  Christ,  as  well  as  the  attributes  of 
God.  The  terms  of  the  creed  forbid  us  believing  that  part  of 
the  "substance"  of  God  was  enclosed  in  the  flesh  and  bone  body 
of  Jesus,  and  the  remainder  existed  outside  of  that  body;  for 
that  would  be  dividing  the  "substance"  of  God,  a  thing  the 
Athanasian  creed  forbids:  therefore,  all  the  "substance"  of 
God  inhabits  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  he  is  wholly  God.  In 
this  view  of  the  subject,  there  is  no  God  except  the  Deity  en- 
closed in  the  flesh  and  body  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  that  would 
place  our  Catholic  friend — after  all  he  has  said  about  God  being 
a  spirit,  and  about  the  superiority  of  pure  minds  (i.  e.  spirits  not 
united  to  bodies)  over  minds  united  to  bodies — under  the 
necessity  of  accepting  as  God,  the  Supreme,  the  Almighty,  a 
personage  that  is  a  spirit  and  body  united  in  one  glorious 
personage,  and  in  form  like  man — a  thing  most  abhorrent  to 
our  friend's  principles. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  it  be  contended  that  besides  the  Son 
of  God,  Jesus,  a  personage  of  flesh  and  bone  and  spirit,  there 
exists  God,  a  spirit,  then  there  is  likely  to  arise  again  the  con- 
ception of  the  "substance"  being  divided,  and  the  existence  of 
two  individual  Gods  instead  of  one.  The  one  a  spirit  unem- 
bodied,  and  the  other  a  spirit  enclosed  in  a  body  of  flesh  and 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine  OP   DEITY.  77 

bone— the  glorified,  exalted  Man,  Christ.  This  danger  is  also  in- 
creased by  the  part  of  the  creed  now  being  considered,  viz.,  "Such 
as  the  Father  is,  such  is  the  Son;"  for  it  must  follow,  if  this  be 
true  that  such  as  the  Son  is,  such  is  the  Father  also.  And  this, 
must  hold  with  reference  to  God,  wholly;  to  his  substance, 
essence,  personality,  form,  as  well  as  to  all  attributes  possessed, 
or  else  it  is  not  true  at  all.  And  if  true,  since  we  know  that 
Jesus  is  an  immortal  being  of  flesh  and  bone  and  spirit  united 
into  one  glorious  personage  (and  Mr.  V.  admits  that,  and  also 
that  the  blessed  in  heaven  shall  see  him  as  such  a  personage, 
literally  "face  to  face"),  then  God  the  Father  must  be  the  same, 
a  personage  of  flesh  and  bone  and  spirit  united — a  thing  most 
abhorrent  to  Mr.  V's  principles. 

At  this  point,  I  must  complain  of  the  gentleman's  argument 
a  little.  However  able  and  fair  his  article  may  be  con- 
sidered on  the  whole,  I  think,  on  the  question  of  the  "form 
of  God,"  I  am  justified  in  charging  that  he  has  not  dealt 
at  all  with  my  strong  scripture  proofs  relative  to  that  matter. 
He  makes  but  the  very  slightest  reference  to  the  passage: 

And  God  said.  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our 
likeness.  *  *  *  So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the 
image  of  God  created  he  him;  male  and  female  created  he  them 
(Genesis  1:  26,  27). 

And  he  considered  nowhere  the  very  definite  passage: 

"God  *  *  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son. 
*  *  *  who,  being  the  brightness  of  his  glory  and  the  express  image 
of  his  person,  and  upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,  when 
he  hath  by  himself  purged  our  sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Majesty  on  high  (Heb.  1:  3). 

"Now,"  to  use  the  solemn  words  of  the  Reverend  gentleman 
himself,  "we  must  believe  whatever  God  reveals  to  us  upon  one 
single  word  of  his,  just  as  firmly  as  upon  a  thousand" — I  shall 


78  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  op  deity. 

hold  that  it  was  incumbent  upon  Mr.  V.  to  deal  with  these 
passages,  and  set  forth  in  what  way  they  are  to  be  understood, 
if  not  to  be  understood  as  they  read.*  I  can  think  of  no 
language  that  could  express  the  truth  more  forcibly,  that  man 
was  created  in  the  form  of  God  and,  therefore,  that  God  in 
form  is  like  man,  than  the  language  of  these  two  passages. 
When  the  word  of  God  says:  "God  created  man  in  his  own 
image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him;  and  then  again,  in 
speaking  of  Jesus,  who  certainly  bore  all  the  semblance,  figure 
and  stature  of  a  man — who  was  a  man — when  the  divine  Spirit, 
I  say,  in  speaking  of  him,  says  that  he  was  the  express  image 
of  God's  person — I  shall  despair  of  human  language  expressing 
any  fact  whatsoever,  if  this  language  does  not  say  that  in  form 
God  and  man  are  alike.  And  what  the  word  of  God  in  plain- 
ness teaches — so  plain  that  he  who  "runs  may  read,"  so  plain 
that  "wayfaring  men  though  fools  need  not  err  therein" — "is 
not  to  be  set  aside  by  the  gratuitous  assertions"  of  "religious 
innovators"  of  early  Christian  centuries  who  corrupted  the 
plain  meaning  of  God's  word  by  their  vain  philosophies,  and 
oppositions  of  science,  falsely  so  called.     Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt 


*  The  meaning  of  this  language  from  the  26th  verse  of  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  is  made  perfectly  clear  when  compared  with  the 
third  verse  of  the  5th  chapter  of  Genesis  where  it  is  written:  "And 
Adam  lived  an  hundred  and  thirty  years,  and  begat  a  son  in  his  own 
likeness,  after  his  image;  and  called  his  name  Seth."  What  do  these 
word*  imply  but  that  Seth  was  like  his  father  in  features  and 
also  doubtless  in  intellectual  and  moral  qualities?  And  if  when  it  is 
said  Adam  begat  a  son  in  his  "own  likeness,  after  his  image,"'  it 
simply  means  that  Seth  in  form  and  features  and  intellectual  and 
moral  qualities  was  like  his  father — then  there  can  be  no  other 
conclusion  formed  upon  the  passage  that  says  God  created  man  in  his 
own  image  and  likeness  than  that  man,  in  a  general  way,  in  form 
and  feature  and  intellectual  and  moral  qualities  was  like  God. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  79 

makes  no  reference  to  this  plain  passage  in  Hebrews  1:3;  and 
I  am  under  the  necessity  of  thinking  that  in  respect  of 
this  passage  and  the  one  in  Genesis,  he  had  no  means  at  his 
command  by  which  he  could  satisfactorily  explain  away  their 
force.  They  stand,  therefore,  with  their  strength  unimpaired, 
in  proof  of  the  doctrines  taught  in  the  discourse  at  which  Mr 
V.  leveled  his  Reply. 

Of  God  Being  Invisible. 

Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  thinks  he  sees  further  proof  of  God's 
being  a  "Spirit,"  and  therefore  immaterial  or  bodiless,  in  the 
fact  that  he  is  spoken  of  in  the  Bible  as  being  "invisible." 
Moses  "was  strong  as  seeing  him  that  is  invisible,"  (Heb.  11: 27;) 
"No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time"  (I  John  4:  12;)  "The 
King  of  kings — whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can  see,"  (I  Tim. 
6:  16);  are  the  passages  he  relies  upon  for  the  proof  of  his 
contention. 

Of  course,  Mr.  V.  is  aware  of  the  fact — for  he  mentions 
it — that  these  passages  are  confronted  with  the  explicit  state- 
ment of  scripture  that  God  has  been  seen  by  men.  Moses  saw 
him.  At  one  stage  of  his  experience,  the  great  Hebrew 
prophet  was  told  that  he  could  not  see  God's  face;  "for,"  said 
the  Lord,  "there  shall  no  man  see  me  and  live."  But  even  at 
that  time,  Moses  was  placed  in  a  cleft  of  the  rock,  "and  thou 
shalt  see  my  back  parts,"  said  the  Lord  to  him;  "but  my  face 
shall  not  be  seen"  (Exodus  23:  18-23).  On  another  occasion, 
Moses,  Aaron,  Nadab  and  Abihu,  and  seventy  of  the  elders  of 
Israel,  saw  God. 

And  they  saw  the  God  of  Israel;  and  there  was  under  his  feet  as 
it  were  a  paved  work  of  saphire  stone,  and  as  it  were  the  body  of 
heaven  in  his  clearness.  And  upon  the  nobles  of  the  children 
of  Israel  he  laid  not  his  hand:  also  they  saw  God,  and  did  eat  and 
drink  (Ex.  24:  9-11). 


80  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

Isaiah  saw  him:  "I  saw  the  Lord  sitting  upon  a  throne, 
high  and  lifted  up,  and  his  train  filled  the  temple."  At  the 
same  time  the  seraphims  proclaimed  his  holiness,  saying,  "Holy, 
holy,  holy  is  the  Lord  of  hosts;  the  whole  earth  is  full  of  his 
glory."  Then  said  Isaiah:  "Woe  is  me!  for  lam  undone;  because 
I  am  a  man  of  unclean  lips,  and  I  dwell  in  the  midst  of  a  people 
of  unclean  lips;  for  mine  eyes  have  seen  the  King,  the  Lord  of 
hosts"  (Isaiah  6:  1-5). 

To  harmonize  these  apparitions  of  God  to  men  with  his 
theory  of  the  invisibility  of  God,  Mr.  V.  appeals  to  the  writings 
of  some  of  the  Christian  fathers,  and  Cardinal  Newman,  from 
whose  teachings  he  concludes  that  God  the  Father  is  called 
"invisible"  because  "he  never  appeared  to  bodily  eyes;  whereas 
the  Son  manifested  himself  as  an  angel,  and  as  a  man  after 
his  incarnation.  *  *  *  Whenever  the  Eternal  Son  of  God, 
or  angels  at  God's  behest,  showed  themselves  to  man,  they 
became  visible  only  through  a  body,  or  a  material  garb  assumed 
for  the  occasion!" 

Surely  Tertullian,  Ambrose,  Augustine,  the  great  English 
Cardinal  of  the  Roman  church,  and  Mr.  V.  are  in  sore  straits 
when  they  must  needs  take  refuge  in  the  belief  of  such  jugglery 
with  matter  as  this,  in  order  to  reconcile  apparently  conflicting 
scriptures.  And  what  a  shuffling  off  and  on  of  material  garbs 
there  must  have  been,  as  from  time  to  time  hosts  of  angels  and 
spirits  appeared  unto  men! 

It  is  but  the  materialization  of  the  spiritualist  mediums  on 
a  little  larger  scale.  But  there  is  a  better  way  of  harmonizing 
the  seeming  contradictions;  and  better  authority  for  the  conclu- 
sion to  be  reached  than  the  Christian  fathers  and  Cardinal  New- 
man.    I  mean  the  scriptures  themselves. 

Take  this  expression  of  the  scripture,  "No  man  hath  seen 
God  at  any  time"  (I  John  4:  12).  Standing  alone,  it  seems 
emphatic   and   conclusive.     And  in  the  same  connection  this 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  "81 

also,  from  the  testimony  of  John :  "No  man  hath  seen  God  at 
any  time;  the  only  begotten  Son  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father,  he  hath  declared  him"  (St.  John  1:  18).  But  consider 
these  texts  in  connetion  with  what  the  Master  himself  said  on 
the  same  subject:  "It  is  written  in  the  prophets,  And  they  shall 
be  all  taught  of  God.  Every  man,  therefore,  that  hath  heard, 
and  hath  learned  of  the  Father,  cometh  unto  me.  Not  that 
any  man  hath  seen  the  Father,  save  he  which  is  of  God,  he  hath 
seen  the  Father"  (St.  John  6:  45,  46).  Now  we  have  the  key 
to  the  matter,  "No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time,  save 
[except]  he  which  is  of  God,  he  hath  seen  the  Father."  If  any 
one  shall  contend  that  this  "he  which  is  of  God"  has  reference 
to  Jesus  only,  the  complete  answer  to  that  will  be  found  in  the 
account  of  the  Martyr  Stephen's  glorious  view  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son  together  and  at  one  time:  "But  he  [Stephen]  being 
full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  looked  up  steadfastly  into  heaven,  and 
saw  the  glory  oj  God,  and  Jesus  standing  on  the  right  hand  oj 
God,  and  said,  Behold,  I  see  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  yon  of 
Man  standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God"  (Acts  7:55-6).  Undoubt- 
edly, for  reasons  that  are  wise,  God  the  Father  has  been  "invis- 
ible" to  men  except  under  very  special  conditions;  for  the  most 
part  the  "Only  Begotten  hath  declared  him,"  and  stood  as  his 
representative;  and  in  the  absence  of  those  special  conditions, 
no  man  hath  seen  God  the  Father;  no  man  in  the  absence  of 
these  conditions  can  see  his  face  and  live.  He  must  be  "of  God," 
as  Stephen  was,  then  he  may  see  God,  even  the  Father,  as  that 
martyr  evidently  did.  Here,  too,  may  be  cited  a  passage  from 
one  of  the  revelations  of  the  Lord  to  Joseph  the  Prophet,  which 
throws  more  light  upon  the  subject.  Speaking  of  the  Higher 
or  Melchisedek  Priesthood,  the  Lord  says: 

This  greater  Priesthood  administereth  the  gospel  and  holdeth  the 
key  of  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom,  even  the  knowledge  of  God; 
therefore,  in  the  ordinances  thereof,  the  power  of  godliness  is  manifest; 


82  THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY. 

and  without  the  ordinances  thereof,  and  the  authority  of  the  Priest- 
hood, the  power  of  godliness  is  not  manifest  unto  men  in  the  flesh; 
for  without  this  no  man  can  see  the  face  of  God,  even  the  Father,  and 
live"  (Doc.  and  Gov.  sec.  84:  19-22). 

God,  then,  in  the  Bible,  is  called  "invisible,"  not  because 
he  is  absolutely  so  by  reason  of  his  nature,  because  he  is  "im- 
material or  bodiless;"  but  because  he  is  not  to  be  seen  by  men 
except  under  very  special  conditions.  The  special  conditions 
complied  with,  however,  certain  holy  men  have  seen  God;  the 
Father,  and  have  borne  witness  of  the  fact.  Of  course,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  "invisibility"  of  God  as  here  set  forth  does  not 
carry  with  it  the  idea  that  God  is  immaterial  or  bodiless;  nor 
would  it  follow  that  God  is  immaterial,  even  if  absolutely  in- 
visible to  human  eyes  in  our  present  existence.  Mr.  V.  advances 
a  strange  doctrine  when  he  says  that  "All  material  beings  are 
visible.  Absolutely  invisible  beings  are  immaterial  or  bodiless." 
I  take  it  that  his  assertion  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  all  ma- 
terial things  are  visible;  and  that  absolutely  invisible  things,  like 
"invisible  beings,"  are  immaterial  or  bodiless.  Is  that  true?  Is  the 
atmosphere  visible?  No.  But  it  is  material.  "It  is  composed  of 
atoms  of  matter  whose  weight  is  such  that  the  pressure  upon 
every  square  inch  amounts  to  fifteen  pounds;  and  upon  the  body 
of  an  ordinary- sized  man  some  fourteen  tons;  but  notwithstanding 
this,  man  could  not  construct  a  microscope  sufficiently  power- 
ful to  render  these  atoms  visible."*  What  of  the  ether  extend- 
ing throughout  the  universe,  in  which  millions  of  suns  and  their 
attendant  planets  move  as  motes  in  a  sunbeam;  is  that  visible? 
No;  but  it  is  material  nevertheless.  So  with  many  things  that, 
notwithstanding  they  are  absolutely  invisible,  are  material  for 
all  that,  and  have  some  of  the  qualities  in  common  with  grosser 
matter.     We  know  but  little  of  substances,  as  yet;  less  of  their 


*  Samuel  Kinns'  "Harmony  of  the  Bible  and  Science,"  p.  338. 


THE      MORMON"   DOCTRINE   OF   DEITY.  83 

essence;  but  since  there  are  many  material  substances 
absolutely  invisible  to  us,  is  it  unreasonable  to  believe  that 
there  are  also  beings  consisting  of  substances  more  refined,  pure 
and  glorious  than  the  material  that  is  visible  to  our  limited 
and  imperfect  vision? — beings  invisible  to  us,  unless  our  eyes 
be  quickened  by  the  power  of  God,  yet  material,  and  having 
form,  and  limitations  and  relations  to  other  beings  and  things; 
and  also  possessed  of  many  other  qualities  common  to  matter. 
In  view  of  these  facts,  is  not  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  a  little  reck- 
less, and  too  dogmatic,  in  stating  the  datum  from  which  he 
argues  for  the  absolute  invisibility  of  God,  and  hence  also  his 
supposed  immateriality,  or  bodiless  state? 

Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  argues  that  angels  and  spirits  are 
also  bodiless  or  immaterial.  Was  it  a  bodiless  or  immaterial 
angel  that  wrestled  with  Jacob  until  the  breaking  of  the  day; 
and  who,  when  he  could  not  prevail  against  the  patriarch, 
touched  the  sinew  of  his  thigh  that  it  forthwith  shrank?  (Gen. 
32:  23-32).  Were  they  immaterial  or  bodiless  angels  who 
called  at  the  tent-home  of  the  patriarch  Abraham,  on  the  plains 
of  Mamre,  for  whom  Sarah  baked  cakes,  and  Abraham's  servant 
prepared  a  roast  of  veal;  and,  when  all  things  were  made 
ready,  the  patriarch  stood  by,  and  the  three  heavenly  person- 
ages— one  of  them  is  called  "the  Lord" — "did  eat"  (Gen.  18) — 
were  they  immaterial  or  bodiless?  Perhaps  the  Reverend  gen- 
tleman will  say,  however,  that  these  cases,  and  a  score  of 
others  of  similar  nature  that  might  be  quoted,  are  answered  by 
his  statement — made  on  the  authority  of  some  Christian 
fathers  and  Cardinal  Newman — that  when  angels  "showed 
themselves  to  man  they  became  visible  [hence  materialized, 
according  to  my  friend's  theory  of  visible  and  invisible  beings] 
only  through  a  body,  or  material  garb  assumed  for  the  occa- 
sion!" For  which  theory,  as  whimsical  as  it  is  nonsensical,  I 
venture  to  tell  the  Reverend  gentleman  there  is  no  warrant  of 


84  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

divine  authority;  nothing  but  the  assumptions  and  speculations 
of  churchmen  seeking  to  harmonize  Christian  doctrine  with  the 
vain  speculations  of  old  pagan  philosophers.  I  know  nothing 
that  equals  this  theory  for  absurdity,  except  it  be  the  idea  of 
Epicurus,  who,  after  affirming  that  the  gods  were  of  human 
form,  explained — "Yet  that  form  is  not  body  (i.  e.  material),  but 
something  like  body;  nor  does  it  contain  any  blood,  but  some- 
thing like  blood!"*  Or  may  I  say  that  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's 
absurdity  is  really  equalled  by  that  of  Heracleitus,  who  taught 
that  the  sun  was  extinguished  every  evening  and  made  new 
every  morning? 

As  for  the  rest  of  Mr.  V's  theory  of  immateriality  and 
invisibility  of  angels  and  spirits,  I  shall  trust  to  what  I  have 
said  on  these  subjects  in  dealing  with  the  invisibility  of  God, 
to  be  a  sufficient  answer. 

OJ  Anthropomorphism  and  understanding  the  Bible  Literally. 

I  must  say  a  word  upon  Mr.  V's  remarks  respecting  the 
plain  anthropomorphism  of  the  Bible,  and  the  matter  of  under- 
standing that  sacred  book  literally.  With  reference  to  the  first 
he  says: 

All  men  after  the  example  of  the  inspired  writings,  make  fre- 
quent use  of  the  figure  called  anthropomoiphism,  attributing  to  the 
Deity  a  human  body,  human  members,  human  passions,  etc.,  and  that 
is  done,  not  to  imply  that  God  is  possessed  of  form,  limbs,  etc.,  but 
simply  to  make  spiritual  thmgs  or  certain  truths  more  intelligible  to 
man. 

I  would  like  to  know  upon  what  authority  Mr.  V.  adjudges 
the  "inspired  writings"  not  to  imply  that  God  is  really  possessed 
of  form,  limbs,  passions,  etc.,  after  attributing  them  to  him  in 
the  clearest  manner.     The  "inspired  writings"  plainly  and  most 


*  Tuscul.  Dispt.    Cicero,  p.  227  (Younge's  translation). 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  85 

forcibly  attribute  to  Deity  a  form  like  man's,  with  limbs,  organs, 
etc.,  but  the  Bible  does  not  teach  that  this  ascription  of  form, 
limbs,  organs  and  passions  to  God,  is  unreal,  and  "simply  to 
make  spiritual  things  or  certain  truths  more  intelligible  to 
man."  On  the  contrary,  the  Bible  emphasizes  the  doctrine  of 
anthropomorphism  by  declaring  in  its  very  first  chapter  that 
man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God:  "So  God  created  man 
in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him."  The 
explanation  is  offered  that  it  was  necessary  to  attribute  human 
form,  members  and  passions,  to  God,  in  order  to  make  spiritual 
things  intelligible  to  man;  but  what  is  the  reason  for  ascribing 
the  divine  Jorm  to  man,  as  in  the  passage  just  quoted  ?  Was 
that  done  to  make  human  beings  or  certain  truths  more  intelli- 
gible to  God  ?  Or  was  it  placed  in  the  word  of  God  because  it 
is  simply  true  ? 

The  truth  that  God  in  form  is  like  man  is  further  empha- 
sized by  the  fact  that  Jesus  is  declared  to  have  been  in  "the  ex- 
press image"  of  the  Father's  person  (Heb.  1:3);  and  until  Mr. 
V.  or  some  other  person  of  his  school  of  thought,  can  prove 
very  clearly  that  the  word  of  God  supports  his  theory  of  the 
unreality  of  the  Bible's  ascription  of  form,  organs,  proportions, 
passions  and  feelings,  to  God  and  other  heavenly  beings,  the 
truth  that  God  in  form  is  like  man  will  stand  secure  on  the 
foundation  of  the  revelations  it  has  pleased  God  to  give  of  his 
own  being  and  nature.  * 


*  Dean  Mansel  administers  a  scathing  reproof  to  the  German 
philosophers  Kant  and  Fichte  (and  also  to  Professor  Jowett  in  his  note 
xxii  in  Lecture  1.)  for  what  he  calls  "that  morbid  terror  of  what  they 
are  pleased  to  call  anthropomorphism,  which  poisons  the  speculation  of 
so  many  modern  philosophers,  when  they  attempt  to  be  wise  above 
what  is  written,  and  seek  for  a  metaphysical  exposition  of  God's 
nature  and  attributes."  These  philosophers,  while  holding  in  abhor- 
rence the  idea  that  God  has  a  form  such  as  man's — or  any  form  whatso- 


86  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

But  the  strangest  part  of  the  Reverend  gentleman's  con- 
tention on  the  matter  now  in  hand  is  that  the  Latter-day  Saints 
understand  the  anthropormorphic  expressions  in  the  scriptures 


ever — parts,  organs,  affections,  sympathies,  passions  or  any  attributes 
seen  in  man's  spirit,  are,  nevertheless,  under  the  necessity  of  repre- 
senting God  as  conscious,  as  knowing,  as  determining;  all  of  which,  as 
pointed  out  by  Dean  Mansel  in  the  passage  which  follows,  are,  after 
all,  qualities  of  the  human  mind  as  well  as  attributes  of  Deity;  and 
hence  the  philosophers,  after  all  their  labor,  have  not  escaped  from 
anthropomorphism,  but  have  merely  represented  Deity  to  our  conscious- 
ness, shorn  of  some  of  the  higher  qualities  of  the  human  mind,  which 
God  is  represented  in  the  scriptures  as  possessing  in  their  perfection 
— such  as  love,  mercy,  justice.  As  orthodox  Christian  ministers 
both  Catholic  and  Protestant  alike,  including  Mr.  V.,  are  afflicted 
with  the  same  madness,  I  see  no  reason  why  the  Dean's  reproof  should 
not  be  made  to  apply  to  them,  and  hence  quote  the  passage  in  extenso; 
"They  may  not  forsooth,  think  of  the  unchangeable  God  as  if  he  were 
their  fellow  man,-  influenced  by  human  motives,  and  moved  by  human 
supplications.  They  want  a  truer,  juster  idea  of  the  Deity  as  he  is, 
than  that  under  which  he  has  been  pleased  to  reveal  himself;  and 
they  call  on  their  reason  to  furnish  it.  Fools,  to  dream  that  man  can 
escape  from  himself,  that  human  reason  can  draw  aught  but  a  human 
portrait  of  God.  They  do  but  substitute  a  marred  and  mutilated  hu- 
manity for  one  exalted  and  entire:  they  add  nothing  to  their  concep- 
tion of  God  as  he  is,  but  only  take  away  a  part  of  their  conception 
of  man.  Sympathy,  and  love,  and  fatherly  kindness,  and  for- 
giving mercy,  have  evaporated  in  the  crucible  of  their  philosophy; 
and  what  is  the  caput  mortuum  that  remains,  but  only  the  sterner 
features  of  humanity  exhibited  in  repulsive  nakedness?  The  God" 
who  listens  to  prayer,  we  are  told,  appears  in  the  likeness  of  human 
mutability.  Be  it  so.  What  is  the  God  who  does  not  listen,  but  the 
likeness  of  human  obstinacy  ?  Do  we  ascribe  to  him  a  fixed  purpose? 
Our  conception  of  a  purpose  is  human.  Do  we  speak  of  him  as  con- 
tinuing unchanged  ?  Our  conception  of  continuance  is  human.  Do 
we  conceive  him  as  knowing  and  determining  ?    What  are  knowledge 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  87 

as  he  explains  them;  and  cites  our  catechisms  (chapter  5,  ques- 
tion 9)  in  proof  of  it  !*      I  quote  the  reference  given: 


*This  is  a  thing  so  astonishing  for  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  to  say, 
that  lest  the  reader  sheuld  think  I  had  misunderstood  him  I  place 
before  him  in  this  note  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  statement  at  length. 
"It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  all  men  after  the  example  of  the  in- 
spired writings,  make  frequent  use  of  the  figure  called  anthropo- 
morphism, attributing  to  the  Deity  a  human  body,  human  members, 
human  passions,  etc.;  and  that  is  done,  not  to  imply  that  God  is  pos- 
sessed of  form,  limbs,  etc.,  but  simply  to  make  spiritual  things  or 
certain  truths  more  intelligible  to  man,  who,  while  he  tarries  in  this 
world,  can  perceive  things  and  even  ideas  only  through  his  senses,  or 
through  bodily  organs. 

"That  even  the  Latter-day  Saints  thus  understand  such  expres- 
sions is  evident  from  their  catechism"  (chapter  5:  question  9), 
etc.,  etc. 


and  determination  but  modes  of  human  consciousness  ?  and  what 
know  we  of  consciousness  itself,  but  as  the  contrast  between  succes- 
sive mental  states  ?  But  our  rational  philosopher  stops  short  in 
his  reasoning.  He  strips  off  from  humanity  just  so  much  as  suits 
his  purpose;  'and  the  residue  thereof  he  maketh  a  God;' — less  pious 
in  his  idolatry  than  the  carver  of  the  graven  image,  in  that  he  does 
not  fall  down  unto  it  and  pray  unto  it,  but  is  content  to  stand  off  and 
reason  concerning  it.  And  why  does  he  retain  any  conception  of 
God  at  all,  but  that  he  retains  some  portions  of  an  imperfect  human- 
ity ?  Man  is  still  the  residue  that  is  left;  deprived  indeed  of  all  that 
is  amiable  in  humanity,  but  in  the  darker  features  which  remain,  still 
man.  Man  in  his  purposes;  man  in  his  inflexibility;  man  in  that  re- 
lation to  time  from  which  no  philosophy,  whatever  its  pretensions, 
can  wholly  free  itself;  pursuing  with  indomitable  resolutions  a  pre- 
conceived design;  deaf  to  the  yearning  instincts  which  compel  his 
creatures  to  call  upon  him.  Yet  this,  forsooth,  is  a  philosophical  con- 
ception of  the  Deity,  more  worthy  of  an  enlightened  reason  than  the 
human jmagery  of   the  Psalmist:  'The  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  over  the 


88  THE    mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

9.     Q.  If  God  is  a  person,  how  can  he  be  everywhere  present  ? 
A.     His  person  cannot  be  in  more  than  one  place  at  the 
same  time,  but  he  is  everywhere  present  by  his  Holy  Spirit. 


righteous,  and  his  ears  are  open  unto  their  prayers.'  Surely  down- 
right idolatory  is  better  than  this  rational  worship  of  a  fragment  of 
humanity.  Better  is  the  superstition  which  sees  the  image  of  God  in 
the  wonderful  whole  which  God  has  fashioned,  than  the  philosophy 
which  would  carve  for  itself  a  Deity  out  of  the  remnant  which  man 
has  mutilated.  Better  to  realize  the  satire  of  the  eleatic  philosopher, 
(Xenophanes)  to  make  God  in  the  likenesss  of  man,  even  as  the  ox  or 
the  horse  might  conceive  gods  in  the  form  of  oxen  or  horses,  than  to 
adorn  some  half-hewn  Hermes,  the  head  of  a  man  joined  to  a  mis- 
shapen block.  Better  to  fall  down  before  that  marvelous  compound 
of  human  consciousness  whose  elements  God  has  joined  together,  and 
no  man  can  put  asunder,  than  to  strip  reason  of  those  cognate  ele- 
ments which  together  furnish  all  that  we  can  conceive  or  imagine  of 
conscious  or  personal  existence,  and  to  deify  the  emptiest  of  all  ab- 
stractions, a  something  or  nothing,  with  just  enough  of  its  human 
original  left  to  form  a  theme  for  the  disputation  of  philosophy,  but 
not  enough  to  furnish  a  single  ground  of  appeal  to  the  human  feel- 
ings of  love,  of  reverence,  and  of  fear.  Unmixed  idolatry  is  more 
religious  than  this.  Undisguised  atheism  is  more  logical."  (Limits 
of  Religious  Thought,  Mansel,  pp.  56-58). 

Notwithstanding  this  passage,  however,  it  should  be  remarked 
that  Dean  Mansel  holds  on  the  very  next  page  of  this  treatise  that 
there  is  a  principle  of  truth  of  which  this  philosophy  is  the  perver- 
sion. "Surely,"  he  remarks,  there  is  a  sense  in  which  we  may  not 
think  of  God  as  though  he  were  a  man;  as  there  is  also  a  sense  in 
which  we  cannot  help  so  thinking  of  him.  *****  \Ve  feel . 
that  there  is  a  true  foundation  for  the  system  which  denies  human 
attributes  to  God;  though  the  superstructure,  which  has  been  raised  upon 
it,  logically  involves  the  denial  of  his  very  existence.'  The  position  of 
the  Dean,  as  is  well  known,  is  that  such  are  the  limitations  of  the 
human  mind — such  the  limitations  of  religious  thought,  that  man 
may  not  hope  to  understand  the  divine  nature,  but  as  an  act  of  faith 
must  accept  what  is  revealed  ^concerning  that,  nature. 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  ^^ 

This  is  preceded  by  the  following  passages  from  the  same 
book  and  chapter: 

1.  Q.     What  kind  of  a  being  is  God  ? 
A.     He  is  in  the  form  of  a  man. 

2.  Q.     How  do  you  learn  this  ? 

A.  The  scriptures  declare  that  man  was  made  in  the  image 

of  God.     *  *     * 

3.  Q.  Have  you  any  further  proof  of  God's  being  in  the  form 
of  a  man? 

A.     Yes.     Jesus  Christ  was  in  the  form  of  a  man,  and  was 
at  the  same  time  in  the  image  of  God's  person.     *     *     * 

4.  Q.     Is  it  not  said  that  God  is  a  spirit  ? 

A.     Yes;  the  scriptures  say  so.     (John  4:  24.)     *     *     * 

5.  Q.     How,  then,  can  God  be  like  man  ? 

A.     Man  has  a  spirit,  though  clothed  with  a  body,  and  God 
is  similarly  constituted. 

6.  Q.     Has  God  a  body  then  ? 

A.  Yes;  like  unto  man's  body  in  figure. 

7.  Q.  Is  the  person  of  God  very  glorious  ? 
A.  Yes;  infinitely  glorious. 

8.  Q.  Is  God  everywhere  present  ? 

A.    Yes;  He  is  in  all  parts  of  the  universe. 

Then  follows,  of  course,  question  nine  and  its  answer,  quoted 
above  and  by  Mr.  V.;  and  yet  the  gentleman,  in  the  very  face 
of  these  explicit  statements  concerning  the  reality  of  God's 
form  in  our  faith,  would  have  it  believed  that  the  Latter-day 
Saints  understand  the  expressions  of  scripture  ascribing  human 
forms,  limbs  and  organs  to  God  as  he  explains  them — not  to 
imply  that  God  is  possessed  of  form,  limbs,  etc.,  but  simply  to 
make  spiritual  things  more  intelligible  to  man  !"  This  is  a 
splendid  illustration  of  Mr.  V's  ability  to  misunderstand. 

Mr.  V.  next  takes  up  the  subject  of  understanding  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Bible  literally.  He  says  it  is  from  anthropomor- 
phic passages  of  the  Bible  that  the  Latter-day  Saints  conclude 

6 


90  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity 

that  God  has  a  body — such  passages  as  speak  of  the  face,  hands 
feet  and  other  limbs  and  organs  of  God.  He  holds  these  pas- 
sages to  be  figurative.  "I  contend,"  he  remarks,  "that  if  we 
must  understand  the  Bible  literally  in  those  passages  ("God  cre- 
ated man  in  his  own  image")  from  which  they  attempt  to  prove 
that  God  has  a  body,  we  must  interpret  it  literally  in  other  ■ 
similar  passages."^-  1  assent  to  that.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
language  of  the  Bible  is  highly  figurative,  almost  extravagantly 
so  in  places,  and  much  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  inclination 
to  imagery  of  prophetic  natures,  which,  like  poetic  tempera- 
ments, are  given  to  imagery;  and  hyperbole  is  the  vice  of  oriental 
speech.  But  Mr.  V.  is  not  true  to  this  canon  of  interpretation  he 
lays  down,  viz.,  the  same  rule  of  interpretation  must  be  applied  to 
passages  that  are  similar  in  character.  After  laying  down  this  prin- 
ciple of  interpretation,  he  proceeds  to  depart  from  it  by  placing 
for  comparison  very  dissimilar  passages.  What  similarity  is  there, 
for  example,  in  the  plain,  matter  of  fact  statement,  "God  cre- 
ated man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  imaga  of  God  created  he 
him;"  and  the  passage  he  quotes  from  Psalms:  "If  I  take  my 
wings  early  in  the  morning,  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  part  of 
the  sea,  even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me,  and  thy  right  hand 
shall  hold  me"?  And  this  also:  "Whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy 
face.  If  I  ascend  into  heaven,  thou  art  there;  If  I  descend 
into  hell  thou  art  there  ?"  Has  not  the  Reverend  gentleman 
placed  for  comparison  here  the  most  dissimilar  passages  that 
perhaps  could  be  found  in  the  whole  Bible  ?  Yet  he  insists  that 
the  prosy  passage  from  Genesis  must  be  regarded  as  equally  figur- 
ative with  David's  poetry,  and  insists  that  if  "Mormons"  believe 
literally  that  God  made  man  in  his  own  image  and  likeness,  or 
that  Moses  and  seventy  elders  saw  the  God  of  Israel,  as  plainly 
declared  by  Moses,  then  "They  must  believe  that  God  had  such 


*  Italics  are  mine — R. 


THE  "mormon"    doctrine   OF   DEITY,  91 

a  very  long  hand  as  to  extend  to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
sea;"  and  "sue a  an  extremely  long  /ace,  reaching  from  heaven 
to  hell;"  and  "conclude  that  David  had  wings  !"  Further  re- 
marks on  this  head  are  not  necessary.  One  is  under  no  obliga- 
tion to  seriously  discuss  nonsense. 

Of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  oj  God. 

Another  case  of  misapprehension  of  "Mormon"  ideas  will 
be  found  in  what  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  says  with  reference  to 
the  Latter-day  Saints'  sacred  books  not  teaching  the  Christian 
truth  of  the  incarnation  of  Deity  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  sacred  books  of  the  Latter-day  Saints  may  not  contain  the 
verbiage  of  so-called  Christian  literature  on  the  subject;  but  if 
full  recognition  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  in  the  beginning 
with  the  Father — was  the  "Word,"  and,  moreover,  the  "Word" 
that  "was  God,"  and  afterwards  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  men — is  to  believe  in  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
God,  then  the  sacred  books  of  the  Latter-day  Saints  teach  this 
doctrine,  for  over  and  ovf^r  again  in  our  sacred  books  will  pas- 
sages to  that  effect  be  found  (especially  section  93  of  the 
Doctrine  and  Covenants).  Moreover,  the  Reverend  gentleman 
should  remember  that  "Mormons"  include  among  their  sacred 
books  the  Holy  Bible,  and  all  the  doctrine  of  incarnation  taught 
in  that  book  is  our  doctrine.  I  think  the  main  difference  be- 
tween the  Latter-day  Saints  and  "Christians"  on  the  subject  of 
incarnation,  is  that  the  Latter-day  Saints  believe  that  incarna- 
tion does  not  stop  with  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Our  sacred 
books  teach  that  not  only  was  Jesus  Christ  in  the  beginning 
with  God,  but  that  the  spirits  of  all  men  were  also  with  him  in 
the  beginning,  and  that  these  sons  of  God,  as  well  as  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  became  incarnated  in  bodies  of  flesh  and  bone  (Doc- 
trine and  Covenants,  section  93).  But  Mr.  V.  thinks  he  dis- 
covers in  this  doctrine   of  incarnation  a  proof  that  "God  has 


92  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

not  a  body  and  therefore  is  not  an  exalted  man."  "  It  is  plain," 
says  he,  "that  the  Son  of  God  became  flesh  only  at  the  time  of 
his  sojourn  on  earth.  Now  had  he  been  flesh  or  man  before, 
as  the  'Mormons'  hold,  how  could  he  become  what  he  was  al- 
ready from  all  eternity?"  This  is  another  instance  of  Mr.  V.'s 
misapprehension  of  what  "Mormons"  teach.  We  nowhere 
teach  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  was  flesh  and  bone 
from  all  eternity. 

When  seeking  to  make  "Mormonism"  appear  inconsistent 
with  itself,  the  Reverend  gentleman  is  in  duty  bound  to  keep  in 
mind  our  whole  doctrine  on  any  particular  subject  he  is  treat- 
ing. He  should  remember  that  our  theology  holds  that  the 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  distinct  and  separate  person- 
ages, in  the  sense  that  they  are  three  distinct  individuals;  and 
that  the  Father  is  a  personage  of  flesh  and  bone,  as  Jesus  now 
is;  but  previous  to  Messiah's  birth  into  the  world,  he  was  a 
spirit,  the  First  Born  of  the  hosts  of  the  spirits  in  heaven,  and 
was  with  the  Father  in  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  our 
earth  and  its  heavens.  Indeed,  under  the  direction  of  the 
Father,  he  was  the  creator  of  them  (Heb.  1:  3;  Col.  15:  17; 
John  1:  3);  but  he  came  to  the  earth  to  receive  a  tabernacle, 
that  in  all  things  he  might  become  as  his  Father  is — a  divine 
spirit  inseparably  united  to  a  sacred  and  glorified  body — one 
glorious  spiritual  personage.  As  much'of  Mr.  V.'s  argument  on 
this  head  is  built  on  a  misapprehension  of  our  doctrine,  it  will 
not  be  necessary  for  me  to  follow  him  through  the  interminable 
windings  of  his  argument  with  reference  to  it.  "There  is  never 
a  proper  ending  to  reasoning  which  proceeds  on  a  false  founda- 
tion" (Cicero). 

Mr.  V.  next  brings  as  proof  against  God's  being  an  exalted 
man,  what  he  calls  the  direct  statement  of  the  Bible,  that  God 
is  not  man:  "God  is  not  a  man,  that  he  should  lie;  neither  the 
son  of  man,  that  he  should  be  changed"  (Numbers  23:  19).     "I 


THE  "mormon"   doctrine  OF  DEITY.  93 

am  God  and  not  man"  (Psalm).  These  passages  simply  present 
the  contrast  between  man  as  he  is  now,  and  with  all  his  imper- 
fections on  his  head,  and  God.  The  Latter-day  Saints  do  not 
teach  that  man  in  his  present  state  and  condition  is  God;  on  the 
contrary,  they  hold  that  there  is  a  very,  very  wide  difference 
between  them,  all  the  difference  indicated  by  the  Bible:  but 
they  do  believe  that  through  the  eternities  that  will  pass  over 
man's  head,  and  with  God  for  guide  and  teacher,  he  may  become 
as  his  Father  in  heaven  is,  and  that  such  is  his  destiny.*  It  fol- 
lows that  when  man  shall  attain  to  that  destiny,  the  contrast 
now  so  striking  between  man  and  God  will  not  exist.  The  con- 
trast noted  in  the  scriptures  by  Mr.  V.  is  not  between  perfected 
men  and  God,  but  between  very  imperfect  men — men  who  be, 
and  are  changeable — and  God;  and  since  the  Latter-day  Saints 
do  not  hold  that  man  while  imperfect  is  God,  or  like  God,  or 
God  like  him,  the  argument  of  the  gentleman,  based  on  the 
passages  quoted,  is  of  no  force.  It  could  be  said  of  some 
grandly  developed,  noble,  high-minded  man,  such  as  a  Glad- 
stone, a  Bismarck,  or  a  Washington:  He  is  not  a  child  that  he 
should  halt  in  reason,  or  falter  in  action ,  or  be  frightened  by 
phantoms  of  the  dark.     But  such  a  contrast  does  not  include 


*  In  a  discourse  in  which  much  of  the  "Mormon"  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  Deity  is  unfolded  by  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith — the  King 
Follett  discourse  (see  chapter  5) — in  a  passage  dealing  with  the  time 
in  which  man  may  attain  to  some  of  the  contemplated  exaltations  in 
the  future,  he  remarks:  "When  you  climb  up  a  ladder,  you  must  begin 
at  the  bottom  and  ascend  step  by  step,  until  you  arrive  at  the  top; 
and  so  it  is  with  the  principles  of  the  Gospel — you  must  begin  with 
the  first,  and  go  on  until  you  learn  all  the  principles  of  exaltation. 
But  it  will  he  a  great  while  after  you  have  passed  through  the  vail  [of 
death]  before  you  will  have  learned  them.  It  is  not  all  to  be  comprehended 
in  this  world :  it  will  be  a  great  work  to  learn  our  salvation  and  exalta- 
tion, even  beyond  the  grave." 


94  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

the  idea  that  the  child  may  not  change  his  status,  and  finally 
become  all  that  the  great  man  is  with  whom  he  is  now  con- 
trasted. Clearly,  the  contrast  is  one  of  conditions,  more  than 
of  natures,  and  at  its  very  highest  value  is  the  contrast  between 
a  perfected  nature  and  one  not  yet  perfected. 

The  same  answer  applies  to  the  Reverend  gentleman's  con- 
tention based  on  the  passages,  "Thou  art  always  the  selfsame;" 
"I  am  the  Lord  and  change  not;''  "The  Father  of  lights,  with 
whom  there  is  no  change  nor  shadow  of  alteration."  These 
passages  teach  what  the  Reverend  gentleman  calls  the  '"immut- 
ability of  God,"  which  he  holds  to  preclude  the  idea  that  God 
rose  from  a  state  of  imperfection  to  that  of  perfection— 
since  he  is  always  the  "selfsame."  Before  answering  at  length, 
I  couple  with  this  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  final  argument  on  this 
division  of  the  subject — the  scriptural  evidences  and  argu- 
ments on  the  form  and  nature  of  God — namely,  "The  Latter- 
day  Saints'  theory  of  the  Man-God  supposes  a  past  and  present 
with  God.  The  Bible  excludes  that  succession  of  time,'  says 
the  Reverend  gentleman,  "and  speaks  of  God  as  the  everlasting 
present;  'I  Am  Who  am,'  'From  eternity  to  eternity  thou  art 
God.'  "  Against  this  argument,  based  upon  God's  reputed 
unchangeableness,  and  being  always  as  he  now  is,  from  all  eter- 
nity to  eternity,  I  wish  to  say,  first,  that  the  God-nature  is 
doubtless  always  the  same,  without  reference  to  those  who  may 
attain  unto  it;  and  speaking  of  the  God-nature,  it  is  always  the 
*'Selfsame,"  from  eternity  to  eternity;  but  after  that  statement, 
against  the  Reverend  gentleman's  argument  bottomed  on  God's 
immutability  and  eternity — and,  in  fact,  against  all  his  argu- 
ments, from  first  to  last,  respecting  the  form  and  nature  of 
God,  I  place  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Messiah,  the  revelation  of 
God  to  man.  I  place  him  as  my  premises,  and  my  argument 
against  all  the  reverend  gentleman  has  said,  or  can  eay,  on 
this  division  of  the  subject.     I  call   attention  to  the  fact  that 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  95 

neither  in  my  discourse  which  brought  forth  Mr.  Van  Der 
Donck'ts  Reply  nor  in  this  Rejoinder,  have  I  turned  to  those 
numerous  passages  of  the  Bible  that  speak  of  the  face,  limbs 
or  organs  of  God.  Not  that  I  mistrust  the  force  of  those 
passages  as  evidence,  but  because  I  have  thought  it  un- 
necessary to  appeal  to  them,  so  long  as  I  had  in  Jesus,  the 
Messiah,  a  full  length  and  complete  representation  of  God,  not 
only  as  to  the  reality  of  his  being,  but  as  to  the  kind  of  being 
God  is.  And  now  I  ask,  as  I  did  in  my  discourse,  is  Jesus  God? 
Is  he  a  manifestation  of  God — a  revelation  of  him.?  If  so, 
there  must  be  in  him  an  end  of  controversy;  for  whatever 
Jesus  Christ  was  and  is  God  must  be,  or  Jesus  Christ  is  no 
manifestation,  no  revelation  of  God.  Is  Jesus  Christ  in  form 
like  man?  Is  he  possessed  of  a  body  of  flesh  and  bone  which 
is  eternally  united  to  him — and  now  an  integral  part  of  him? 
Does  he  possess  body,  parts  and  passions?  There  can  be  but 
one  answer  to  all  these  questions,  and  that  is,  "Yes;  he 
possessed  and  now  possesses  all  these  things."  Then  God 
also  possesses  them  ;  for  even  according  to  both  Catholic  and 
orthodox  Protestant  Christian  doctrine,  Jesus  Christ  was  and  is 
God,  and  the  complete  manifestation  and  revelation  o^  God  the 
Father. 

Also  the  specific  points  of  argument  based  upon  God's  un- 
changeability,  and  there  being  no  succession  of  time  with  God 
— that,  too,  is  answered  in  the  person  and  experience  of  Jesus 
Christ.  According  to  Catholic  teaching,  Jesus  was  a  spirit, 
identical  with  God  the  Father  in  substance,  before  he  became 
man;  but  at  a  certain  time  he  became  man,  was  not  that  a 
change?  By  it,  he  became  something  he  was  not  before.  His 
humanity,  according  to  their  teaching,  was  added  to  the  Son 
of  God  when  he  received  his  tabernacle  of  flesh  and  bone;  and 
he  was  certainly  changed  from  an  unembodied  state  to  an  em- 
bodied one;  and  there  was  a  "before  and  after" — in  reference 


96  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

to  this  great  event,  in  the  God  Jesus'  experience.  Is  it  think- 
able that  this  change  was  a  deterioration?  Was  the  Son  of  God's 
divinity  debased  to  the  human,  or  was  so  much  of  humanity  as 
he  took  on  raised  to  the  divine  nature,  and  henceforth  made  an 
integral  part  of  it? 

The  orthodox  doctrine  of  Christianity  is — Catholic  and  Pro- 
testant alike — that  Jesus  Christ  is  God;  that  he  always  was  and 
is  God,  according  to  both  orthodox  theology  and  Christian 
philosophy.  Yet  it  is  said  of  this  Jesus  that  he  "increased  in 
wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and  man"  (Luke 
2:  52).  Here  is  certainly  a  change  in  condition;  here  is  succes- 
sion of  time  with  God — a  before  and  after;  here  is  being  and 
becoming;  for  whereas,  he  was  a  spirit,  he  became  man;  and  in 
becoming  man,  he  passed  through  all  the  phases  in  life  from 
infancy  to  manhood.  It  is  significant  also  that  it  was  not  until 
Jesus  had  arisen  from  the  tomb  and  stood  in  the  presence  of 
his  disciples,  a  glorified  personage,  body  and  spirit  united,  that 
he  exclaimed,  "All power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth." 
If  "given,"  there  must  have  been  a  time  when  he  did  not 
possess  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth;  and  hence,  a  change 
from  possessing  some  power  to  the  condition  of  possessing 
"all  power,"  a  fullness  of  power — "for  it  pleated  the  Father 
that  in  him  should  all  fullness  dwell"  (Col.  1:  19).  But  more  of 
this  when  I  come  to  deal  with  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  philo- 
sophical proofs  on  the  subject.  I  shall  close  this  part  of  my 
rejoinder  with  the  following  summary  of  the  facts  maintained 
thus  far  in  my  argument: 

First: — While  the  scriptures  declare  that  God  is  a  spirit,  it 
does  not  follow  that  he  is  necessarily  an  unembodied  spirit;  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  clear  that  he  is  an  embodied  spirit;  for  Jesus 
Christ  is  God,  and  he,  we  know,  is  a  spirit  and  body  united;  and 
he  is  said  to  be  the  express  image  of  his  Father's  person; 
therefore,  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  God  the  Father,  must 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  97 

be  just  what  Jesus  is— a  spirit  embodied  in  a  tabernacle  of  flesh 
and  bone. 

Second: — Although  the  Bible  says  that  God  is  a  spirit,  and 
speaks  of  angels  as  spirits  also,  and  points  out  some  differences 
between  the  nature  of  men  and  spirits,  it  does  not  follow  that 
spirits  are  immaterial  beings,  and  therefore  without  form.  On 
the  contrary,  the  evidence  of  scripture  is  to  the  effect  that 
angels  are  very  substantial  personages.  One  wrestled  bodily 
with  Jacob  and  lamed  him ;  while  three  others  "did  eat" 
of  the  substantial  meal  provided  by  Abraham;  and  there  are 
many  other  proofs  of  angels  being  substantial,  material 
personages. 

Ihird: — It  is  an  assumption  absolutely  unwarranted  by 
authority  of  the  word  of  God  to  say  that  when  spirits,  or  angels, 
or  Jesus — before  his  incarnation — showed  themselves  to  men, 
they  merely  assumed  the  material  garb  for  the  occasion. 

Fourth: — Although  the  Bible  in  sundry  passages  speaks  of 
God  the  Father  as  "invisible,"  it  does  not  follow  that  he  is  abso- 
lutely so,  nor  invisible  from  the  nature  of  his  being;  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  clear  from  what  has  been  set  forth  that  under 
certain  special  conditions,  God  the  Father  as  well  as  Jesus— 
before  his  incarnation — and  certain  angels,  have  been  seen;  and 
hence,  the  invisibility  of  God  the  Father,  arises  from  his  being 
invisible  to  men  in  their  normal  condition,  unquickened  by,  and 
unclothed  with,  the  power  of  God. 

Fifth: — The  doctrine  that  all  absolutely  invisible  beings 
are  immaterial  is  simply  untrue,  being  contradicted  by  the 
fact  that  a  number  of  absolutely  invisible  things  are  known 
to  be  material,  and  yet  possess  some  of  the  properties  of 
grosser  matter;  and  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  the  same 
truth  holds  as  to  spiritual  beings. 

Sixth:— 'Y\\Q  Bible  distinctly  ascribes  to  God  and  angels  the 
form,  limbs,  organs,  feelings  and  passions  of  men;  and  the  Bible 


98  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

nowhere  leads  us  to  believe  that  this  ascription  of  bodily  form 
and  organs  and  passions  to  God  is  simply  to  "make  spiritual 
things,  or  certain  truths  more  intelligible  to  man;"  nor  does  it 
follow  because  some  passages  of  the  Bible  are  figurative,  and 
hence  not  to  be  taken  literally,  that  all  the  passages  ascribing 
human  form,  organs  and  feelings  to  God  are  figurative,  and 
hence  not  to  be  taken  literally.  It  is  only  when  anthropo- 
morphic passages  and  expressions  are  similarly  used  as  other 
clearly  figurative  passages  and  expressions  are,  that  they  are 
to  be  adjudged  as  figurative  and  not  to  be  taken  literally. 

Seventh: — And  lastly,  beside  all  premises  and  arguments 
to  the  effect  that  God  is  an  unembodied  spirit,  without  form, 
without  limbs,  organs,  features,  human  feelings,  or  passions, 
such  as  love,  compassion,  pity,  etc.,  etc  , — beside  all  this,  I  place 
the  Lord  Jesus,  the  Image  of  God  the  Father's  person,  the  full 
length  representation  and  revelation  of  God  to  men,  as  an  all 
sufficient  answer,  and  say  that  whatsoever  Jesus  Christ  was  and 
is,  so,  too,  has  been  and  is  God,  the  Father;  for  such  is  the 
teaching  of  holy  scripture. 

II. 

MR.   VAN  DER  DONCKT'S  "PHILOSOPHICAL  PROOFS"  OF  THE  FORM 
AND  NATURE  OF   GOD. 

Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt,  at  the  beginning  of  his  argument 
under  his  "philosophical  proofs  of  God's  simplicity  or  spiri- 
tuality," again  exhibits  the  fact  that  he  misapprehends  the 
doctrines  of  the  Latter-day  Saints.  He  says:  "The  Latter- 
day  Saints  believe  that  God  created  the  souls  of  men  long  before 
their  conception."  That  is  not  the  belief  of  the  Latter-day 
Saints;  and  his  misapprehension  of  what  their  doctrine  is 
relative  to  man  and  God  leads  the  gentleman  to  make  state- 
ments, and  indulge  in  lines  of    argumentation  he  would  not 


THE   "mormon"    doctrine   OP   DEITY.  99 

have  followed  had  he  apprehended  aright  the  teachings  of  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  day  Saints.  Since  his  philo- 
sophical argument  has  proceeded  from  a  wrong  basis,  it 
becomes  necessary  to  state  what  the  "Mormon"  doctrine  is 
relative  to  the  subject  in  hand,  and  then  consider  so  much  of 
his  argument  as  may  apply  to  the  facts. 

Latter-day  Saints  believe  that  the  "soul  of  man"  consists  of 
both  his  spirit  and  his  body  united.  "The  spirit  and  the  body 
is  the  soul  of  man;  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead  is  the 
redemption  of  the  soul"  (Doc.  and  Cov.  sec.  88:  15,  16). 
This,  I  am  aware,  is  not  the  usually  accepted  sense  of  the  word 
"soul;"  for  it  generally  stands  for  what  is  regarded  as  the 
incorporeal  nature  of  man,  or  the  principle  of  mental  and 
spiritual  life  of  him.  It'  is  used  variously  in  the  scriptures. 
In  one  place,  the  Savior  uses  it  in  contrast  with  the  body: 
"Fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill 
the  soul:  but  rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to  destroy  both 
soul  and  body  in  hell"  (Matt.  10:  28).  But  the  word  as  used 
in  the  passage  above  quoted  from  the  Doctrine  and  Covenants 
also  has  warrant  of  scriptural  authority:  "And  the  Lord 
God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into 
his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life;  and  man  became  a  living  soul" 
(Gen.  2:  7).  Here  body  and  "breath  of  life,"  the  spirit,  con- 
stitute the  soul  of  man. 

Of  course,  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  uses  the  phrase  "souls  of 
men"  as  we  perhaps  would  use  the  phrase  "spirits  of  men,"  and 
evidently  makes  reference  to  our  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence 
of  spirits,  that  is,  the  doctrine  of  the  actual  existence  of  the 
spirits  of  men  long  ages  before  they  tabernacled  in  the  flesh, 
when  he  says:  "The  Latter-day  Saints  believe  that  God  creates 
the  souls  of  men  long  before  their  conception."  But  again  ex- 
planation is  necessary,  as  that  statement  does  not  quite  meet 
our  belief.     Our  doctrine  is  that  "Intelli;Tences  are  begotten 


100  THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY. 

spirits;"  which  spirits  are  in  form  like  raen,  and  are  realb 
substance,  that  is,  matter,  but  of  a  more  subtle  and  finer  natun 
than  the  matter  composing  man's  tabernacle  of  flesh  and  bone." 
Christians  believe  that  "the  Word,"  that  is,  Jesus  Christ,  was  in 
the  beginning  with  God;  and  not  only  that  "the  Word"  was 
with  God,  but  also  that  "the  Word  was  God"  (John  1:  1,  2). 
Latter-day  Saints  not  only  believe  Jesus  was  in  the  beginning 
with  God,  but  it  is  their  doctrine  that  man  was  "also  in  the 
beginning  with  the  Father,  that  which  is  spirit"  (Doc.  and  Cov. 
sec.  93:  23).  And  again:  "Man  was  also  in  the  beginning 
with  God.  Intelligence,  or  the  light  of  truth  was  not  created  or 
made,  neither  indeed  can  be.  *  *  *  *  Every  man  whose 
spirit  receiveth  not  the  light  is  under  condemnation  for  man  is 
spirit.  The  elements  are  eternal,  and  spirit  and  element,  in- 
separably connected,  receive  a  fullness  of  joy;  and  when  separ- 
ated, man  cannot  receive  a  fullness  of  joy.  The  elements  are 
the  tabernacle  of  God;  yea  man  is  the  tabernacle  of  God,  even 
temples"  (Doc  and  Cov.  sec.  93:  29,  32-35).  The  point  to 
be  observed  is  that  intelligences — whence  the  spirits  of  men — 
are  not  created  or  made,  nor  indeed  can  they  be,  for  they  are 
eternal — eternal  as  God  the  Father,  and  God  the  Son  are.  "The 
mind  of  man — the  immortal  spirit — where  did  it  come  from  ?" 
asks  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  in  a  discourse  delivered  at 
Nauvoo;t  and  then  answers: 

All  learned  men,  and  doctors  of  divinity,  say  that  God  created  it 
in  the  b?ginning;  but  it  is  not  so;  the  very  idea  lessens  man  in  my 


*  The  Prophet  Joseph  teaches  that  "all  spirit  is  matter,  but  it  is 
more  fine  or  pure  [than  the  gross  matter  tangible  to  our  senses]  and 
can  only  be  discerned  by  purer  eyes.  We  cannot  see  it,  but  when 
our  bodies  are  purified,  we  shall  see  that  it  is  all  matter.''  (Doc.  and 
Cov.  sec  137.) 

t  April  7th,  1844,  Mill.  Star,  vol.  xxiii  p.  245,  et  seq. 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY,  101 

estimation.  I  do  not  believe  the  doctrine.  I  know  better.  Hear  it, 
all  ye  ends  of  the  world,  for  God  has  told  me  so.  If  you  don't  believe 
me  it  will  not  make  the  truth  without  effect.  *  *  *  *  -^g  gg^y 
that  God  himself  is  a  self-existent  being.  Who  told  you  so  ?  It  is 
correct  enough,  but  who  told  you  that  man  did  not  exist  in  like  man- 
ner upon  the  same  principle  ?  God  made  a  tabernacle  and  put  his 
[man's]  spirit  into  it,  and  it  became  a  living  soul.  How  does  it  read 
in  Hebrew  ?  It  does  not  say  in  Hebrew  that  God  created  the  spirit 
of  man.  It  says,  "God  made  man  out  of  earth  and  put  in  him  Adam's 
spirit,  and  so  became  a  living  body.  The  mind,  or  the  intelligence 
which  man  possesses  is  co-eternal  with  God  himself.  *  *  *  *  *  i 
am  dwelling  on  the  immortality  of  the  spirit  of  man.  Is  it  logical  to  say 
that  the  intelligence  of  spirits  is  immortal,  and  yet  that  it  had  a  be- 
ginning ?  The  intelligence  of  spirits  had  no  beginning,  neither  will 
it  have  an  end.  That  is  good  logic.  That  which  has  a  beginning  may 
have  an  end.  There  never  was  a  time  when  there  were  not  spirits, 
for  they  are  co- eternal  with  our  Father  in  heaven.  I  want  to  reason 
more  on  the  spirit  of  man;  for  I  am  dwelling  on  the  body  and  spirit 
of  man^on  the  subject  of  the  dead.  I  take  my  ring  from  my  finger 
and  liken  it  unto  the  mind  of  man — the  immortal  part,  because  it  has 
no  beginning.  Suppose  you  cut  it  in  two;  then  it  has  a  beginning 
and  an  end;  but  join  it  again,  and  it  continues  one  eternal  round.  So 
with  the  spirit  of  man.  As  the  Lord  liveth,  if  it  has  a  beginning  it 
will  have  an  end.  All  the  fools  and  learned  and  wise  men  from  the 
beginning  of  creation,  who  say  that  the  spirit  of  man  had  a  begin- 
ning, prove  that  it  must  have  an  end:  and  if  that  doctrine  is  true, 
then  the  doctrine  of  annihilation  would  be  true  But  if  I  am  right,  I 
might  with  boldness  proclaim  from  the  house  tops  that  God  never  had 
the  power  to  create  the  spirit  of  man  at  all.  God  himself  could  not 
create  himself.  Intelligence  is  eternal,  and  exists  upon  a  self-existent 
principle.  It  is  a  spirit  from  age  to  age,  and  there  is  no  creation 
about  it.  *  *  *  *  The  spirit  of  man  is  not  a  created  being;  it 
existed  from  eternity,  and  will  exist  to  eternity.  Anything  created 
cannot  be  eternal:  and  earth,  water,  etc.,  had  their  existence  in  an 
elementary  state,  from  eternity. 

Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  will  recognize  quite  a  difference  be- 


102  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

tween  the  doctrine  here  stated  as  to  the  spirits  of  men,  and  the 
one  he  states  for  us  when  he  says,  "Latter-day  Saints  believe 
that  God  creates  the  souls  of  men  long  before  their  concep- 
tion." There  is  that  in  man,  according  to  our  doctrine,  which 
is  not  created  at  all;  there  is  in  him  an  "ego" —  a  "spirit"  un- 
created, never  made,  a  self-existent  entity,  eternal  as  God  him- 
self; and  of  the  same  kind  of  substance  or  essence  with  him,  and, 
indeed,  part  of  him, when  God  is  conceived  of  in  the  generic 
sense. 

With  the  doctrine  of  "Mormonism"  relative  to  man  and 
God  thus  stated,  the  question  is,  what  part  of  Mr.  Van  Der 
Donckt'n  philosophical  argument  touches  it  ? 

Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt,  it  must  be  remembered,  bases  his 
philosophical  argument  upon  the  absolute  "simplicity  or  spirit- 
uality" of  God.  "I  Am  Who  Am,"  is  the  definition  of  God  about 
which  circle  all  his  arguments.  God  is  "the  Necessary 
Being,"  is  his  contention;  infinite,  illimitable;  not  limited  by  his 
own  essence,  by  another,  or  by  himself.  From  which  I  under- 
stand him  to  mean,  after  the  philosophers  of  his  school,  that 
God,  the  very  essence  of  him,  is  pure  being — "Actual  being  or 
existence"  are  his  own  words.     (Page  53). 

This  his  premise;  and  the  part  uf  his  argument  which 
affects  our  doctrine  is  the  following: 

If  God  were  an  aggregation  of  parts,  these  parts  would  be 
either  necessary  beings  or  contingent  (that  do  not  necessarily  exist), 
or  some  would  be  nececessary  and  some  contingent.  None  of  these 
suppositions  are  tenable,  therefore  God  is  not  an  aggregate  of  parts. 
*  *  *  *  If  the  parts  of  God  were  necessary  beings,  there  would 
be  several  independent  beings,  which  the  infinity  of  God  precludes. 
God  would  not  be  infinite,  if  there  were  even  one  other  being  inde- 
pendent of  him,  as  his  power,  etc.,  would  not  reach  that  being. 

The  infinite  being  is  most  simple,  or  not  compound.  Were  he 
compound,  his  parts  would  be  either  all  finite,  or  all  infinite,  or  one 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  103 

infinite  and  the  others  finite.  None  of  these  suppositions  are  possible, 
therefore  he  is  not  compound. 

Several  finite  things  cannot  produce  an  infinite  or  an  illimitable, 
as  there  would  always  be  a  first  and  last. 

Many  infinite  beings  are  inconceivable,  for,  if  there  were  several 
they  would  have  to  differ  from  each  other  by  some  perfection.  Now, 
from  the  moment  one  would  have  a  perfection  the  other  one  lacks, 
the  latter  would  not  be  infinite.  Therefore,  God  cannot  be  a  com- 
pound of  infinite  parts. 

If  one  is  infinite,  nothing  can  be  added  to  it.  Finite  parts  could 
not  belong  to  the  infinite  essence,  else  they  would  communicate  their 
limitations  to  God. 

Therefore,  the  infinite  Being  is  not  composite,  but  simple  or 
spiritual.  Therefore  he  is  not,  nor  ever  was,  a  man,  who  is  a  com- 
posite being. 

6/  Mr.  Van  Der  DonckVs  Premise. 

I  have  to  do  first  of  all  with  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  premise 
— "the  simplicity  or  spirituality"  of  God. 

So  far  as  it  is  possible  to  make  language  do  it,  the 
gentleman  teaches  that  God  is  "pure  being,"  "most  [there- 
fore absolutely]  simple — not  compound."  He  is  not  only 
infinite,  then,  but  infinity.  It  follows  that  he  is  without  quality, 
other  than  being — mere  existence — "I  Am  Who  Am;"  without 
attributes;  not  susceptible  of  division,  or  of  relation;  for  if  he 
possessed  quality  or  attiibute  or  was  susceptible  of  divi- 
sion or  of  relation,  his  absolute  simplicity — that  tremulously 
precarious  thing  on  which,  according  to  Mr.  V's  philos- 
ophy, his  very  existence  and  all  his  excellence  depends — 
would  be  destroyed.  It  was  doubtless  these  considerations 
that  led  the  Church  of  England — which,  by  the  way,  is  at  one 
with  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the  doctrine  of  God — 
to  say  of  the   "one   true   and  living   God,"  that   he   is  with- 


104  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity, 

out  body,  parts  or  passions*  With  which  also  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith  agrees,  by  saying:  "There  is 
but  one  only  living  and  true  God,  who  is  infinite  in  being  and 
perfection,  a  most  pure  spirit,  invisible,  without  body,  parts  or 
passions,  immutable,  immense,  eternal,  incomprehensible,"  etc.f 
The  German  school  of  philosophy  of  the  eighteenth  and 
nineteenth  centuries,  which  ends  in  inevitable  agnosticism,  went 
but  one  step  further  than  these  creeds;  a  step  made  inevitable 
by  the  creeds  themselves.  The  creeds  postulate  God  as  "pure 
being"  —"existence"  "  the  one  who  could  not  not  exist,"  Mr.V's  in- 
terpretation of  "1  Am  Who  Am."  But  "existence,"  says  Fichte, 
"implies  origin,"  and  "God  is  beyond  origin" — i.  e.  beyond 
"being,"  "existence."  Schelling  reached  substantially  the  same 
conclusion  when,  by  a  pathway  but  little  divergent  from  that 
followed  by  Fichte,  he  was  led  to  regard  God  as  neither  "real  or 
■ideal;"  "neither  thought  nor  being."  While  Hegel,  by  similar 
subtleties,  established  the  identity  of  "Being  and  Non-Being." 
This  German  philosophy,which  but  extends  the  philosophy  of  the 
orthodox  creeds  t>i  its  legitimate  conclusion,  leaves  us  with  the 
paradox  on  our  hands  of  regarding  God  at  once  as  the  most  real 
existence,  and  as  the  most  absolute  non-existence.  The  conclu- 
sions from  the  premise  are  just;  and  Mr.  V's  most  simple,"  "in- 
finite being,"  he  who  is  "pure  existence  itself,"  evanishes  amid 
the  metaphysical  subtleties  of  the  learned  Germans  $ 

*  Bk.  Com.  Prayer,  Articles  of  Religion,  Art.  1 . 

t  Westmnister  Confession,  Art.  2,  Sec.  1. 

J  "Existence  itself,  that  so-called  highest  category  of  thought,, 
is  only  conceivable  in  the  form  of  existence  modified  in  some  partic- 
ular manner.  Strip  off  its  modification,  and  the  apparent  paradox  of 
the  German  philosopher  becomes  literally  true; — pure  being  is  pure 
nothing.  We  have  no  conception  of  existence  which  is  not  existence 
in  some  particular  manner;  and  if  we  abstract  from  the  manner,  we 
have  nothing  left  to  constitute  the  existence.     Those  who,  in  their 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  105 

Let  us  examine  the  effect  of  this  Deity-destroying  postu- 
late in  England.  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  "Infinite  being,"  "most 
simple  or  not  compound,"  is  identical  with  the  "absolute,"  the 
'"unconditioned;"  the  "first  cause,"  hence  the  "uncaused."  These 
terms,  it  is  well  known,  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  seized  upon,  in  his 
volume  on  "First  Principles,"  and  ran  them  down  to  logical  ab- 
surdity, showing  them  to  be  "unthinkable,"  and  that  ultimate  re- 
ligious ideas  (arising  from  the  postulates  of  orthodox  creeds) 
lead  to  the  "Unknown  !"  In  reaching  this  conclusion  he  was 
wonderfully  helped  by  Henry  L.  Mansel,  some  time  Dean  of  St. 
Paul's,  who  in  his  celebrated  Bampton  Lecture  arrives  at  sub- 
stantially the  same  conclusion — with  an  exception  to  be  noted 
later.*  Indeed,  so  nearly  at  one  are  the  churchman  and  the 
philosopher,  in  their  methods  of  thought,  in  their  deductions, 
that  the  latter  reaches  his  conclusions  from  the  data  and  rea- 
soning of  the  former,  whom  he  quotes  with  approval  and  at 
great  length.  I  select  from  these  writer  a  few  typical  passages 
tending  to  show  the  absurdity  of  God's  "simplicity,"  or  "spirit- 
uality," as  held  by  Mr,  Van  Der  Donckt,  reminding  the  reader 
that  Mr.  V's  "Infinite  Being,"  "most  simple  or  not  compound," 
is  identical  with  the  "absolute,"  "unconditioned,"  the  "first 
cause,"  the  "uncaused"  of  both  Mr.  Mansel  and  Mr.  Spencer. 

Mr.  Spencer,  after  showing  that  the  First  Cause  cannot  be 
finite,  nor  dependent,  reaches  the  conclusion  that  it  must  be  in- 
finite and  independent;  and  then  proceeds: 

But  to  think  of  the  First  Cause  as  totally  independent  is  to  think 
of  it  as  that  which  existed  in  the  absence  of  all  other  existence;  see- 


horror  of  what  they  call  anthropomorphism,  or  anthropopathy,  refuse 
to  represent  the  Deity  under  symbols  borrowed  from  the  limitations 
of  human  consciouscess,  are  bound  in  consistency,  to  deny  that  God 
exists;  for  the  conception  of  existence  is  as  human  and  as  limited  as 
any  other  (Limits  of  Religious  Thought,  Mansel,  pp.  95,  96). 
*  Page  109. 


106  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  op  deity. 

ing  that  if  the  presence  of  any  other  existence  is  necessary,  it  must 
be  partially  dependent  on  that  other  existence,  and  so  cannot  be 
the  First  Cause.  Not  only,  however,  must  the  First  Cause  be  a  form 
of  being  which  has  no  necessary  relation  to  any  other  form  of  being, 
but  it  can  have  no  necessary  relation  within  itself.  There  can  be 
nothing  in  it  which  determines  change,  and  yet  nothing  which  pre- 
vents change.  For  if  it  contains  something  which  imposes  such  ne- 
cessities or  restraints,  this  something  must  be  a  cause  higher  than  the 
First  Cause,  which  is  absurd.  Thus  the  First  Cause  must  be  in  every 
sense  perfect,  complete,  total;  including  within  itself  all  power,  and 
transcending  all  law.  Or  to  use  the  established  word,  it  must  be 
absolute.* 

Thus  far  the  philosopher;  and  even  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt,  I 
think,  could  not  complain  that  he  has  not  stated  the  "simplic- 
ity" of  the  First  Cause  most  clearly.  But  at  this  point  the  phil- 
osopher, Mr.  Spencer,  introduces  the  churchman,  Dean  Mansel, 
to  abolish  the  structure  of  the  "First  Cause,"  the  "simple"  or 
"spiritual  beinpr,"  or  "God,"  as  held  by  Mr.  V.  and  all  orthodox 
Christians.     I  quote  Mr.  Mansel: 

But  these  three  conceptions — the  Cause,  the  Absolute,  the  Infin- 
ite— all  equally  indispensable,  do  they  not  imply  contradiction  to 
each  other,  when  viewed  in  conjunction,  as  attributes  of  one  and  the 
same  Being  ?  A  Cause  cannot,  as  such,  be  absolute:  the  Absolute  can- 
not as  such  be  a  cause.  The  cause,  as  such,  exists  only  in  relation  to 
its  effect;  the  effect  is  an  effect  of  the  cause.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  conception  of  the  Absolute  implies  a  possible  existence  out  of  all 
relation.  We  attempt  to  escape  from  this  apparent  contradiction  by 
introducing  the  idea  of  succession  in  time.  The  Absolute  exists  first 
by  itself,  and  afterwards  becomes  a  cause.  But  here  we  are  checked  by 
the  third  conception,  that  of  the  infinite.  How  can  the  infinite  be- 
come that  which  it  was  not  from  the  first  ?  If  Causation  is  a  possible 
mode  of  existence,  that  which  exists  without  causing  is  not  infinite; 
that  which  becomes  a  cause  has  passed  beyond  its  former  limits.  *  * 


*  First  Principles  (Spencer)  pp.  29,  30;  1896  edition,  D.  Apple- 
ton  &  Co.,  N.  Y. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  107 

Supposing  the  Absolute  to  be  a  cause,  it  will  follow  that  it  oper- 
ates by  means  of  free  will  and  consciousness.  For  a  necessary 
cause  cannot  be  conceived  as  absolute  and  infinite.  If  necessitated 
by  something  beyond  itself,  it  is  thereby  limited  by  a  superior  power: 
and  if  necessitated  by  itself,  it  has  in  its  own  nature  a  necessary  rela- 
tion to  its  effect.  The  act  of  causation  must  therefore  be  vol- 
untary, and  volition  is  only  possible  in  a  conscious  being.  But  con- 
sciousness again  is  only  conceivable  as  a  relation.  There  must  be  a 
conscious  subject  and  an  object  of  which  he  is  conscious.  The  sub- 
ject is  a  subject  to  the  object;  the  object  is  an  object  to  the  subject; 
and  neither  can  exist  by  itself  as  the  absolute.  This  difficulty, 
again,  may  be  for  the  moment  evaded,  by  distinguishing  between  the  ab- 
solute as  related  to  another  and  the  absolute  as  related  to  itself.  The 
absolute,  it  may  be  said,  may  possibly  be  concious  provided  it  is  only 
conscious  of  itself.  But  this  alternative  is,  in  ultimate  analysis,  no  less 
self-destructive  than  the  other.  For  the  object  of  consciousness, 
whether  a  mode  of  the  subject's  existence  or  not.  is  either  created  in 
and  by  the  act  of  consciousness,  or  has  an  existence  independent  of  it. 
In  the  former  case  the  object  depends  upon  the  subject,  and  the  subject 
alone  is  the  true  absolute.  In  the  latter  case,  the  subject  depends 
upon  the  object,  and  the  object  alone  is  the  true  absolute.  Or,  if  we 
attempt  a  third  hypothesis,  and  maintain  that  each  exists  independently 
of  the  other,  we  have  no  absolute  at  all,  but  only  a  pair  of  relatives; 
for  co-existen.e,  whether  in  coisciousness  or  not,  is  itself  a  relation. 
The  corollary  from  this  reasoning  is  obvious.  Not  only  is  the 
absolute,  as  conceived,  incapable  of  a  necessai-y  relation  to  anything 
else,  but  it  is  also  incapable  of  containing,  by  the  constitution  of  its 
own  nature,  an  essential  relation  within  itself;  as  a  whole,  for  in- 
stance composed  of  parts,  or  as  a  substance  consisting  of  attributes, 
or  as  a  conscious  subject  in  antithesis  to  an  object.  For,  if  there  is 
in  the  absolute  any  principle  of  unity,  distinct  from  the  mere  accu- 
mulation of  parts  or  attributes,  this  principle  alone  is  the  true  abso- 
lute. If,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  such  principle,  then  there  is 
no  absolute  at  all,  but  only  a  plurality  of  relatives.  The  almost 
unanimous  voice  of  philosophy,  in  pronouncing  that  the  absolute  is 
both  one  and  simple,  must  be  accepted  as  the  voice  of  reason  also,  as 


108  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

far  as  reason  has  any  voice  in  the  matter.  But  this  absolute  unity, 
as  indifferent  and  containing  no  attributes,  can  neither  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  multiplicity  of  finite  beings  by  any  character- 
istic feature,  nor  be  identified  with  them  in  their  multiplicity.  Thus 
we  are  landed  in  an  inextricable  dilemma.  The  absolute  cannot  be 
conceived  as  conscious,  neither  can  it  be  conceived  as  unconscious:  it 
cannot  be  conceived  as  complex,  neither  can  it  be  conceived  as  sim- 
ple; it  cannot  be  conceived  by  difference,  neither  can  it  be  conceived 
by  the  absence  of  difference:  it  cannot  be  identified  with  the  uni- 
verse, neither  can  it  be  distinguished  from  it.  The  One  and  the 
Many,  regarded  as  the  beginning  of  existence,  are  thus  alike  incom- 
prehensible. 

Let  us,  however,  suppose,  for  an  instance,  that  these  diflSculties 
are  surmounted,  and  the  existence  of  the  Absolute  securely  estab- 
lished on  the  testimony  of  reason.  Still  we  have  not  succeeded  in 
reconciling  this  idea  with  that  of  a  Cause:  we  have  done  nothing 
towards  explaining  hov/  the  absolute  can  give  rise  to  the  relative — 
the  infinite  to  the  finite.  If  the  condition  of  causal  activity  is  a 
higher  state  than  that  of  quiescence,  the  Absolute,  whether  acting 
voluntarily  or  involuntarily,  has  passed  from  a  condition  of  com- 
parative imperfection  to  one  of  comparative  perfection;  and,  there- 
fore, was  not  originally  perfect.  If  the  state  of  activity  is  an 
inferior  state  to  that  of  quiescence,  the  Atisolute,  in  becoming  a 
cause,  has  lost  its  original  perfection.  There  remains  only  the 
supposition  that  the  two  states  are  equal,  and  the  act  of  creation 
one  of  complete  indifference.  But  this  supposition  annihilates  the 
unity  of  the  absolute,  or  it  annihilates  itself.  If  the  act  of  crea- 
tion is  real,  and  yet  indifferent,  we  must  admit  the  possibility  of 
two  conceptions  of  the  absolute — the  one  as  productive,  the  other 
as  non-productive.  If  the  act  is  not  real,  the  supposition  itself  van- 
ishes.    *     *     * 

Again,  how  can  the  relative  be  conceived  as  coming  into  being? 
If  it  is  a  distinct  reality  from  the  absolute,  it  must  be  conceived  as 
passing  from  non-existence  into  existence.  But  to  conceive  an  object 
as  non-existent  is  again  a  self-contradiction;  for  that  which  is  con- 
ceived exists,  as  an  object  of  thought,  in  and  by  that  conception.  We 


THE  "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  109 

may  abstain  from  thinking  of  an  object  at  all;  but,  if  we  think  of  it, 
we  cannot  but  think  of  it  as  existing.  It  is  possible  at  one  time  not 
to  think  of  an  object  at  all,  and  at  another  to  think  of  it  as  already  in 
being;  but  to  think  of  it  in  the  act  of  becoming,  in  the  progress  from 
not  being  into  being,  is  to  think  that  which,  in  the  very  thought,  an- 
nihilates itself.     *     *     * 

To  sum  up  briefly  this  portion  of  my  argument: 

The  conception  of  the  absolute  and  the  infinite,  from  whatever 
side  we  view  it,  appears  encompassed  with  contradictions 

There  is  a  contradiction  in  supposing  such  an  object  to  exist, 
whether  alone  or  in  conjunction  with  others;  and  there  is  a  contra- 
diction in  supposing  it  not  to  exist. 

There  is  a  contradiction  in  conceiving  it  as  one;  and  there  is  a 
contradiction  in  conceiving  it  as  many. 

There  is  a  contradiction  in  conceiving  it  as  personal;  and  there 
is  a  contradiction  in  conceiving  it  as  impersonal. 

It  cannot,  without  contradiction,  he  represented  as  active,  nor, 
without  equal  contradiction,  be  represented  as  inactive. 

It  cannot  be  conceived  as  the  sum  of  all  existence;  nor  yet  can 
it  be  conceived  as  a  part  only  of  that  sum.  * 

After  thus  running  to  absurdity  the  prevalent  conceptions 
of  the  "Infinite,"  the  "Absolute,  the  "Uncaused,  Mr.  V's  "Most 
simple  or  not  compound"  "Being,"  the  churchman  does  what  all 
orthodox  Christians  do,  he  commits  a  violence  against  all  hu- 
man understanding  and  good  sense — he  arbitrarily  declares,  in 
the  face  of  his  own  inexorable  logic  and  its  inevitable  deduc- 
tions, that,  "  t  is  our  duty  to  think  of  God  as  personal;  and  it  is 
our  duty  to  believe  that  he  is  infinite;"  that  is,  it  is  our  duty 
to  think  of  the  infinite  as  at  once  limited  and  unlimited;  as 
finite  and  infinite — "which,"  to  use  a  phrase  dear  to  Mr,  Van 
Der  Donckt.  "is  absurd,"  and  therefore  not  to  be  entertained. 
A.t  this  point,  the  philosepher   and    the  churchman   reach  the 


*  First  Principles   (Spencer)   pp.   40-44.     Limits   of    Religious 
Thoughts,  lecture  II,  first  American  edition,  1875. 


110  THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OP   DEITY. 

parting  of  the  ways,  and  this  is  the  exception,  in  the  conclusion 
of  the  two,  noted  a  few  pages  back.* 

Some  do  indeed  allege  [says  Mr.  Spencer]  that  though  the 
Ultimate  Cause  of  things  cannot  really  be  thought  of  by  us  as 
having  specified  attributes,  it  is  yet  incumbent  upon  us  to  assert 
these  attributes.  Though  the  forms  of  our  consciousness  are  such 
that  the  Absolute  cannot,  in  any  manner  or  degree,  be  brought  with- 
in them,  we  are  nevertheless  told  that  we  must  represent  the  Abso- 
lute to  ourselves  under  these  forms!  *  *  *  'pjjat  this  is  not  the 
conclusion  here  adopted,  needs  hardly  be  said.  If  there  be  any 
meaning  in  the  foregoing  arguments,  duty  requires  us  neither  to 
affirm  nor  deny  personality.  Our  duty  is  to  submit  ourselves  with 
all  humility  to  the  established  limits  of  our  intelligence,  and  not  per- 
versely to  rebel  against  them.  Let  those  who  can,  believe  there  is 
eternal  war  between  our  intellectual  faculties  and  our  moral  obli- 
gations. I,  for  one,  admit  no  such  radical  vice  in  the  constitution  of 
things.f 

Yet  Mr.  Mansel,  in  the  inconsistent  and  illogical  course  he 
pursues,  is  not  more  inconsistent,  illogical,  and  unphilosophical 
than  all  orthodox  Christians,  The  postulates  of  their  creeds 
concerning  the  nature  of  God  leads  them  to  affirm  what  they 
call  his  "Spirituality,"  "Infinite  Being,"  "Simplicity,"  etc.  (which 
are  but  the  equivalents  of  the  philosopher's  "absolute,"  "in- 
finite," and  the  "uncaused");  and  yet  the  necessities  of  their 
faith  in  revelation  make  it  imperative  that  they  regard  him  as 
existing  in  some  relation  to  the  universe  and  to  man,  which 
destroys  his  alleged  "simplicity."  To  ascribe  to  him  attributes 
is  to  destroy  that  simplicity^  which  orthodox  creeds  affirm,  and 


*  Page  105. 

t  First  Principles,  p.  110. 

$  "The  rational  conception  of  God  is  that  he  is,  nothing  more. 
To  give  him  an  attribute  is  to  make  him  a  relative  God.  *  *  * 
We  cannot  attribute   to  him  any  quality,  for  qualities  are  inconceiv- 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  Ill 

for  which  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  so  stoutly  argues  Nor  does  it  help 
matters  when  it  is  said  that  these  attributes  are  existences — 
the  attitude  of  Mr.  V.,  for  he  says:  "Every  perfection  [goodness, 
mercy,  justice,  etc. — attributes  of  God]  is  some  existence, 
something  that  is."  If  this  be  granted,  then  it  follows  that 
God  must  be  the  sum  of  all  these  existences,  therefore  a  com- 
pound, not  "simple."  And  not  only  does  orthodox  belief  in 
revelation  compel  those  who  follow  it  to  concede  the  existence 
of  attributes  in  God,  but  personality  also.  But  if  God  be  con- 
ceived as  a  personality,  his  "simplicity"  or  "spirituality,"  as  held 
by  Mr.  V.,  vanishes,  because,  when  recognized  as  personality, 
God  is  no  longer  "being" — but  a  being. 

Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  himself  says:  "Something  is  limited, 
not  because  it  is  [i.e.  exists]:  but  because  it  is  this  or  that;  for 
instance,  a  stone,  a  plant,  a  man" — or  a  person,  I  suggest.  For 
if  God  has  personality,  he  U  a  person,  a  some-thing,  and  hence 
limited,  according  to  Mr.  V's  philosophy;  if  limited,  as  he  must 
be  when  conceived  of  as  this  or  that,  as  a  person,  for  in- 
stance, then  of  course  not  infinite  being;  and  thus  my  friend's 
doctrine  of  God's  "simplicity"  is  destroyed  the  moment  he 
ascribes  personality  to  Deity.  Nor  does  the  difficulties  of  Mr. 
Van  Der  Donckt  and  all  orthodox  Christians  end  here.  Not 
only  does  revelation  as  they  view  it  demand  belief  in  the  person- 
ality of  God,but  it  demands  the  belief  that  in  God  are  three  persons 
— the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  further  compli- 
cates the  matter,  and  removes  orthodox  Christians  still  further 
from  the  postulate  of  "simplicity"they  affirm  of  God;  for  if  there 


able  apart  from  matter."  "Origin  and  Development  of  Religious  Be- 
liefs— Christianity." — (S.  Baring-Gould,  p.  112.)  It  was  held  by  well- 
nigh  the  whole  mediaeval  school  of  theologians  that  God  was  un- 
knowable because  "the  absolute  simplicity  of  the  divine  essence  was 
incompatible  with  the  existence  of  distinctions  therein.''  (See  art. 
"Theism,"  Eney.  Brit.,  and  the  references  there  given.) 


112  THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY. 

are  three  persons  in  God,  by  no  intellectual  contortions  what- 
soever can  this  conception  of  "three"  be  harmonized  with  the 
orthodox  Christian  postulate  of  God's  "simplicity."  For  the 
Son,  if  he  exists  at  all,  must  exist  in  virtue  of  some  distinction 
from  the  Father;  so  also  the  Holy  Ghost  must  exist  in  virtue 
of  some  distinction  from  both  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Each 
must  have  something  distinct  from  the  other;  must  be  what  the 
other  is  not,  in  some  particular;*  and  if  each  one  has  some- 
thing the  other  has  not,  and  each  lacks  something  which  Ihe 
other  has,  how  can  it  be  Sciid  that  each  of  these  persons  is  God, 
and  each  infinite  as  he  must  be  in  order  to  be  God,  under  Mr. 
V's  doctrine? 

If  the  three  be  conceived  as  one  God — yet  each  with  that 
about  him  which  distinguishes  him  from  the  other — how  can 
God  be  regarded  as  "simple,"  "not  compound?"  The  orthodox 
creeds  of  Christendom,  moreover,  require  us  to  believe  that 
while  the  Father  is  a  person,  the  Son  a  person,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  a  person,  yet  there  are  not  three  persons,  but  one  person. 
So  with  each  being  eternal  and  almighty.  So  with  each  being 
God:  "The  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
God:  and  yet  there  are  not  three  Gods  but  one  God" f  No 
wonder  the  whole  conception  is  given  up  as  "incomprehensible." 
"Their  mode  of  subsistence  [i.  e.,  the  subsistence  of  the  three 
persons]  in  the  one  substance,"  says  the  Commentary  on  the  Con- 
cession of  Faith,  "must  ever  continue  to  us  aprofound  mystery,  as  it 
transcends  all  analogy."%  So  the  Douay  Catechism  (Catholic),  ch.  i: 


*  "Distinction  is  necessarily  limitation;  for,  if  one  object  is  to 
be  distinguished  from  another,  it  must  possess  some  form  of  exist- 
ence which  the  other  has  not,  or  it  must  not  possess  some  form  which 
the  other  has."     Dean  Mansel,  "Limits  of  Religious  Thoughts." 

t  See  the  creed  of  St.  Athanasius,  a  copy  is  published  in  the 
History  of  the  Church,  vol.  I,  Introduction,  p.  87. 

%  This  Commentary  is  by  Rev.  A.  A.  Hodges,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  p.  58. 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  113 

Q.     In  what  do  faith  and  law  of  Christ  consist? 
A.     In  two  principal  mysteries,  namely,  the  Unity  and  Trinity  of 
God,  and  the  incarnation  and  death  of  our  Savior. 

"To  think  that  God  is,  as  we  think  him  to  be,  is  blas- 
phemy," is  the  lofty  assertion  behind  which  some  of  the  ortho- 
dox hide  when  hard  pressed  with  the  inconsistency  of  their 
creed;  and  if  I  mistake  not,  "A  God  understood  is  a  God  de- 
throned," has  long  been  an  aphorism  of  the  Church  of  which  Mr. 
Van  Der  Donckt  is  a  priest. 

But  what  is  the  sum  of  my  argument  thus  far  on  Mr.  Van 
Der  Donckt's  premise  of  God's  absolute  "simplicity"  or  "spirit- 
uality?"    Only  this: 

First,  his  premise  is  proven  to  be  unphilosophical  and  un- 
tenable, when  coupled  with  his  creed,  which  ascribes  qualities, 
attributes  and  personality  to  God.  Either  the  gentleman  must 
cease  to  think  of  God  as  "infinite  being,"  "most  simple,"  "not 
compound,"  or  he  must  surrender  the  God  of  his  creed,  who  is 
represented  by  it  to  be  three  persons  in  one  substance;  and, 
moreover,  persons  possessed  of  attributes  and  qualities  which 
bring  God  into  relations  with  men  and  the  universe,  a  mode  of 
being  which  destroys  "simplicity."  Either  one  or  the  other  of 
these  beliefs  must  be  given  up;  they  cannot  consistently  be  held 
simultaneously,  as  they  destroy  each  other.  If  Mr.  V.  holds  to 
the  God  of  his  creed,  what  becomes  of  all  his  "philosophy?" 
If  he  holds  to  his  "philosophy,"  what  becomes  of  the  God  of  his 
creed. 

Second,  as  affecting  this  discussion,  the  matter  at  this 
point  stands  thus:  Since  the  gentleman's  premise  of  God's 
absolute  simplicity  is  proved  to  be  illogical  and  unphilosophical, 
it  affords  no  sound  basis  of  argument  against  the  Latter-day 
Saints'  views  of  Deity,  wherein  they  hold  him  to  be  something 
different  from  absolute  "being" — m.ore  than  a  mere,  and,  I  may 
say,    bare   and   barren  "existence,"  a  metaphysical  abstraction. 


114  THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY. 

Mr.  V's  premise  of  absolute  simplicity  affords  no  consistent 
basis  of  argument  against  our  view  that  God  is  a  person  in 
the  sense  of  being  an  individual,  in  form  like  man,  and  possessed 
of  attributes  which  bring  him  within  the  nearest  and  dearest 
relations  to  men  that  it  is  possible  to  conceive. 

Of  the  Doctrine  of  God's  "Simplicity"  Being  of  Pagan  Rather  than 
of  Christian  Origin. 

The  next  step  in  my  argument  is  to  prove  that  this  doc- 
trine of  God  being  "most  simple,"  "not  compound,"  "pure 
being" — without  body  [i.  e.,  not  material],  parts  or  passions — 
hence,  without  attributes,  is  not  a  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
scriptures,  but  comes  from  the  old  Pagan  philosophies. 

Clearly  the  data  for  this  doctrine  of  God's  absolute  "sim- 
plicity" did  not  come  from  the  Old  Testament,  for  that  teaches 
the  plainest  anthropomorphic  ideas  respecting  God.  It  ascribes 
to  him  a  human  form,  and  many  qualities  and  attributes  pos- 
sessed by  man,  which,  in  the  minds  of  philosophers  of  Mr.  Y's 
school,  limit  him  who  must  be,  to  their  thinking,  without  any 
limit  whatsoever;  and  abscribes  relativity  to  him  who  must  not 
be  relative  but  absolute. 

The  data  for  the  doctrine  of  God's  absolute  "simplicity" — 
contended  for  by  Mr.  V. — does  not  come  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, for  the  writers  of  that  volume  of  scripture  accept  the 
doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament  respecting  God,  and  even  em- 
phasize its  anthropomorphic  ideas,  by  representing  that  the  man 
Christ  JeSus  was  in  the  "express  image"  of  God,  the  Father's, 
person;  was,  in  fact,  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  (I  Tim.  3:  16); 
"the  image  of  the  invisible  God"  (Col.  1:5);  God,  the  Word, 
who  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  men,  who  beheld  his  glory" 
(St.  John  1: 1-14).  Hence  Mr. Van  Der  Donckt's  doctrine  of  God's 
"simplicity"  cannot  claim  the  warrant  of  New  Testament  au- 
thority. 

Plato,   in   his   Timaeus,  (Jowett's   translation,  page  530,) 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  115 

incidentally  referring  to  God,  in  connection  with  the  creation  of 
the  universe,  says: 

We  say  indeed  that  "he  was,"'  "he  is,"  "he  will  be;"  but  the  truth 
is  that  "he  is"  alone  truly  expresses  him,  and  that  "was"  and  "will 
be'"  are  only  to  be  spoken  of  generation  in  time. 

Here,  then,  is  Mr.  Vs  "pure  being,"  "most  simple,"  "not 
compound."     Again: 

We  must  acknowledge  that  there  is  one  kind  of  being  which  is 
always  the  same,  uncreated  and  indestructible,  never  receiving  any- 
thing into  itself  from  without,  nor  itself  giving  out  to  any  other,  but 
invisible  and  imperceptible  by  any  sense,  and  of  which  the  sight  is 
granted  to  intelligence  only  (Ibid.  p.  454). 

Here  Mr.  V.  may  find  his  God,  "who  cannot  change  with 
regard  to  his  existence,  nor  with  regard  to  his  mode  of  exist- 
ence," Also  his  God  who  can  only  be  seen  with  the  "soul's  in- 
tellectual perception,  elevated  by  a  supernatural  inflax  from 
God."  Dr.  Mosheirr,  in  his  account  of  Plato's  idea  of  God,  says: 
"He  considered  the  Deity,  to  whom  he  gave  the  supreme  gov- 
ernance of  the  universe,  as  a  being  of  the  highest  wisdom  and 
power,  and  totally  unconnected  with  any  material  substance."  * 

To  the  same  effect,  also,  Justin  Martyr  (second  Christian 
century)  generalizes  and  accepts  as  doctrine  what  may  be 
gathered  from  the  sixth  book  of  Plato's  "Republic,"  with  refer- 
ence to  God.     To  the  Jew,  Trypho,  Justin  remarks: 

The  Deity,  father,  is  not  to  be  viewed  by  the  organs  of  sight, 
like  other  creatures,  but  he  is  to  be  comprehended  by  the  mind  alone, 
as  Plato  declares,  and  I  believe  him.  *  *  *  *  Plato 
tells  us  that  the  eye  of  the  mind  is  of  such  a  nature,  and  was  given 
us  to  such  an  end,  as  to  enable  us  to  see  with  it  by  itself,  when  pure, 


*Mo3heim's  "Historcal  Commentaries  on  the  State  of  Christian- 
ity, During  the  First  Three  Hundred  Years",  vol.  1.  p.  37. 


116  THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY. 

that  Being  who  is  the  source  of  whatever  is  an  object  of  the  mind 
itself,  who  has  neither  color,  nor  shape,  nor  size,  nor  anything  which  the 
eye  can  see,  but  who  is  above  all  essence,  who  is  ineffable,  and  unde- 
finable,  who  is  alone  beautiful  and  good,  and  who  is  at  once  implanted 
into  those  souls  who  are  naturally  well  born,  through  their  relation- 
ship to  and  desire  of  seeing  him. 

Athanasius  (third  Christian  century)  quotes  the  same 
definition  (Contra  Gentes,  ch.  2),  almost  verbatim.  Turning 
again  to  the  Timaeus  of  Plato,  this  question  is  asked: 

What  is  that  which  always  is  and  has  no  becoming;  and  what  is 
that  which  is  always  becoming  and  has  never  any  being?  That  which 
is  apprehended  by  reflection  and  reason  [God]  always  is;  and  is  the 
same;  that  on  the  other  hand  which  is  conceived  by  opinion,  with  the 
help  of  sensation  without  reason  [the  material  universe],  is  in  a  pro- 
cess of  becoming  and  perishing  but  never  really  is.  •*  *  * 
Was  the  world  [universe],  always  in  existence  and  without  begin- 
ning? or  created  and  having  a  beginning?     Created,  I  reply. 

In  this,  the  orthodox  Christians  and  Mr.  V.  may  find  their 
God  of  pure  "being,"  that  never  is  "becoming,"  but  always  is; 
also  the  creation  of  the  universe  out  of  nothing.  The  fact  is 
that  orthodox  Christian  views  of  God  are  Pagan  rather  than 
Christian. 

In  his  great  work  on  the  "History  of  Christian  Doctrine," 
lilr.  William  G.  T.  Shedd  savs:*  "The  early  Fathers,  in 
their  defenses  of  Christianity  against  their  pagan  opponents, 
contend  that  the  better  pagan  writers  themselves  agree 
with  the  new  religion  in  teaching  that  their  is  one  Supreme 
Being.  Lactantius  (Institutiones,  1,  5),  after  quoting  the 
Orphic  Poets,  Hesiod,  Virgil,  and  Ovid,  in  proof  that  the 
heathen  poets  taught  the  unity  of  the  supreme  deity,  affirms 
that  the  better  pagan  philosophers  agree  with  them   in  this. 

*  Vol  1,  p  56. 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OP   DEITY.  U? 

'Aristotle,'  he  says,  'although  he  disagrees  with  himself,  and 
says  many  things  that  are  self-contradictory,  yet  testifies  that 
one  supreme  mind  rules  over  the  world.  Plato,  who  is  regard- 
ed as  the  wisest  philosopher  of  them  all,  plainly  and  openly 
defends  the  doctrine  of  a  divine  monarchy,  and  denominates  the 
supreme  being,  not  ether,  nor  reason,  nor  nature,  but  as  he  is, 
God;  and  asserts  that  by  him  this  perfect  and  admirable  world 
was  made.  And  Cicero  follows  Plato,  frequently  confessing 
the  deity,  and  calls  him  the  supreme  being,  in  his  Treatise  on 
the  Laws.' " 

It  is  conceded  by  Christian  writers  that  the  Christian  doc- 
trine of  God  is  not  expressed  in  New  Testament  terms,  but  in 
the  terms  of  Cxreek  and  Roman  metaphysics,  as  witness  the  fol- 
lowing from  the  very  able  article  in  ihe  Encyclopedia  Britannica 
on  Theism,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Flint,  Professor  of  Divinity,  Univer- 
sity of  Edinburgh:  "The  proposition  constitutive  of  the  dogma 
of  the  Trinity — the  propositions  in  the  symbols  of  Nice,  Con- 
stantinople and  Toledo,  relative  to  the  immanent  distinctions 
and  relations  in  the  Godhead — were  not  drawn  directly  from  the 
New  Testament,  and  could  not  be  expressed  in  New  Testament 
terms.  They  were  the  product  of  reason  speculating  on  a 
revelation  to  faith  —  the  New  Testament  representation  of 
God  as  a  Father,  a  Redeemer  and  a  Sanctifier— with  a  view  to 
conserve  and  vindicate,  explain  and  comprehend  it.  They  were 
only  formed  through  centuries  of  effort,  only  elaborated  by  the 
aid  of  the  conceptions,  and  formulated  in  the  terms  (f  Greek  and 
Roman  metaphysics"  The  same  authority  says:  "The  massive 
defense  of  theism,  erected  by  the  Cambridge  school  of  philos- 
ophy, against  atheism,  fatalism,  and  the  denial  of  moral  dis- 
tinctions, was  avowedly  built  on  a  Platonic  foundation." 

In  method  of  thought  also,  no  less  than  in  conclusions,  the 
most  influential  of  the  Christian  fathers  on  these  subjects  fol- 
lowed the  Greek  philosophers  rather  than  the  writers  of  the  New 


118  THE   "mormon"  doctrine    OF  DEITY. 

Testament.*  "Platonism,  and  Aristotelianisin,"  says  the  author  of 
the  History  oj  Christian  Doctrine,"  exerted  more  influence  upon 
the  intellectual  methods  of  men,  taking  in  the  whole  time  since 
their  appearance,  than  all  other  systems  combined.  They  cer- 
tainly influenced  the  Greek  mind,  and  Grecian  culture,  more 
than  all  the  other  philosophical  systems.  They  re-appear  in 
Roman  philosophy — so  far  as  Rome  had  any  philosophy.  We 
shall  see  that  Plato,  Aristotle,  and  Cicero,  exerted  more  in- 
fluence than  all  other  philosophical  minds  united,  upon  the 
greatest  of  the  Christian  Fathers:  upon  the  greatest  of  the 
Schoolmen;  and  upon  the  theologians  of  the  Reformation,  Cal- 
vin and  Melanchthon.  And  if  we  look  at  European  philosophy 
as  it  has  been  uafolded  in  England,  Germany  and  France,  we 
shall  perceive  that  all  the  modern  theistic  schools  have  dis- 
cussed the  standing  problems  of  human  reason,  in  very  much  the 
same  manner  in  which  the  reason  of  Plato  and  Aristotle  discussed 
them  twenty-two  centuries  ago.  Bacon,  Des  Cartes,  Leibnitz, 
and  Kant,  so  far  as  the  first  principles  of  intellectual  and  moral 
philosophy  are  concerned,  agree  with  their  Grecian  pre- 
decessors. A  student  who  has  mastered  the  two  systems  of 
the  Adbdemy  and  Lyceum  will  find  in  modern  philosophy  (with 
the  exception  of  the  department  of  natural  science)  very  little 
that  is  true,  that  may  not  hi  found  for  substance,  and  germin- 
ally,  in  the  Greek  theism. "f 

It  is  hoped  that  enough  is  said  here  to  establish  the  fact 


'Especially  compare  Plato's  methods  of  arising  from  the  con- 
ception of  the  finite  and  variable,  to  the  infinite  and  unchangeable; 
from  the  relatively  beautiful  and  good,  to  the  absolutely  beautiful 
and  gooi,  in  the  sixth  and  seventh  books  of  the  "Republic,"  with  St. 
Augustine's  manner  of  arriving  at  the  conception  of  "That  which  is'' 
— God. — Confessions  St.  Augustine,  book  seven. 

t  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  by  William  G.  T.  Shedd; 
Vol.  I,  p.  52. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  119 

that  the  conception  of  God  as  "pure  being,"  "immaterial," 
"without  form,"  "or  parts  or  passions,"  as  held  by  orthodox 
Christianity,  has  its  origin  in  Pagan  philosophy,  not  in  Jewish 
nor  Christian  revelation. 

Of  Jesus  Christ    Being  Both   Premise  and    Argument  against 
Mr.   Van  Der  DonekVs  ''Philosophical  Argument'' 

And  now  as  to  the  whole  question  of  God  being  "existence," 
"pure  being,"  "most  simple,"  "not  compound;"  also  his  "immu- 
tability," as  set  forth  in  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  "philosophical 
argument."  What  of  it  ?  This  of  it:  Whatever  "simplicity," 
"immutability,"  or  other  quality  that  is  ascribed  to  God,  must 
he  in  harmony  with  what  Jesus  Christ  is:  I  meet  Mr.  V's  "phil- 
osophical argument"  as  I  meet  his  scriptural  argument.  I  ap- 
peal to  the  being  and  nature  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  refutation  of 
his  philosophical  conclusions.  Is  Jesus  Christ  God  ?  "Yes," 
must  be  my  friend's  answer.  Very  well,  this  is  my  premise. 
Jesus  is  God  in  his  own  right  and  person,  and  he  is  a  revelation 
of  what  God  the  Father  is.  He  is  not  only  a  revelation  of  the 
being  of  God,  but  of  the  kind  of  being  God  is.  And  now  I  test 
Mr.  V's  argument  by  the  revelation  of  what  God  is,  as  revealed 
in  the  person  and  nature  of  the  Son  of  God.  While  I  am  doing 
so,  let  it  be  remembered  that  Jesus  is  now  and  will  ever  be 
what  he  was  at  the  time  of  his  glorious  a-:cension  from  the 
midst  of  his  disciples  on  Mount  Olivet — God,  possessed  of  all 
power  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  a  glorious  personage  of  flesh  and 
bone  and  spirit.  And  now,  is  Jesus  Christ  without  form  ?  No; 
he  is  in  form  like  man.  Is  Jesus  Christ  illimitable  ?  Not  as  to 
his  glorious  body;  that  has  limitations,  dimensions,  proportions. 
Is  Jesus  Christ  without  parts  ?  Not  as  to  his  person;  his  body 
is  made  up  of  limbs,  trunk,  head;  and  parenthetically  I  may  re- 
mark, a  whole  without  parts  is  inconceivable.  Then  it  follows 
that  God's  "infinity,"  so  far  as  it  is  spoken  of  in  scripture,  does 


120  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

not  refer  to  his  person,  but  evidently  to  the  attributes  of  his 
mind — to  his  intelligence,  wisdom,  power,  patience,  mercy,  and 
whatsoever  other  qualities  of  mind  or  spirit  he  may  possess.  If 
it  is  argued  that  it  is  illogical  and  unphilosophical  to  regard 
God  in  his  person  as  finite,  but  infinite  in  faculties,  that  is  finite 
in  one  respect  and  infinite  in  another,  my  answer  is  that  it  is  a 
conception  of  God  made  necessary  by  what  the  divine  wisdom 
has  revealed  concerning  himself,  and  it  is  becoming  in  man  to 
accept  with  humility  what  God  has  been  pleased  to  reveal  con- 
cerning his  own  nature,  being  assured  that  in  God's  infinite 
knowledge  he  knows  himself,  and  that  which  he  reveals  con- 
cerning himself  is  to  be  trusted  far  beyond  man's  philosophical 
conception  of  him. 

But  to  resume  our  inquiry:  Is  Jesus  Christ  immutable,  un- 
changeable ?  Is  he  Plato's  "that  which  always  is  and  has  no 
becoming  ?"  or  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  "necessary  Being  *  *  * 
that  cannot  change  with  regard  to  his  existence,  nor  can  he 
change  with  regard  to  his  mode  of  existence,"  and  therefore 
could  never  be  anything  other  than  he  was  from  eternity  ?  It 
is  inconceivable  how  any  being  can  be  a  son  and  not  have  a  be- 
ginning as  such.  Whatever  of  eternity  may  be  ascribed  to  the 
existence  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  he  must  have  had  a  beginning  as  a 
son;  that  term  implies  a  relation,  let  it  be  brought  about  how  it 
may,  and  that  relation  must  have  had  a  beginning.  While  there 
may  never  have  been  a  time  when  Jesus  was  not  in  respect  of 
his  existence  as  an  Intelligence,  there  must  have  been  a  time 
when  he  was  not  as  "Son."  So  that  he  doubtless  became  "Son," 
hence  changed  his  relation  from  not  Son  to  Son;  hence  changed 
in  his  relations,  in  his  mode  of  existence.  We  know  there 
was  a  time  when  he  was  not  man,  that  is,  not  man  of  flesh  and 
bone  made  of  the  materials  of  this  world;  and  he  became  man; 
another  change.  There  was  a  time  when  he  was  mortal  man, 
by  which  I  mean,  man  subject  to  death;  and  he  became,  and  is 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  121 

now,  immortal  man;  another  change.  There  was  a  time  when 
all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  was  "given"  to  him;  (Matt.  28: 
18)  hence,  there  must  have  been  a  time  when  he  did  not  possess 
it;  hence  another  change,  a  change  from  the  condition  of  hold- 
ing some  power  to  that  of  possessing  all  power.  These  facts 
attested  by  Holy  Writ  are  against  Mr.  V's  doctrine  of  God's 
"immutability,"  so  far  at  least  as  relates  to  the  impossibility  of 
changing  his  mode  of  existence.  And  if  Mr.  V's  doctrine  of 
the  "immutability"  of  God  means  that  God  cannot  change  in  his 
relations,  then  I  put  these  facts  in  the  career  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
against  his  argument,  and  say  that  not  only  did  Jesus  pass 
through  these  changes  of  conditions  and  relations,  but  that  God 
the  Father  could,  and  very  likely  did,  pass  through  similar  rela- 
tions and  changes.  Else  of  what  significance  are  the  following 
passages.^ 

The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father 
do;  for  what  things  soever  he  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son  like- 
wise (St.  John  5:  19). 

The  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  quoting  the  substance  of  St.  John 
5:  26,  also  says: 

"As  the  Father  hath  power  in  himself,  even  so  hath  the  Son 
power" — to  do  what  ?  Why,  what  the  Father  did.  The  answer  is 
obvious — in  a  manner  to  lay  down  his  body  and  take  it  up  again. 
"Jesus,  what  are  you  going  to  do  ?"  "To  lay  down  my  body  as  my 
Father  did,  and  take  it  up  again.''  Do  you  believe  it  ?  If  you  do 
not  believe  it,  you  do  not  believe  the  Bible.* 

It  is  the  accepted  doctrine  of  the  orthodox  Christian 
creeds  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  as  the  Father  is — 
(Creed  of  St.  Athanasius)  that  is,  of  the  same  nature  and  essence. 
Very  well,  then;  as  God,  the  Father,  begot  Jesus,  the  Son,  may 
not   the  Son  in   time   also   beget  a  son  or  sons?    Or,  after 


*Millennial  Star,  Vol.  23:  p.  247. 

8 


122  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity 

ascribing  to  the  Son  the  same  nature  and  the  same  power  as  is 
ascribed  to  the  Father,  will  our  orthodox  friends  insist  upon 
limiting  the  Son  by  denying  him  productive  virtue,  and  contend 
that  Jesus  must  endure  without  the  exercise  of  it?  If  the 
existence  of  the  Son  was  essential  to  the  perfection  of  God,  the 
Father — and  it  cannot  be  thought  of  in  any  other  light — may  it 
not  be,  since  the  Son  is  of  the  same  nature  as  the  Father,  that 
the  fact  of  fatherhood  is  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  the 
Son?  To  deny  him  the  power  of  attaining  it  would  be  to 
limit  his  power,  which  may  not  be  done  even  according  to 
orthodox  Christian  doctrine.  Is  it  not  likely,  nay,  would  it  not 
be  so?  that  the  same  cause  or  impulse,  or  necessity,  or  what 
influence  or  consideration  soever  it  was  that  led  God,  the 
Father,  to  beget  a  Son,  create  a  world,  and  provide  for  its 
redemption,  would  impel  the  Son,  since  he  is  of  the  same 
nature  as  the  Father,  to  do  these  same  things?  And  where  was 
the  beginning  of  such  proceedings?  and  where  will  be  the  end 
of  them? 

But  now,  to  resume  again  our  measuring  of  Mr.  V's  phil- 
osophy by  Jesus  Christ  as  God. 

Is  Jesus  Christ  without  passions?  No;  his  deathless  love 
for  his  friends,  so  beautifully  manifested  by  word  and  deed 
throQghout  his  mortal  life,  together  with  his  love  for  mankind, 
which  led  him  to  give  his  life  for  the  world,  as  also  his  ex- 
plicitly declared  hatred  of  that  which  is  sin  and  evil,  forbid  us 
thinking  of  him  as  without  passions.*  As  in  him  dwelt  "all  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,"  so  in  him  necessarily  are 
gathered  all  these  qualities,  attributes  and  perfections  that  go 
to  the  making  of  God.  Does  possession  of  these  qualities, 
together  with  Messiah's  mode  of  existence  in  the  form  and 
person  of  Jesus  Christ,  come  in  conflict  with  the  notion  of  God's 


*  God  is  angry  with  the  wicked  every  day  (Ps  7:  11.) 


THE  "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  123 

"simplicity,"  "immutability,"  and  "eternity,"  as  conceived  by 
philosophers?  So  much  the  worse,  then,  for  the  faulty  and 
merely  human  conceptions  of  those  qualities,  as  relating  to  God. 
Better  mistrust  the  accuracy  of  metaphysical  reasoning;  better 
throw  aside  Plato  and  his  philosophy  as  untrustworthy,  than  to 
be  moved  ever  so  slightly  from  the  great  truth  of  revelation 
that  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  is  God;  and  that  such  as  he  is,  God  is, 
as  to  essence,  attributes,  existence,  and  the  mode  of  existence. 
Jesus  Christ,  then,  once  accepted  as  God,  and  the  manifestation 
of  God  to  men,  is  a  complete  answer  to  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's 
philosophical  argument  for  the  absolute  "simplicity"  or  "spiri- 
tuality" or  "immutability"  of  God. 

More  of  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  "Philosophy." 

I  must  not  neglect  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  "philosophy"  that 
forbids  us  believing  that  "several  finite  things"  can  "produce 
an  infinite,  or  an  illimitable,  as  there  would  always  be  a  first  and 
last."  Also  his  "finite  parts  could  not  belong  to  the  infinite 
essence,  else  they  would  communicate  their  limitations  to 
God."  Also,  his  "many  infinite  beings  are  inconceivable;  for,  if 
there  were  several,  they  would  have  to  difl^er  from  each  other 
by  some  perfection."  And  his  "from  the  moment  one  would 
have  a  perfection,  the  other  one  lacks,  the  latter  would  not 
be  infinite.  Therefore,  God  cannot  be  a  compound  of  infinite 
parts." 

Can  any  one,  can  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  himself,  be  quite 
sure  of  all  this?  Who  knows  how  the  infinite  is  constituted? 
When  men  speak  of  the  infinite,  are  they  not  treating  of  that 
which  is  beyond  the  compreheDsion  of  the  mind  of  man,  at  least 
in  his  present  state  of  limited  intellectual  powers;  for  whatever 
may  be  the  heights  to  which  the  mind  of  man  may  rise,  when 
freed  from  bis  present  earth-bound  conditions,  here  and  now 
he  must  recognize  his  intellectual  limitations:  for,  as  in  Christ's 


124  THE   "mormon"   doctrine   of   DEITY. 

humiliation  (i.  e.  in  his  earth-life)  his  judgment  was  taken  away 
(Acts  8:  33),  that  is,  his  divine,  supreme,  intellectual  and 
spiritual  powers  were  veiled — so  with  man,  in  this  same  world 
of  trial  and  limitations.  Whatever  his  power  as  an  eternal 
Intelligence  may  have  been,  or  what  it  may  be  hereafter,  he  is 
now  compelled  to  admit  that  he  sees  but  as  through  a  glass 
darkly,  and  therefore  imperfectly.  Men,  I  hold,  though  they 
be  philosophers,  cannot  comprehend  the  infinite,  much  less  say 
how  it  is  constituted.  But  let  us  reflect  a  little  upon  the  several 
propositions  Mr.  V.  submits  to  us: 

1 — ^'Several  finite  beings  cannot  produce  the  infinite" 
So  far  as  it  is  possible  for  the  human  intellect  to  conceive 
the  infinite,  the  material  universe  is  infinite,  eternal,  without 
beginning  and  without  end.  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  universe 
could  have  had  a  beginning,  could  have  been  produced  from 
nothing.  "All  the  apparent  proofs,"  remarks  Herbert  Spencer, 
"that  something  can  come  out  of  nothing,  a  wider  knowledge 
has  one  by  one  cancelled.  The  comet  that  is  suddenly  dis- 
covered in  the  heavens  and  nightly  waxes  larger,  is  proved  not 
to  be  a  newly  created  body,  but  a  body  that  was  until  lately 
beyond  the  range  of  vision.  The  cloud  which  in  course  of  a  few 
minutes  forms  in  the  sky,  consists  not  of  substance  that  has 
just  begun  to  be,  but  of  substance  that  previously  existed  in  a 
more  diffused  and  transparent  lorm.  And  similarly  with  a 
crystal  or  precipitate  in  relation  to  the  fluid  depositing  it" 
(First  Prin.,  p.  177.)  Mr  Spencer  holds  it  "impossible  to  think 
of  nothing  becoming  something,"  for  the  reason  that  "nothing" 
cannot  become  an  object  of  consciousness  (Ibid  pp.  161-2.)  In 
like  manner,  he  holds  that  matter  is  indestructible,  and  hence, 
that  the  universe  cannot  be  annihilated.  "The  doctrine  that 
matter  is  indestuctible  has  become  a  common-place,"  he  remarks. 
"The  seeming  annihilations  of  matter  turn  out,  on  close  observa- 
tion, to  be  only  changes  of  state.  It  is  found  that  the  evaporated 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine  OF   DEITY.  125 

water,  though  it  has  become  invisible,  may  be  brought  by 
condensations  to  its  orginal  shape."  The  indestructibility  of 
matter,  Mr.  Spencer  holds  to  be  a  datum  of  consciousness,  which 
he  thus  illustrates: 

Conceive  the  space  before  you  to  be  cleared  of  all  bodies  save 
one.  Now  imagine  the  remaining  one  not  to  be  removed  from  its 
place,  but  to  lapse  into  nothing  while  standing  in  that  place.  You 
fail.  The  place  that  was  solid  you  cannot  conceive  becoming  empty, 
save  by  the  transfer  of  that  which  made  it  solid  *  *  *  However 
small  the  bulk  to  which  we  conceive  a  piece  of  matter  reduced,  it  is 
impossible  to  conceive  it  reduced  into  nothing.  While  we  can  rep- 
resent to  ourselves  the  parts  the  matter  as  approximated,  we  can- 
not represent  to  ourselves  the  quantity  of  matter  as  made  less.  To 
do  this  would  be  to  imagine  some  of  the  constituent  parts  compressed 
into  nothing;  which  is  no  more  possible  than  to  imagine  compression 
of  the  whole  into  nothing.  Our  inability  to  conceive  matter  becoming 
non-existent,  is  immediately  consequent  on  the  nature  of  thought. 
Thought  consists  in  the  establishment  of  relations.  There  can  be  no 
relation  established,  and  therefore  no  thought  framed,  when  one  of 
the  related  terms  is  absent  from  consciousness.  Hence,  it  is  im- 
possible to  think  of  something  becoming  nothing,  for  the  same  reason 
that  it  is  imposible  to  think  of  nothing  becoming  someting.  (First 
Prin.,  p.  181.) 

The  material  universe,  then,  is  eternal,  it  always  existed, 
and  how  many  changes  soever  it  may  pass  through,  it  will 
never  be  annihilated.  Not  one  atom  can  be  added  to  the 
sum  total  of  its  substance,  nor  one  blotted  out  of  existence — 
it  is  everywhere  existing,  and,  so  far  as  the  mind  of  man  can 
conceive  "infinity,"  it  is  infinite.  Yet  we  know  that  this  whole 
is  made  up  of  a  great  variety  of  substances  and  objects  which 
are  finite;  and  our  philosophers,  for  the  most  part,  hold  that 
matter  is  divisable  into  ultimate  atoms.  Not  that  such  a  fact 
has  been  demonstrated  or  is  demonstrable;  but  granted  the 
existence  of  mattar,  its  existence  as  an  aggregation    of  such 


126  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

ultimate  things  as  atoms  seems  to  be  a  necessary  truth.  I  say 
necessary  truth,  because  the  mind  of  man  cannot  conceive  to 
the  contrary,  and  hence,  science  assumes  matter  to  be  composed 
of  ai/Oms.  But  atoms  are  things — material  things;  and  in  the 
mind  must  necessarily  be  thought  of  as  having  dimensions— an 
upper  and  lower  part,  also  a  hither  and  thither  side;  or  if 
spherical  then  a  circumference  and  diameter;  in  other  words, 
atoms  are  finite,  material  things,  and  in  the  aggregate  consti- 
tute the  material  universe,  which,  so  far  as  the  wit  of  man 
can  conceive,  is  infinite;  and  hence,  we  may  say  the  infinite  uni- 
verse is  composed  of  finite  atoms;  or,  several  finite  things — 
Mr.  V's  philosophy  to  the  contrary  notwithttanding — produce 
the  infinite. 

2 — "Many  infinite  beings  are  inconceivable;  J  or  if  there  were 
several,  they  would  have  to  differ  Jrom  each  other  by  some  perjec- 
tion.  Now,  the  moment  one  would  have  a  perjection  the  other  one 
lacks,  the  latter  would  not  be  infinite." 

That  may  be  true  in  relation  to  absolute  "infinity."  But 
we  have  already  seen  that  God  cannot  be  considered  as  abso- 
lutely infinite,  because  we  are  taught  by  the  facts  of  revelation 
that  absolute  infinity  cannot  hold  as  to  God;  as  a  person,  God 
has  limitations,  and  that  which  has  limitations  is  not  absolutely 
infinite.  If  God  ?s  conceived  of  as  absolutely  infinite,  in  his 
substance  as  in  his  attributes,  then  all  idea  of  personality  re- 
specting him  must  be  given  up;  for  personality  implies  limita- 
tions. If  the  idea  of  personality  in  respect  of  God  be  retained,  . 
then  the  idea  of  absolute  infinity  regarding  him  must  be 
abandoned.  That  "infinite"  which  does  not  include  all  things 
and  all  qualities  is  not  absolutely  infinite.  The  only  persons 
who  consistently  hold  to  the  absolute  infinity  of  God  are  those 
who  identify  God  with  the  universe — regarding  God  and  the 
universe  as  one  and  the  same.     So  long  as  orthodox  Christians 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  127 

regard  God  as  distinct  from  what  they  call  the  "material  uni- 
verse," that  long  they  teach    but  a  modified  infinity  respecting 
God.     They   really  mean   that  God  is   only  infinite    "after  his 
kind."    One  of  Spinoza's  definitions  may  help  us  here.     He  says 
a  thing  is  finite  after  its  kind  "when  it  can  be  limited  by  another 
thing  oj  the  same  nature,"  as  one  body  is   limited  by   another 
(Ethics  Def.  ii.)  is  not  a  thing  infinite  after  its  kind,  then,  when 
it  is  not  limited  by  anything  of  the  same  nature?  Is  not  this  the 
necessary  corollary  of  Spinoza's  definition  of  the   "ficite  after 
its  kind?"  and  do  not  those  who  regard  God  as   distinct  from 
the  universe,  and  at  the  same  time  ascribe  "infinity  to  him, 
mean  only  that  he  is  infinite   "after  his  kind?"    There  may  be, 
then,  many  infinites  after  their  kind;  and  this  view  is  sustained 
by  the  fact  that  such  infinites  do  exist.     Duration  or  time  is  in- 
finite after  its  kind,  because  not  limited  by  anything  of  the  same 
nature.     Space  is  infinite  after  its  kind,  for  the  same  reason; 
so,  too,  are  force  and  matter.     If  there  may   be  two  or  four 
things  infinite  after  their  kind,  because  not  limited  by  anything 
of  the  same  nature,  are  many  infinites  inconceivable?    More- 
over, when   infinity  is   thus  understood — and  it  can  be  under- 
stood when  relating  to  God  in  no   other  way — the    diflficulty 
raised  by  the  latter  part  of  Mr.  V's  proposition,  viz.,  that,  if 
there  were  several  infinite  beings,  they  would  differ  from  each 
other  by  some  perfection,  and  when  one  would  have  a  perfec- 
tion that  the  other  lacked,  the  latter  would  not  be  infinite, 
etc. — disappears;  for  when  beings  are  infinite  after  their  kind, 
they  are  only  limited  by  things  of  a  different  nature,  and  there- 
fore the  perfections  possessed  by  those  beings  of  a  different 
nature  will  constitute  no  limitation  to  their  infinity. 

3 — "7/  one  is  infinite  nothing  can  be  added  to  it." 

This  may  be  true  of  the  absolutely  infinite;  for  that  which 
la  absolutely  infinite  must  be  the  sum  total  of  all  existence. 


128  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

To  say,  therefore,  that  something  existed  in  addition  to  this 
sum  total,  and  could  be  added  to  it,  would  be  illogical.  But 
infinity  in  this  conception  cannot  be  ascribed  to  God;  for  we 
have  seen  that  God  is  only  infinite  in  faculties  and  power,  not 
in  person,  hence  not  absolutely  infinite;  therefore,  this  state- 
ment in  the  gentleman's  philosophy  can  have  no  bearing  on  the 
controversy  in  which  we  are  engaged. 

4 — "Finite  parts  could  not  belong  to  the  infinite  essence,  else  they 
would  communicate  their  limitations  to  God." 

When  the  Son  of  God,  Jesus,  took  on  a  human  body  of 
flesh  and  bone,  was  not  that  which  is  finite,  his  body,  added  to 
the  infinite  in  Jesus  Christ?  Did  the  finite  body,  taken  on  by 
the  spirit  of  Jesus,  communicate  its  limitations  to  God?  And 
is  Jesus,  now  in  his  resurrected,  immortal  body  of  flesh  and 
bones,  less  "infinite"  than  before  his  spirit  was  united  to  his 
body?  If  one  accepts  Mr.  V's  doctrine  of  the  absolute  infinity 
of  God,  then  one  must  believe  that  Jesus  "the  Word,"  who  "was 
in  the  beginning  with  God,"  who  "was  God" — was  not  "made 
flesh;"  that  is,  did  not  take  on  a  body  of  flesh  and  bone;  for 
the  body  of  Jesus  was  finite;  it  had,  in  fact,  all  the  limitations 
of  a  man's  body,  and  Mr.  V's  doctrine  tells  us  that  "ij  one  is  in- 
Unite,  nothing  can  be  added  to  it — therefore  the  "Word,"  who  "was 
God,"  could  not  have  been  made  flesh.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
one  accepts  the  fact,  so  well  attested  by  holy  scriptures,  viz., 
that  Jesus,  "the  Word,"  "who  was  God,"  was  made  flesh,  did 
take  on  a  body  that  was  flesh  and  bones,  even  though  that  body 
was  finite,  then  one  must  reject  the  philosophy  of  Mr.  V.,  which 
says  the  infinite  may  not  take  on  finite  pavts,  for  the  reason 
that  they  would  communicate  their  limitations  to  the  infinite, 
and  thus  destroy  its  infinity. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  see  that  something  is  wrong  with  the 
philosophy  of  Mr.  Van  DerDonckt,  which  thus  constantly  brings 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  129 

US  in  conflict  with  the  revelations  of  God  in  the  scriptures,  and 
especially  in  the  revelation  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ. 

In  what  state  do  these  considerations  leave  the  argument? 
Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  reaches  the  conclusion,  from  the  premise 
that  several  finite  things  cannot  produce  the  infinite,  that  God 
cannot  be  a  compound  of  finite  parts.  Yet  we  have  seen  that 
what  is  called  the  material  universe,  so  far  as  it  is  possible  for 
the  mind  of  man  to  apprehend  infinity,  answers  to  his  concep- 
tion of  the  infinite;  and  we  know  that  the  universe  is  made  up 
of  finite  parts;  and  that  in  its  last  analysis  it  is  but  the 
aggregation  of  finite  atoms. 

From  the  premise  that  many  infinite  beings  are  inconceivable, 
Mr.  V.  reaches  the  conclusion  that  God  cannot  be  a  compound 
of  infinite  parts.  But  upon  principles  of  sound  reason,  we  have 
seen  that  things  are  infinite  after  their  kind  when  not  limited 
by  anything  of  the  same  nature;  and  his  premise  of  a  number  of 
infinites  being  inconceivable  is  destroyed  by  the  actual  existence 
of  a  number  of  infinites  after  their  kind,  such  as  duration,  space, 
matter,  spirit,  and  hence  the  absolute  infinite,  if  existing  at  all, 
must  be  composed  of  an  aggregation  of  infinities  after  their 
kind. 

From  the  premise  that  ij  one  is  infinite  nothing  can  be  added 
to  it,  the  gentleman  implies  the  conclusion  that  God  is  infinite 
and  therefore  nothing  can  be  added  to  him.  Still,  since  Jesus 
was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  and  is  God,  we  have  seen  that 
something  was  added  to  whatever  of  infinity  there  was  in  God, 
the  Word,  viz.,  what  orthodox  Christians  call  his  "humanity" — 
that  is,  the  pre-existent,  divine  spirit  of  Jesus  took  on  a  taber- 
nacle of  flesh — something  finite  was  added  to  t lie  infinite  of  God, 
the  Word,  and  that,  too,  let  me  say,  without  communicating  any 
limitations  to  the  infinity  possessed  of  God. 

On  these  several  premises,  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  bases  his 
general  conclusion: — 


130  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

Therefore,  the  infinite  Being  is  not  composite,  but  simple  or 
spiritual.  Therefore,  he  is  not,  nor  ever  was,  a  man,  who  is  a  com- 
posite being. 

But  since  the  premises  themselves  have  been  shown  to  be 
utterly  untenable,  as  relating  to  God,  as  revealed  in  the  scrip- 
tures, and  in  the  person  and  nature  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  conclu- 
sions are  wrong;  and  the  facts  established  are  that  while  God 
in  mind,  faculties  and  in  power  is  doubtless  infinite,  in  person  he 
is  finite;  and  as  his  spirit  is  united  to  a  body,  he  is  composite,  not 
simple;  and  as  Jesus  Christ  was  God  manifested  in  the  flesh,  the 
express  image  of  God  the  Father's  person,  the  counterpart  of 
his  nature,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  was  a  man — it  is  neither 
unscriptural,  nor  unphilosophical  to  hold  that  God,  even  the 
Father,  is  also  a  perfected,  exalted  man. 

III. 

MR.  VAN  DER  DONCKT'S  CONTRASTS  BETWEEN  MAN  AND  GOD. 

Of  the  Intellectual  Powers  of  Man. 

Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  insists  that  man  can  never  become  a 
God,  because  he  "is  finite  or  limited  in  everything;  ever  change- 
able and  changing,  ever  susceptible  of  improvement."  Grant- 
ing that  man  is  ever  susceptible  of  improvement,  ought  not  the 
gentleman  to  proceed  with  some  caution  before  dogmatically  as- 
serting that  there  are  to  be  limitations  to  man's  enlargement, 
to  his  progress,  and  to  his  attainments  ?  Given  the  susceptibil- 
ity to  improve,  never  ending  duration  through  which  the  pro- 
cesses of  improvement  shall  continue,  and  God  to  direct  such  pro- 
cesses, who  can  dogmatize  upon  the  limitations  of  the  Intelli- 
gences now  known  as  men  ?  It  is  not  enough  to  say  in  reply  to 
this  that  the  "finite  can  never  become  infinite;"  nor  to  argue  that 
if  God  were  an  exalted  man  he  would  possess  contradictory  at- 
tributes, such  as  being  both  finite  and  infinite,   compound  and 


THE   "mormon"    doctrine   OF   DEITY.  131 

simple.  We  have  already  seen  that  when  one  undertakes  to 
treat  of  the  infinite,  he  is  dealing  with  the  unknown,  dealing 
with  terms  that  stand  for  the  names  of  things  of  which  the 
mind  can  form  no  adequate  or  satisfactory  conception.  But  so 
far  as  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  concerned — personages  held 
out  to  us  in  the  scriptures  as  Gods — we  have  seen  (p.  119)  that  ab- 
solute infinity  may  not  be  predicted  of  them.  In  person,  form  and 
the  general  nature  of  their  physical  being,  they  have  limitations; 
and  whatever  of  infinity  or  simplicity  is  ascribed  to  them  must 
be  ascribed  to  mind  and  attributes,  not  to  personality.  Seeing 
then,  that  the  revelation  of  God  in  the  scriptures,  and  especially 
in  the  revelation  of  God  in  the  person  and  character  of  Jesus 
Christ,  forces  upon  us  a  concep.ion  of  God  that  represents  him 
as  concrete  rather  than  abstract,  finite  in  some  respects,  and 
infinite  in  others;  and  as  compound  rather  than  simple — it  fol- 
lows that  urging  the  apparent  absurdity  of  such  characteristics 
in  Deity  as  these  is  of  no  avail  against  the  facts  in  the  revela- 
tions God  has  given  of  himself.  And  now,  as  the  limitations 
found  in  man,  as  to  his  physical  person,  nature,  etc.,— and  which 
are  supposed  by  Mr.  V.  to  forever  bar  man  from  attaining 
divinity — are  found  also  in  God  the  Father  and  in  God  the  Son, 
it  is  quite  clear  that  these  physical  limitations  may  not  be  urged 
as  insuperarable  obstacles  to  man  attaining  divinity.  As 
for  the  spirit  of  man — the  mind — who  can  say  what  its  metes 
and  bounds  are,  much  less  what  they  shall  be?  Who  com- 
prehends its  powers  ?  Who  dare  say  that  it  is  not  potentially 
infinite?  and  shall  be  hereafter  actually  infinite  after  its 
kind?  I  have  already  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  it 
is  said  of  Messiah  that  in  his  humiliation,  his  judgment  was 
taken  away,  which  doubtless  means  that  in  his  earthlife  his 
intellectual  and  spiritual  powers  were  somewhat  veiled;  and 
with  man  doubtless  it  is  the  same;  in  his  earth-life  that  in- 
tellectual excellence  which  he  enjoyed  as  a  spirit  in  the  man- 


132  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

sions  of  the  Father  is  veiled;  but  veiled  as  it  is,  there  is  of  its 
manifestations  sufficient  to  inspire  one  with  awe,  and  make  him 
hesitate  ere  pronouncing  dogmatijally  upon  its  nature  or  its  lim- 
itations. To  illustrate  my  thought:  I  am  this  moment  sit- 
ting at  my  desk,  and  am  enclosed  by  the  four  walls  of  my  room 
— limited  as  to  my  personal  presence  to  this  spot.  But  by  the 
mere  act  of  my  will,  I  find  I  have  the  power  to  project  myself 
in  thought  to  any  part  of  the  world.  Instantly  I  can  be  in  the 
crowded  streets  of  the  world's  metropolis.  I  walk  through  its 
well  remembered  thoroughfares,  I  hear  the  rush  and  roar  of  its 
busy  multitudes,  the  rumble  of  vehicles,  the  huckster's  cries, 
the  cab-man's  calls,  sharp  exclamations  and  quick  retorts  in 
the  jostling  throngs,  the  beggar's  piping  cry,  the  sailor's  song, 
fragments  of  conversation,  broken  strains  of  music,  the  blare 
of  trumpets,  the  neighing  of  horses, '  ear-piercing  whistles, 
ringing  of  bells,  shouts,  responses,  rushing  trains  and  all 
that  mingled  din  and  soul-stirring  roar  that  rises  in  clamor 
above  the  great  town's  traffic. 

At  will,  I  leave  all  this  and  stand  alone  on  mountain  tops 
in  Syria,  India,  or  overlooking  old  Nile's  valley,  wrapped  in  the 
awful  grandeur  of  solemn  silence.  Here  I  may  bid  fallen  em- 
pires rise  and  pass  in  grand  procession  before  my  mental  vision 
and  live  again  their  little  lives:  fight  once  more  their  battles; 
begin  again  each  petty  struggle  for  place,  for  power,  for  control 
of  the  world's  affairs;  revive  their  customs:  li^^e  again  their 
loves  and  hates,  and  preach  once  more  their  religions  and  their 
philosophies — all  this  the  mind  may  do,  and  that  as  easily  and 
as  quickly  as  in  thought  it  may  leave  this  room,  cross  the 
street  to  a  neighbor's  home,  and  there  take  note  of  the  familiar 
objects  within  his  habitation.  Nor  does  this  begin  to  indicate 
all  the  power  of  the  mind  in  these  respects.  Though  the  sun  is 
ninety-two  millions  of  miles  away,  on  the  instant,  in  thought, 
one  may  stand  upon  it  within  its  resplendent  atmosphere.    In  the 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OP  DEITY.  133 

same  manner  and  with  equal  ease,  one  may  project  himself  to 
the  Pole  Star,  though  it  is  so  distant  that  it  requires  forty  years 
for  a  ray  of  light  to  pass  through  the  intervening  space  be- 
tween that  star  and  our  earth,  and  still  light  travels  at  the 
rate  of  one  hundred  and  eighty-six  thousand  miles  per  second  ! 
Nor  is  the  end  yet.  In  like  manner  and  with  equal  ease  one 
may  instantly  project  himself  in  thought  from  within  the  four 
walls  of  his  room  to  those  more  distant  constellations  of  stars 
known  to  exist  out  in  the  depths  of  space,  whence  it  would  re- 
quire a  ray  of  light  a  million  years  to  reach  our  earth;  yet 
standing  there  in  a  world  so  distant  from  ours,  one  would  find 
himself  still  centered  in  the  universe,  and  out  beyond  him,  in  a 
straight  line  from  the  earth  whence  he  has  traveled,  would  ex- 
tend other  realms  in  splendor  no  less  magnificent.  From  the 
vasty  deep  of  these  realms,  he  could  call  up  other  worlds,  and 
people  them  with  creatures  of  his  thought,  as  one  may  call  up 
empires  to  pass  in  mighty  procession  before  him  in  the  Nile  or 
in  the  Ganges  valley. 

Distance,  then,  to  the  mind  of  man,  is  as  nothing.  The 
infinity  of  extension,  and  of  duration  also,  is  matched  by  the 
infiniteness  of  man's  mind,  though  that  mind  has  a  local  habita- 
tion and  a  name  within  a  tabernacle  of  flesh  and  bone.  This  is 
but  a  glimpse  at  the  infinite  powers  of  the  mind  of  man  in  one 
direction,  and  under  circumstances  that  somewhat  veil  the 
splendor  of  his  intellectual  and  spiritual  glory;  what  those 
powers  may  be  in  all  particulars  when  man  shall  be  made  free 
from  the  restricting  and  depressing  environment  of  the  present 
earth-life,  no  one  may  say;  but  enough  may  be  seen  from  what 
is  here  pointed  out  to  establish  the  firm  belief  that,  as  the 
intellectual  powers  in  man  rise  to  match  the  infinitudes  of 
extension  and  duration,  as  indicated,  so,  too,  in  all  other  respects 
shall  the  mind  of  man,  when  free,  rise  to  the  harmony  of  all  the 
infinities  that  make  up  the  universe.     And  it  is  not  inconceiv- 


134  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

able  (in  view  of  the  great  spiritual  and  intellectual  powers  even 
now  discernible  in  him)  that  the  time  will  come  when  man  will 
not  only  be  able  to  project  himself  in  thought  to  any  part  of 
the  universe,  no  matter  how  distant,  but  in  hi3  future  immeas- 
urably exalted  state  he  may  project  both  thought  and  con- 
sciousness equally  to  all  points  of  the  universe  at  once,  stead- 
fastly maintain  them  there,  and  thus  be  all-knowing,  everywhere 
present  in  thought,  in  consciousness — in  spirit  in  fact — as  God 
now  is;  and  if,  as  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  will  be  the  case, 
his  power  equals  his  knowledge;  and  his  freedom  of  volition 
equals  his  knowledge  and  his  power — then,  indeed,  will  man  be 
a  spiritual  and  intellectual  force  immanent  in  the  universe,  both 
to  will  and  to  do,  even  as  God. 

Jesus  prayed  that  his  disciples  might  be  one  with  each 
other  even  as  he  and  the  Father  are  one  (St.  John  17:  11);  that 
they  all  might  be  one;  and  as  the  Father  was  in  Christ,  and  as 
Christ  was  in  the  Father,  so  also  would  Messiah  have  the 
disciples  to  be  one  in  him  and  in  the  Father,  that  they  might 
all  be  one  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  with  each  other, 
even  as  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  one  (St.  John  17:21,  22.)  But 
for  the  disciples  to  be  "one"  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  in 
the  complete  sense  in  which  the  Messiah  here  prayed  for  that 
"oneness,"  necessarily  means  to  be  "like"  the  Father,  and  that 
"likeness"  can  rise  to  the  full  height  of  its  perfection  only  when 
it  reaches  equality  with  those  with  whom  the  disciples  are  to  be 
"one"  or  "like."  If  man  may  not  rise  to  the  height  of  divinity, 
how  shall  this  prayer  of  the  Christ  be  realized?  Or  must  we 
believe  that  the  divine  wisdom  in  the  Son  of  God  exercised 
itself  in  praying  for  that  which  is  unattainable,  that  which 
is  not  only  absurd  but  impossible?  It  is  unthinkable  that  the 
divine  nature  shall  be  brought  down  to  be  "one"  with  men;  so 
that  if  the  "cneness"  which  also  involves  "likeness,"  be  realized, 
in  fulfilment  of  Messiah's  parayer,  it  must  be  by  men  rising  to 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF   DEITY.  135 

divinity,  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  "impossibilities"  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding. 

"Behold  the  Man  Has  Become  as  One  of  Vs." 

To  illustrate  his  contention  that  man  can  never  rise  to  the 
quality  of  divinity,  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  indulges  in  comparisons 
between  man  and  God;  and,  to  emphasize  that  contrast,  chal- 
lenges well-known  men  of  science  to  the  exercise  of  creative 
powers,  contrasts  the  frequent  collisions  upon  our  railroads  with 
the  order,  regularity,  and  safety  of  the  movements  among  the 
planetary  systems  where  never  a  collision  occurs;  and  then 
indulges  in  such  folly  as  this: 

They  [astronomers]  can  indeed  predict  transits  and  eclipses;  but 
suppose  astronomers  from  New  Zealand,  on  their  way  to  America  to 
observe  this  fall's  moon  eclipse,  meet  with  an  accident  in  mid-ocean, 
would  they  at  once  send  this  wireless  telegram  to  the  United  States' 
stargazers  assembled  say  at  Lick  Observatory:  "Belated  by  leak. 
Please  retard  eclipse  two  hours  that  we  may  not  miss  it."  As  well  might 
all  the  telescope  men  in  the  world  combined,  attempt  to  fetch  down 
the  rings  of  Saturn  for  the  construction  of  a  royal  race  track,  as  pretend 
to  control  movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies. 

The  gentleman  also  points  out  how  precarious  are  the 
powers  of  man: 

The  helpless  babe  of  yesterday  may  indeed  rival  Mozart,  Haydn, 
and  Paderewski,  but  tomorrow  he  may  rise  with  lame  hands  and 
pierced  ear-drums;  and  millions  of  worshipers  of  the  shattered  idol 
are  powerless  to  restore  it  to  the  musical  world. 

This  part  of  the  gentleman's  argument  sinks  far  below  the 
general  high  level  of  his  Reply,  and  is  unworthy  of  his 
intelligence.  I  have  already  pointed  out  (p.  93),  that 
Latter-day  Saints  do  not  teach  that  man  in  his  present  state 
and  condition  is  a  God.     On  the  contrary,  they  admit  man's 


136  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

narrowness,  weakness,  imperfections  and  limitations;  and  also  re- 
cognize the  great  gulf  stretching  between  man  in  his  present  state 
and  that  dignity  of  divinity  to  which  somewhere  and  sometime 
in  the  eternities  it  is  within  his  province  a'''d  power  to  attain. 
Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  comparisons,  therefore,  between  God  and 
man,  in  the  latter's  present  condition,  are  not  in  point,  for  the 
reason  that  the  Latter-day  Saints  do  not  claim  that  man  is  now 
a  Deity,  only  as  he  may  be  thought  potentially  one.  Taking 
the  highest  type  of  man  to  start  with,  consider  him  as  raised 
from  the  dead  and  hence  immortal;  give  him  Gods  for  guides, 
teachers,  and  companions,  with  the  universe  for  the  field  of  his 
operations,  then  let  Mr.  V.  or  anyone  else,  say  what  man's  attain- 
ments will  be  one  thousand  millions  of  years  hence;  and  that 
period,  let  it  be  remembered,  long  as  it  may  seem  to  man's  petty 
methods  of  computing  duration,  is  but  as  a  moment  in  the 
ex'stence  of  an  immortal  being.  Let  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt 
institute  his  comparisons  from  that  point  of  man's  career, 
instead  of  from  the  present  point  of  man's  weakness  and 
mortality,  and  then  say  if  ultimately  divinity  seems  so  unattain- 
able as  now.  If  he  shall  say  he  is  unable  to  institute  his 
comparisons  at  the  point  proposed,  because  what  man  will 
then  be  is  unknown,  I  shall  agree  with  him;  but  let  him 
acknowledge,  as  perforce  he  must,  that  man  will  be  immeasur- 
ably advanced  beyond  what  he  is  now;  also  let  him  admit 
the  injustice  he  does  our  doctrine  by  insisting  upon  making 
his  comparisons  between  God  and  man  as  the  latter  now 
stand?,  under  the  effects  of  the  fall,  and  in  his  humiliation  and 
weakness. 

After  indulging  in  the  aforesaid  comparisons,  Mr.V.  further 
remarks : 

I  fear  Mr.  B.  H.  Roberts  will  be  inclined  to  think  God  jealous 
because  he  gives  man  no  show  for  comparison  with  him.  This  would 
certainly  be  a  less  blunder  of  the  Utah  man,  ("I  will  not  give  my 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  137 

glory  to  another" — Isaiah  42:  8)  than  his  contention,  which  is  a 
mere  echo  of  Satan's  promise  in  Paradise:  "You  shall  be  as  Gods." 
(Genesis  3:  5.) 

To  which  I  answer,  not  so;  the  contention  of  the  "Utah 
man"  is  not  the  echo  of  Satan's  promise,  "ye  shall  be  as 
Gods."  On  the  contrary  the  "Utah  man's"  contention  is 
bottomed  on  the  august  and  sure  word  of  God,  uttered  in 
Eden,  when  he  said  of  the  man  Adam — ''Behold  the  man  is 
become  as  one  of  us,  to  know  good  and  evil"  (Genesis  3:  22) — 
a  passage  which  the  Reverend  gentleman  seems  to  have  over- 
looked. 

IV. 

OF   THE  UNITY   OF   GOD. 

There  remains  to  be  considered  the  Unity  of  God. 

The  Latter  day  Saints  believe  in  the  unity  of  the  creative 
and  governing  force  or  power  of  the  universe  as  absolutely  as 
any  orthodox  Christian  sect  in  the  world.  One  cannot  help 
being  profoundly  impressed  with  the  great  truth  that  creation, 
throughout  its  whole  extent,  bears  evidence  of  being  one 
system,  presents  at  every  point  unity  of  design,  and  har- 
mony in  its  government.  Nor  am  I  unmindful  of  the  force 
there  is  in  the  deduction  usually  drawn  from  thei^e  premises, 
viz.,  that  the  Creator  and  Governor  of  the  universe,  must  neces- 
sarily be  one.  But  I  am  also  profoundly  impressed  by  another 
fact  that  comes  within  the  experience  of  man,  at  least 
to  a  limited  extent,  viz.,  the  possibility  of  intelligences  arriving 
at  perfect  agreement,  so  as  to  act  in  absolute  unity.  We  see 
manifestations  of  this  principle  in  human  governments,  and 
other  human  associations  of  various  kinds.  And  this,  too,  is 
observable,  viz.,  that  the  greater  and  more  perfect  the  intel- 
ligence the  more  perfect  can  the  unity  of  purpose  and  of  effort 
become:  so  that  one  needs  only  the  existence  of  perfect  intel- 


138  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

ligences  to  operate  together  in  order  to  secure  perfect  oneness, 
whence  shall  come  the  one  system  evident  in  the  universe, 
exhibiting  at  every  point  unity  of  design,  and  perfect  harmony 
in  its  government.  In  other  words,  "oneness"  can  be  the  result 
of  perfect  agreement  among  Many  Intelligences  as  surely  as  it 
can  be  the  result  of  the  existence  of  One  Only  Intelligence. 
Also,  the  decrees  and  purposes  of  the  perfectly  united  Many 
can  be  as  absolute  as  the  decrees  and  purposes  of  the  One  Only 
Intelligence.  One  is  also  confronted  with  the  undeniable  fact 
that  inclines  him  to  the  latter  view  as  the  reasonable  explana- 
tion of  the  "Oneness"  that  is  evidently  in  control  of  the 
universe — the  fact  that  there  are  in  existence  many  Intelligences, 
and,  endowed  as  they  are  with  free  will,  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
they  influence,  to  some  extent,  the  course  of  events  and  the  con- 
ditions that  obtain.  Moreover,  it  will  be  f ound,on  cartful  inquiry, 
that  the  explanation  of  the  "Oneness"  controlling  in  the 
universe,  on  the  theory  that  it  results  from  the  perfect  agree- 
ment or  unity  of  Many  Intelligences,*  is  more  in  harmony  with 
the  revelations  of  God  on  the  subject  than  the  theory  that 
there  is  but  One  Only  Intelligence  that  enters  into  its  govern- 
ment. This  theory  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt,  of  course,  denies,  and 
this  is  the  issue  between  us  that  remains  to  be  tested. 

The  Reverend  gentleman  affirms  that  the  first  chapter  of 
the  Bible  "reveals  the  supreme  fact  that  there  is  but  One  Only 
and  Living  God."  This  I  deny;  and  affirm  the  fact  that  the  first 


*  John  Stuart  Mill,  in  his  Essay  on  Theism,  in  speaking  of  the 
evident  unity  in  nature,  which  suggests  that  nature  is  governed  by 
One  Bebig,  comes  very  near  stating  the  exact  truth  in  an  alternative 
statement  to  his  first  remark,  viz.:  "At  least,  if  a  plurality  be  sup- 
posed, it  is  necessary  to  assume  so  complete  a  concert  of  action  and 
unity  of  will  among  them,  that  the  difference  is  for  most  purposes 
immaterial  between  such  a  theory  and  that  of  the  absolute  unity  of 
the  Godhead"  {Essays  on  Religion — Theism,  j).  133). 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  139 

chapter  of  the  [Bible  reveals  the  existence  of  a  plurality  of 
Gods. 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  the  word  trans- 
lated "God"  in  the  first  chapter  of  our  English  version  of  the 
Bible,  in  the  Hebrew,  is  tlohim — plural  of  Eloah — and  should  be 
rendered  "Gods" — so  as  to  read  "In  the  beginning  the  Gods 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,"  etc.  *  *  *  The  Gods  said, 
"Let  there  be  light."  *  *  *  The  Gods  said  "Let  us  make 
man,"  etc.,  etc.  So  notorious  is  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew  plural, 
Elohim,  is  used  by  Moses,  that  a  variety  of  devices  have  been 
employed  to  make  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  conform  to 
the  "One  Only  God"  idea.  Some  Jews  in  explananation  of 
it,  and  in  defense  of  their  belief  in  One  Only  God,  hold 
that  there  are  several  Hebrew  words  which  have  a  plural  form 
but  singular  meaning — of  which  Elohim  is  one — and  they  quote 
as  proof  of  this  the  word  maim,  meaning  water,  shamaim, 
meaning  heaven,  and  panim,  meaning  the  face  or  surface  of  a 
person  or  thing,  "But,"  says  a  Christian  Jewish  scholar,  *  "if 
we  examine  these  words,  we  shall  find  that  though  apparently 
they  may  have  a  singular  meaning,  yet,  in  reality,  they  have  a 
plural  or  collective  one;  thus,  for  instance,  'maim,'  water,  means 
a  collection  of  waters,  forming  one  collective  whole;  and  thus 
again  'shamaim,'  heaven,  is  also,  in  reality  as  well  as  form,  of 
the  plural  number,  meaning  what  we  call  in  a  similar  way  in 
English,  'the  heavens;'  comprehending  all  the  various  regions 
which  are  included  under  that  title." 

Other  Jewish  scholars  content  themselves  in  accounting 
for  this  inconvenient  plural  in  the  opening  chapter  of  Genesis, 


*  This  is  Rev.  fl.  Highton,  M.  A.,  and  Fellow  of  Queen's  College, 
Oxford.  I  quote  from  his  lecture  on  "God  a  Unity  and  Plurality," 
published  in  a  Christian  Jewish  periodical  called  The  Voice  of  Israel, 
February  number,  1844. 


140  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

by  saying  that  in  the  Hebrew,  Elohim  better  represents  the 
idea  of  "Strong,"  "Mighty,"  than  the  singular  form  would,  and 
for  this  reason  it  was  used — a  view  accepted  by  not  a  few 
Christians,  Thus,  Dr.  Elliott,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  Lafayette 
College,  Easton,  Pennsylvania,  says:  "The  name  Elohim  (singu- 
lar tloah)  is  the  generic  name  of  God,  and,  being  ■plural  in  form, 
is  probably  a  plural  of  excellence  and  majesty."  *  Dr.  Haver- 
nick  derives  the  word  Elohim  from  a  Hebrew  root  now  \o?>i,Coluit, 
and  thinks  that  the  plural  is  used  merely  to  indicate  the  abund- 
ance and  super-richness  contained  in  the  divine  Being,  f  Rabbi 
Jehuda  Hallevi  (twelfth  century)  found  in  the  usage  of  the 
plural  Elohim  a  protest  against  idolators,  who  call  each  person- 
ified power  Eloah  and  all  collectively  Elohim.  "He  interpreted 
it  as  the  most  general  name  of  the  Deity,  distinguishing  him  as 
manifested  in  the  exhibition  of  his  power  without  reference  to 
his  personality  or  moral  qualities,  or  any  special  relations  which 
he  bears  to  man."  %  A  number  of  Christian  scholars  attempt 
to  account  for  the  use  of  the  plural  Elohim  by  saying  that  it 
foreshadows  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  Trinity,  that  is,  it  rec- 
ognizes the  existence  of  the  three  persons  in  one  God.  "It  is 
expressive  of  omnipotent  power;  and  by  its  use  here  (first  chap. 
Genesis)  in  the  plural  form  is  obscurely  taught  at  the  opening 
of  the  Bible,  a  doctrine  clearly  revealed  in  other  parts  of  it,  viz., 
that  though  God  is  one,  there  is  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the 
Godhead — Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  who  were  engaged  in  the 
creative  work."  §  This  view  was  maintained  at  length  by  Rev. 
H.  Highton.  in  the  Christian  Jewish   periodical.   The    Voice  of 


*  "Vindication  of  Mosaic  Authorship  of  Pentateuch,"  p.  65. 
t  See  "Kitto's  Biblical  Literature,"  Art.  "God,"  Vol.  1,  p.  777. 
X  Smith's  Bible  Diet.  (Hackett  edition),  Art.  Jehovah,  p.  1242. 
§  "Critical  and  Explanatory  Commentary"  (Jamieson,  Faussett 
and  Brown)  Gen.  1:  1,  2. 


THE  "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  141 

Israel,  before  quoted.  "But  Calvin,  Mercer,  Dresius  and 
Ballarmine,"  says  Dr.  Hackett,*  of  the  Theological  Institution 
of  Newton,  Massachusetts — editor  of  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary — 
"have  given  the- weight  of  their  authority  against  an  explanation 
80  fanciful  and  arbitrary." 

Others  explain  the  use  of  the  plural  "we"  or  "us"  by  say- 
ing that  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  Moses  represents  God  as 
speaking  of  himself  in  that  manner,  in  imitation  of  the  custom 
of  kings,  who  speak  of  themselves  as  "we,"  instead  of  in  the 
singular,  "I."  In  other  words,  it  is  the  royal  "we,"  or  "us." 
This  theory,  however,  is  answered,  as  pointed  out  by  Rev.  H. 
Highton,  by  the  fact  that  the  use  of  what  is  called  the  "royal 
plural"  is  a  modern,  not  an  ancient,  custom;  and  reference  to 
the  usage  of  the  kings  of  the  Bible  discloses  the  fact  that  they 
always  speak  of  themselves  as  "I"  or  "me,"  not  as  "we"  or 
"us."  t 

Modern  Bible  criticism,  usually  denominated  "The  Higher 
Criticism,"  is  to  a  great  extent  — so  far  as  criticism  of  the  five 
books  of  Moses  is  concerned — based  upon  the  exclusive  use  of 
the  plural  Elohim  in  one  section,  and  the  use  of  Jehovah, 
singular,  in  another.  "The  Pentateuch,  therefore, it  is  asserted,  is 
composed  of  two  different  documents,  the  one  Elohistic,  and 
the  other  Jehovistic,  consequently  it  cannot  be  the  work  of  a 
single  author."! 

With  the  various  devices  for  accounting  for  the  use  of 
the  plural  form  Elohim  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Bible,  I  have 
nothing  to  do  here.      They  are  simply  pointed  out  as  showing 


*  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary  (Hackett  edition).  Art.  Jehovah,  Vol. 
2,  p.  1242. 

t  Voice  of  Israel ,  p.  95. 

%  "Vindication  of  Mosaic  Authorship  of  the  Pentateuch"  (Elliott) 
p.  64. 


142  THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY, 

the  wide  recognition  that  is  given  to  the  fact  of  the  use  of  the 
plural  form  Elohim  that  should  be  rendered  in  English  "Gods;" 
and  also  the  perplexity  the  use  of  this  plural  occasions  among 
those  whose  principles  call  upon  them  to  harmonize  its  use  with 
the  belief  in  "One  Only  God."  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  admits  the 
use  of  the  plural  Elohim,  but  undertakes  to  explain  away  the 
force  of  its  use  as  follows: 

Whenever  Elohim  occurs  in  the  Bible,  in  sense  1,  (meaning  the 
True  God)  it  is  employed  with  singular  verbs  and  singular  ad- 
jectives. 

Relative  to  this,  a  friend  *  directs  my  attention  to  Genesis  1 : 
26:  "Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,"  etc.,  which  in  Hebrew  is 
Maach — "we  will  make,"  first  person  plural  future  of  the  verb 
Asah:  betsalmaun — be  "in;"  tselem,  "image;"  Nu,  "our,"  posses- 
sive adjective,  first  person  plural.  So  that  in  Genesis  1:26, 
we  have  a  case  where  Elohim  is  used  in  connection  with  a  plural 
verb  and  also  a  plural  possessive  adjective,  and  Mr,  Van  Der 
Donckt  will  not  say  that  Elohim  does  not,  in  Genesis  1:  26,  re- 
fer to  true  Gods.  Again  in  Genesis  3:  22 — "Man  is  become  as 
one  of  us,"  Mr.  Ramseyer  suggests  that  here,  again,  the  pro- 
noun used  is  in  the  first  person  plural.  I  find  this  view  of  both 
these  passages  sustained  by  Rev.  H.  Highton  in  the  lecture  be- 
fore quoted.     First  he  says: 

The  Hebrew  word  meaning  God,  la  itself  a  plural  word,  implying 
thereby,  as  we  contend,  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead  *  * 
We  find  the  plural  word  Elohim,  or  God,  most  usually,  though  not  always, 
coupled  with  a  singular  verb  or  adjective.  *  *  *  but  lest  from 
the  constant  use  of  the  word  Elohim  with  the  singular  number,  we 
should  be  led  to  suppose  that  God  is  in  no  sense  a  plurality,  it  has 
pleased  him  by  the  inspiration  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  cause  that  it 
should  be  sometimes  used  with  a  plural  verb  or  adjective.     I  will 


Prof.  A.  Ramseyer,  of  the  Latter-day  Saints'  University. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  143 

mention  some  of  the  clearest  passages  in  which  it  is  soused,  that  you 
may  be  enabled  to  refer  to  them  in  the  Hebrew.  You  will  find  it 
used  in  a  plural  verb  in  Genesis  20:  13.  "And  it  came  to  pass,  when 
Gcd  caused  me  to  wander  from  my  father's  house,"  etc.;  and  again  in 
Genesis  35:  7,  "And  he  built  there  an  altar,  and  called  the  place  Kl- 
Bethel:  because  their  God  appeared  unto  him."  And  with  a  plural  ad- 
jective in  Joshua  34:  19,  and  again  in  Deut.  5:  26  (in  the  original 
Hebrew,  5:  23). 

But  we  have  not  merely  the  plural  use  of  the  word  Elohim  to 
mention  in  this  part  of  the  argument;  we  have  some  very  distinct 
passages,  still  more  directly  implying  the  plurality  of  persons.  There 
is  a  very  remarkable  place  of  the  kind  in  Eccle.  12:  1.  where  it  says: 
'Remember  now  thy  Creator  in  the  days  of  thy  youth.''  In  the  original 
Hebrew  the  word  is  in  the  plural,  and  if  translated  literally,  would 
be  "Remember  now  thy  Creators,"  etc.  *  *  *  In  connection  with 
this  expression  of  Solomon  about  man's  Creators,  it  is  a  very  remark- 
able circumstance,  that  in  the  account  of  the  creation  of  man,  given 
by  Moses  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  the  plural  is  also  directly  used,  for 
it  is  there  recorded,  Genesis  1,  26,  ''And  God  said  let  us  make"  etc., 
or  "we  will  make,"  etc.,  so  that  Moses  as  well  as  Solomon  very  em- 
phatically declares  that  the  great  Creator  of  man  consists  of  more 
than  one  person;  for  whom  could  God  have  been  addressing  when  he 
said,  "Let  us  make,"  etc.?  I  know  that  in  order  to  escape  the  obvi- 
ous conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  passage,  it  has  been  asserted 
that  God  was  here  addressing  and  taking  counsel  with  the  angels- 
but  this  explanation  cannot  in  any  degree  bear  the  test  of  an  accu- 
rate examination  of  the  passage;  for  is  there  the  slightest  ground  for 
supposing  that  the  angels  took  any  part  in  the  creation  of  man,  when 
God  said,  "Let  us  make"  ?  or  shall  we  say  that  man  was  made  in  the 
image  and  likeness  of  the  angels,  when  God  said,  "Let  us  make"  etc., 
"in  our  imageV  Surely  not,  for  Moses  expressly  adds,  (v.  27)  "So 
God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him, 
male  and  female  created  he  them."  But  there  are  some  other  passages 
which  we  ought  to  examine,  where  God  in  the  same  way  speaks  of 
himself  in  the  plural  number.  Thus  in  Genesis  3:  22,  "And  the 
Lord  God  said,  "Behold  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us,  to  know  good 


144  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

and  evil;  and  now,  lest  he  put  forth  his  hand  and  take  also  of  the 
tree  of  life,  and  eat  and  live  forever,"  etc.  There  are  no  words  which 
I  know  which  could  more  distinctly  assert  the  Dlurality  of  persons  in 
God  than  these,  where  he  says  "one  of  us."  M.  Leeser,  of  Philadel- 
phia, the  editor  of  the  Occident,  which  is  the  American  Jewish  maga- 
zine, in  his  sermon  on  the  Messiah,  explains  this  passage  as  spoken 
to  the  angels — "one  of  us,"  meaning  himself  and  the  angels; — but 
never  can  I  believe  that  the  Great  Everlasting  Creator  could  thus 
put  himself  on  a  level  with  the  created  angels,  and  say  "one  of  us,'' 
*  *  *  he  would  either  have  said  to  the  angels,  "Behold,  man  has 
become  as  one  of  you,"  or  else  have  said,  "Behold,  the  man  has  be- 
come like  me,  to  know  good  and  evil." 

This  view  of  Genesis  1 :  26  is  also  maintained  by  Prof.  W.  H. 
Chamberlin,  of  Brigham  Young  College,  Logan,  Utah,  in  the 
Era  for  November,  1902.  He  says:  That  Elohim  was  used  in 
the  plural  sense  is  shown  in  the  twenty-sixth  verse,  where  the 
Elohim,  in  referring  to  themselves  use  the  plural  suflix  Nu 
"our,"  twice,  and  they  also  use  the  plural  form  of  the  verb 
Naaseh,  "  let  us  make."  The  Professor  also  adds  the  illustra- 
tion of  Genesis  11:  7:  where  Nerdhah,  "let  us  descend,"  and 
Nabhlah,  "let  us  confuse,"  two  verbs  in  the  plural,  proceed 
from  the  mouth  of  God.* 

In  the  light  of  these  facts,  the  statement  of  Mr.  V.  that 
whenever  Elohim  occurs  in  the  Bible,  as  meaning  the  true  God, 
it  is  employed  with  singular  verbs  and  singular  adjectives, 
seems  to  have  been  made  without  that  careful  consideration 
which  the  importance  of  the  declaration  required.  The  facts 
adduced  in  the  foregoing  stand  also  against  Mr.  V's  contention 
that  whenever  the  plural  "gods"  occurs  in  Holy  Writ,  it  applies 


*  I  commend  Professor  Chamberlin's  whole  article  to  the  reader 
as  most  worthy  of  his  attention  at  this  point;  and  personally,  I  wish 
to  thank  the  Professor  for  it  as  a  most  timely  contribution  to  the 
controversy.     The  whole  article  is  published  in  Chapter  v. 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  145 

only  "to  false  gods  and  idols;"  or  "to  representatives  of  God, 
such  as  angels,  judges,  kings."  They  were  not  false  gods  nor 
representatives  of  God  merely,  who  said:  "Let  us  make  man  in 
our  image"  (Genesis  i:  26);  nor  false  gods,  or  mere  representa- 
tives of  God  merely,  who  said:  "The  man  has  become  as  one  of 
us"  (Genesis  2:7);  and  so  also  with  other  passages  in  the  quo- 
tation from  Rev,  Highton's  lecture. 

Here  it  may  be  as  well  to  note  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Van 
Der  Donckt  with  reference  to  the  "Mormon"  Church  leaders' 
knowledge  of  Hebrew.  The  Rev.  gentleman  is  of  the  opinion 
that, 

Had  the  "Mormon"  Church  leaders  known  Hebrew,  the  original 
language  of  the  book  of  Moses  and  nearly  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, they  would  not  have  been  guilty  of  the  outrageous  blunders 
of  the  Pearl  of  Great  Price  and  of  the  Catechism. 

Mr.  V.  then  quotes  from  our  Catechism  the  account  of  the 
creation  taken  from  the  Pearl  of  Great  Price,  in  which  the  plural 
"Gods"  is  used  instead  of  the  singular  form  "God."  It  is  prob- 
able that  the  "Mormon"  Church  leaders  were  better  acquainted 
with  Hebrew  than  Mr.  V.  gives  them  credit  for.  A  number  of 
years  ago  (1870)  a  certain  chaplain  of  the  United  States  Senate 
presumed  not  a  little  on  the  ignorance  of  a  "Mormon"  Church 
leader — Elder  Orson  Pratt — respecting  Hebrew,  and  ventured, 
in  the  notable  debate  held  by  them  in  the  "Mormon"  Tabernacle, 
at  Salt  Lake  City,  to  parade  the  few  Hebrew  stem-words,  and 
their  derivatives,  which  he  had  conned  with  care  before  leaving 
Washington,  with  a  view  of  making  them  effective  in  support 
of  the  marginal  reading  of  Leviticus  18  and  18  in  our  common 
English  version.  To  the  chaplain's  surprise,  the  "Mormon'' 
apostle  was  able  to  follow  him  in  the  discussion  of  ihe  original 
Hebrew  text,  and  demonstrated  that  he  had  a  knowledge  of 
Hebrew  which  made  his  opponent's  special  preparation  of  a  few 
Hebrew  words  and  passages  look  very  much  like  a  cheap  bid  for 


146  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

a  reputation  for  learning,  which  the  chaplain's  knowledge  of 
Hebrew,  at  least,  did  not  warrant.  Nor  is  that  all  the  story. 
Elder  Pratt — having  observed  the  stress  which  the  chaplain  had 
laid  upon  the  marginal  rendering  of  Leviticus  18:  18,  in  a 
discourse  delivered  in  Washington,  D.  C,  before  President 
Grant,  members  of  his  cabinet,  and  members  of  Congress — to 
call  Dr.  Newman  out,  to  give  him  confidence  to  introduce  his 
defense  of  the  marginal  rendering  of  the  passage  in  the  debate 
at  Salt  Lake  City— Elder  Pratt  quoted  the  marginal  reading  of 
an  unimportant  passage,  and  thu3  invited  the  discussion  of  the 
text  in  the  Hebrew,  The  Elder's  bait  took,  the  discussion 
largely  turned,  after  that,  upon  the  text  in  question,  much  to 
the  chagrin  of  the  Senate's  chaplain;  and  Leviticus  18:  18  has 
been  somewhat  historical  hereabouts,  and  in  Washington,  ever 
since. 

But  how  came  Orson  Pratt  acquainted  with  Hebrew?  The 
fact  is,  that  in  the  winter  of  1835-6  a  school  of  languages  was 
established  by  the  Church,  at  Kirtland,  which  many  of  the  lead- 
ing Elders  of  the  Church  attended,  Joseph  Smith  and  Orson 
Pratt  being  among  the  number;  and  Professor  Joshua  Seixas,  of 
Hudson,  Ohio,  was  employed  as  teacher.  The  Elders  were  en- 
thusiastic in  their  study  of  Hebrew,  and  after  Prof.  Seixas'  term 
as  teacher  had  expired,  the  class  was  continued  with  Joseph 
S.mith  as  instructor,  Orson  Pratt  continuing  in  attendance  on 
the  school.  The  "Mormon"  Church  leaders,  I  repeat,  were  bet- 
ter acquainted  with  Hebrew  than  Mr  Van  Der  Donckt  gives 
them  credit  for;  besides,  the  blunders  which  Mr.  Van  Der 
Donckt  has  made  in  his  assertions  concerning  the  use  of  the 
plural  Elohim,  in  the  Old  Testament,  makes  it  rather  clear 
that  he  is  scarcely  competent  to  be  a  judge  of  anybody's 
Hebrew.  Moreover,  the  passage  he  quotes  from  our  Catechism, 
where,  in  the  account  of  creation,  the  plural  "Gods"  is  used,  is 
not  a  quotation  from  the  Bible  at  all;  but  a  translation  from  a 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  147 

record  called  the  "Book  of  Abraham,"  which  came  into  the 
hands  of  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  from  the  catacombs  of 
Egypt.  So  that  Mr.  V's  attempted  criticism  of  what  he  ev- 
idently takes  to  be  extracts  of  translations  from  parts  of  the 
Bible,  is  not  in  point  at  all,  since  they  are  translated  extracts 
from  a  book  that  forms  no  part  of  the  Bible.  And  is  it  not  ev- 
ident throughout  that  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  has  rushf^d  into  the 
discussion  without  being  sufficiently  informed  concerning  the 
doctrines  upon  which  he  undertakes  to  animadvert? 

Of  the  Father  Alone,  Being  God. 

Referring  to  the  admission  in  my  discourse  that  concep- 
tions of  God,  to  be  true,  must  be  in  harmony  with  the  New 
Testament,  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  proceeds  to  quote  passages 
from  the  New  Testament,  in  support  of  the  idea  that  there  is 
but  one  God: 

One  is  good,  God  (Matt.  19:  17),  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  (Luke  10:  27).  My  Father  of  whom  you  say  that  he  is  your 
God  (John  8:  54).  Here  Christ  testified  that  the  Jews  believed 
in  only  one  God. 

The  Lord  is  a  God  of  all  knowledge  (I  Kings  2).  ("Mormon' 
Catechism  V.  Q.  10  and  2.  11). 

Of  that  day  and  hour  no  one  knoweth,  no  not  the  angels  of 
heaven,  but  the  Father  alone  (Matthew  24;  36). 

No  one  knoweth  who  the  Son  is  but  the  Father  (Luke  10:  22). 

Therefore,  no  one  is  God  but  one,  the  Heavenly  Father. 

In  another  form:  the  All-knowing  alone  is  God.  The  Father 
alone  is  all-knowing.     Therefore,  the  Father  alone  is  God. 

In  the  conclusion  of  the  syllogism,  "Therefore,  the  Father 
alone  is  God,  Mr.  V.  himself  seems  to  have  become  suddenly  con- 
scious of  having  stumbled  upon  a  difficulty  which  he  ineffect- 
ually seeks  to  remove  in  a  foot  note.  If  it  be  true,  as  Mr.  V. 
asserts  it   is,   that  the  Father  alone  is   God,    then  it   must 


148  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

follow  that  the  Son  of  God,  Jesus  Christ,  is  not  God;  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  not  God!  Yet  the  New  Testament,  in  represent- 
ing the  Father  as  addressing  Jesus,  says — "Thy  throne,  0  God, 
is  forever  and  forever"  (Heb.  1:  8).  Here  is  the  positive  word 
of  the  Father  chat  Jesus,  the  Son,  is  God;  for  he  addresses  him 
as  such.  To  say,  then,  that  the  father  alone  is  God,  is  to 
contradict  the  Father.  Slightly  paraphrasing  the  rather  stern 
language  of  Mr.  V.,  I  might  ask:  If  God  the  Father  so  emphat- 
ically declares  that  Jesus  is  God,  has  any  one  the  right  to  con- 
tradict him  by  affirming  that  the  Father  alone  is  God?  But 
Mr.  V.  insists  that  the  Bible  contradicts  the  Bible;  in  other 
words,  that  God,  the  author  of  the  Bible,  contradicts  himself: 
"To  say  such  a  thing,  is  downright  blasphemy!"  But  Mr.  V. 
will  say  he  has  explained  all  that  in  his  foot  note.  Has  he? 
Let  us  see.  "Therefore  the  Father  alone  is  God,"  is  the  con- 
clusion of  his  syllogism;  and  the  foot  note — "To  the  exclusion 
of  another  or  separate  divine  being,  but  not  to  the  denial  of  the 
distinct  divine  personalities  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
the  One  Divine  Being."  But  that  is  the  mere  assumption  of 
my  Catholic  friend.  When  he  says  that  the  Father  alone 
is  God,  it  must  be  to  the  exclusion  of  every  other  being,  or 
part"  of  being,  or  person,  and  everything  else,  or  language  means 
nothing.  Mr.  V's  foot  note  helps  him  out  of  his  difficulty  not 
at  all. 

The  creed  to  which  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  subscribes — the 
Athanasian — says:  "So  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  God."  Now,  if  the  quality  of  "all-knowing" 
is  essential  to  the  attributes  of  true  Deity,  then  Jesus  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  must  be  all-knowing,  or  else  not  true  deity. 

But  what  of  the  difficulty  presented  by  Mr.  V's  conten- 
tion: "The  All-knowing  alone  is  God,  the  Father  alone  is  All- 
knowing,  therefore,  the  Father  alone  is  God?"  Mr.  V.  con- 
structs this  mighty  syllogism  upon  a  very  precarious  basis.     It 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  149 

reminds  one  of  a  pyramid  standing  on  its  apex.  He  starts 
with  the  premise  that  "The  Lord  is  a  God  of  all  knowledge:" 
then  he  discovers  that  there  is  one  thing  that  Jesus,  the  Son  of 
God  does  not  know — the  day  and  hour  when  Jesus  will  come  to 
earth  in  his  glory — "Of  that  day  and  hour  no  oneknoweth;  no, 
not  the  angels  of  heaven,  but  the  Father  alone  (Matt  24:  36) — 
therefore,  the  Father  alone  is  God!"  In  consideration  of  facts 
such  as  are  included  in  Mr.  V's  middle  term,  one  is  bound,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  to  take  into  account  time,  place  and  cir- 
cumstances. In  the  case  in  question,  the  Twelve  disciples  had 
come  to  Jesus,  and  among  oiher  questions  asked  him  what 
should  be  the  sign  cf  his  own  glorious  coming  to  earth  again. 
The  Master  told  them  the  signs,  but  said  of  the  day  and  hour 
of  that  coming  no  one  knew,  but  his  Father  only.  Hence, 
Jesus  did  not  know,  hence  Jesus  did  not  possess  all  knowledge, 
hence,  according  to  Mr.  V.,  Jesus  was  not  God!  But  Jesus  was 
referring  to  the  state  of  matters  at  the  particular  time  when  he 
was  speaking;  and  it  does  not  follow  that  the  Father  would  ex- 
clude his  Son  Jesus  forever,  or  for  any  considerable  time,  from 
the  knowledge  of  the  time  of  the  glorious  advent  of  the  Son  of 
God  to  the  earth.  As  Jesus  rose  to  the  possession  of  all  power 
"in  heaven  and  in  earth"  (Matt.  28:  18),  so  also,  doubtless, 
he  rose  to  the  possession  of  all  knowledge  in  heaven  and  in 
earth;  "For  the  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  showeth  him  all 
things  that  he  himself  doeth"  (John  5:  20),  and,  in  sharing  with 
the  Son  his  power,  and  his  purposes,  would  doubtless  make 
known  to  him  the  day  and  hour  of  the  glorious  advent  of 
Christ  to  the  earth. 

Of  the    Oneness  of  the   Father,    Son   and   Holy   Ghost.     Is  it 
Physical  Identity? 

I  next  consider  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt's  argument  concern- 
ing the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  being  "the  same 


l60  THE   "mormon"   doctrine    OF  DEITY. 

identical  Divine  Essence."  Mr.  V.  bases  this  part  of  his  argu- 
ment on  the  words  of  Messiah  —  "I  and  my  Father  are  one 
(John  10:  30);  and  claims  that  here  "Christ  asserts  his  physical, 
not  merely  moral,  union  with  the  Father."  He  holds  also  that 
in  the  Latin  translation  of  the  words  of  Jesus  is  better  exhibited 
the  construction  he  contends  for:  hence,  I  give  the  Latin  and 
his  remarks  upon  it,  that  we  may  have  his  contention  before  us 
at  its  very  best.  Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus — I  and  my  Father 
are  one. 

"If  Christ  had  meant  one  in  mind  or  one  morally  and  not  substan- 
tially, he  would  have  used  the  masculine  gender,  Greek  eis,  (unus) — 
and  not  the  neuter  en,  (unum) — as  he  did.  No  better  interpreters  of 
our  Lord's  meaning  can  be  found  than  his  own  hearers.  Had  he  simply 
declared  his  moral  union  with  the  Father,  the  Jews  would  not  have 
taken  up  stones  in  protest  against  him  making  himself  God,  and  as- 
serting his  identity  with  the  Father.  Far  from  retracting  His  state- 
ment or  correcting  the  Jews'  impression,  Jesus  insists  that,as  he  is  the 
Son  of  God  he  had  far  more  right  to  declare  himself  God  than  the 
scripture  had  to  call  mere  human  judges  gods,  and  he  corroborates  his 
affirmation  of  his  physical  unity  with  his  Father  by  saying:  "The 
Father  is  in  me,  and  I  am  in  the  Father,"  which  evidently  signifies 
the  same  as  verse  30:  I  and  the  Father  are  one  and  the  same  individ- 
ual being,  the  One  God. 

It  is  amusing  sometimes  to  observe  how  the  learned  dis- 
agree about  the  meaning  of  words — especially  in  the  languages 
called  dead.  It  must  be  admitted  in  favor  of  Mr,  V's  conten- 
tion that  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  A.  D.  347,  ex- 
pressly scouted  the  opinion  that  the  union  of  the  Father  and 
Son  consisted  in  consent  and  concord  only,  and  apprehended  the 
oneness  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  to  be  a  strict  unity  of  sub- 
stance;* still,  before  that  time,  a  number  of  the  so-called  Chris- 
tian Fathers,  some  among  the  most  influential,  too,  held  to  a 


Theodoret,  Book  II,  Chap.  8. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OP  DEITY.  151 

contrary  opinion,  as  the  following  from  Dr.  Priestley's  History 
of  the  Corruptions  of  Christianity,  with  the  accompanying  refer- 
ences to  the  works  of  the  Christian  Fathers  themselves, 
will  show: 

Notwithstanding  the  supposed  derivation  of  the  Son  from  the 
Father,  and  therefore  their  being  of  the  same  substance,  most  of  the 
early  Christian  writers  thought  the  text,  "I  and  my  Father  are  one," 
was  to  be  understood  of  an  unity  or  harmony  of  disposition  only. 
Thus  Tertullian*  observes,  that  the  expression  is  unum,  one  thing,  not 
one  person;  and  he  explains  it  to  mean  unity,  likeness,  conjunction, 
and  of  the  love  that  the  Father  bore  to  the  Son.  Origen  says,  let 
him  consider  the  text,  "All  that  believe  weie  of  one  [unum]  heart  and  of 
one  [unum]  soul,"  and  then  he  will  understand  this,  "/  and  my  Father 
are  one/'f  [unum].  Novatian  says:  "One  thing  (unum)  being  in  the 
neuter  gender,  signifies  an  agreement  of  society,  not  an  unity  of 
person,  and  he  explains  it  by  this  passage  in  Paul:  "He  that  planteth 
and  he  that  wateretk  are  both  one"  [unum]$. 

Relative  to  Messiah's  hearers  being  the  best  interpreters 
of  our  Lord's  meaning  in  this  case,  I  suggest  that  Mr.  V.  has 
limited  himself  too  exclusively  to  this  one  passage  for  their  in- 
terpretation of  Messiah's  meaning.  Mr.  V's  argument  is  that 
if  Jesus  had  only  declared  his  moral  not  his  physical  union  with 
God,  the  Jews  would  not  have  taken  up  stones  in  protest 
against  his  making  himself  God,  and  asserting  his  identity  with 
the  Father.  Let  us  see.  The  passage  quoted  by  Mr.  V.  is  not 
the  only  one  in  which  Jesus  asserts  his  divinity.  Jesus  healed 
a  man  on  the  Sabbath.  The  Jews  sought  to  slay  him  because  he 
had  done  this  thing  on  the  Sabbath  day.  "But  Jesus  answered 
them,  My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work.  Therefore 
the  Jews  sought  the  more  to  ki  1  him,  because  he  not  only  had 


*  Against  Prexas,  Chap.  22,  p.  513, 
t  Against  Celsum,  Lib.  8,  p.  386. 
t  Ibid,  Chap.  27,  p.  99. 


152  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

broken  the  Sabbath  day,  but  said  also  that  God  was  his  Father, 
making  himself  equal  with  God"  (John  5:15-18).  Observe  that 
this  is  the  same  witness  that  Mr.  V.  quotes— St.  John;  and  the 
offense  for  which  they  seek  to  kill  Jesus  is  not  because  he  as- 
serts his  identity  with  the  Father,  but  because  he  makes  himself 
"equal  with  God."  Hence,  the  argument  of  Mr.  V.,  based  on  the 
assumption  that  Jesus  asserted  not  his  moral  but  his  physical 
union  or  identity  with  God;  and  his  claim  that  the  Jews  would 
not  have  sought  Messiah's  life  but  for  the  reason  that  he 
claimed  physical  identity  with  the  Father,  falls  to  the  ground, 
for  the  reason  that  we  find  that  the  Jews  were  eager  to  kill 
him  for  asserting  not  his  physical  union  with  God,  but  his  equality 
with  God. 

But  I  shall  test  Mr.  V's  exegesis  of  the  passage  in  question 
by  the  examination  of  another  passage  involving  the  same  ideas, 
the  same  expressions;  and  this  in  the  Latin  as  well  as  in  the 
English.     Jesus  prayed  for  his  disciples  as  follows: 

Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name  those  whom  thou 
hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one,  as  we  are.  *  *  *  *  Neither 
pray  I  for  these  [the  disciples]  alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shalj 
believe  on  me  through  their  word;  that  they  all  may  be  one:  *  *  * 
that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one* 

In  Latin,  the  clauses  written  in  Italics  in  the  above,  stand; 
Ut  tint  unum,  sicut  et  nos  (verse  11),  "that  they  may  be  one, 
just  as  we."  So  in  verse  22:  Ut  sint  unum,  sicut  et  nos  unum 
sumus;  "that  they  may  be  one  in  us,  even  as  we  one  are."  Here 
unum,  "one,"  is  used  in  the  same  manner  as  it  is  in  St.  John, 
10:30— "Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus."  "I  and  Father  one  are." 
Mr.  V.  says  that  unum  in  the  last  sentence  means,  one  thing, 
one  essence;  hence,  Christ's  physical  union,  or  identity  of  sub- 
stance, with  the  Father;  not  agreement  of  mind,  or  concord  of 


St.  John  17: 11,  20,  21.22. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  153 

purpose,  or  moral  union.  Very  well,  for  the  moment  let  ua 
adopt  his  exposition,  and  see  where  it  will  lead  us.  If  unum  in 
the  sentence,  Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus,  means  "one  thing,'' 
"one  substance,  or  essence,"  and  denotes  the  physical  union  of 
the  Father  and  Son  in  one  substance,  then  it  means  the  same  in 
the  sentence — ut  sint  unum,  sicut  et  nos;  that  is,  "that  they 
[the  disciples]  may  be  one  [unum]  just  as  we  are."  So  in  the 
other  passage  before  quoted  where  the  same  words  occur. 

Again,  to  Messiah's  statement:  ''Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus^^ 
— ^"I  and  my  Father  are  one." — Mr.  V.  thinks  his  view  of  this 
passage — that  it  asserts  the  identy  or  physical  union  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son— is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  it  is  fol- 
lowed with  these  remarks  of  Jesus:  "The  Father  is  in  me,  and 
I  am  in  the  Father."  "Which  evidently  signifies,"  says  Mr.  V., 
"the  same  as  verse  30  (John  10):  I  and  the  Father  are  one  and 
the  same  individual  being,  the  one  God." 

But  the  passage  from  the  prayer  of  Jesus  concerning 
the  oneness  of  the  disciples  with  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
is  emphasized  by  well-nigh  the  same  words  in  the  context  as 
those  which  occur  in  John  10:30,  and  upon  which  Mr.  V.  lays 
80  much  stress  as  sustaining  his  exposition  of  the  physical 
union,  viz:  "The  Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  him"  (verse  38). 
"Which  evidently  signifies,"  Mr.  V.  remarks,  "the  same  as  verse 
30:  I  and  my  Father  are  one."  Good;  then  listen:  "Holy  Father, 
keep  through  thine  own  name  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me, 
that  they  may  be  one  as  we  are:  *  *  as  thou  Father,  art  in  me, 
and  I  in  thee,  that  they  may  be  one  in  us."  There  can  be  no  doubt 
now  but  what  the  union  between  the  disciples  and  the  Father 
and  Son  is  to  be  of  the  same  nature  as  that  subsisting  between 
the  Father  and  Son.  If  the  Father  and  Son  arephysically  one 
substance  or  essence,  so,  too,  if  the  prayer  of  Jesus  is  to  be 
realized — as  surely  it  will  be — then  the  disciples  are  to  be  phys- 
ically united  with  God,  in  one  essence  or  substance — not  just 

10 


154  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

the  Twelve  disciples,  either,  for  whom  Jesus  immediately  prayed, 
but  those,  also,  in  all  generations  who  shall  believe  on  Christ 
through  the  words  of  his  first  disciples;  that  is,  all  the  faithful 
believers  through  all  generations  are  to  become  physically 
united  with  God,  become  the  same  substance  or  essence  as  God 
himself!  Is  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  prepared  to  accept  the  inevit- 
able conclusion  of  his  own  exposition  of  John  10:30?  If  so, 
then  what  advantage  has  the  Christian  over  the  Hindoo  whom 
he  has  called  a  heathen  for  so  many  generations?  The  sincer- 
est  desire  of  the  Hindoo  is  to  be  "physically  united  with  God,'' 
even  if  that  involve  "a  blowing  out,"  or  the  attainment  of  Nir- 
vana—annihilation—to encompass  it.  Of  course,  we  had  all 
hoped  for  better  things  from  the  Christian  religion.  We  had 
hoped  for  the  immortality  of  the  individual  man;  for  his  persis- 
tence through  the  ages,  as  an  individual  entity,  associated  with 
God  in  loving  converse  and  dearest  relations  of  moral  union;  but 
not  absorbed,  or  lost  in  absolute  physical  union  with  him.  But 
if  Mr.  V's  exposition  of  John  10:30  be  correct,  and  a  physical 
union  is  meant  by  the  words — "I  and  my  Father  are  one,"  then 
all  Christians  are  to  be  made  physically  one  with  God  under  the 
prayer  of  Christ — "That  they  may  be  one,  as  we  are" — i.  e.  as 
the  Father  and  Son  are  one. 

If,  however,  this  doctrine  of  physical  union  should  be  de- 
fended up  to  the  point  of  asserting  the  physical  union  of  all 
Christians  with  each  other  and  with  God — and  my  comparison  of 
this  position  with  that  of  the  heathen  Hindoo  resented,  because 
that  in  the  case  of  the  Christian  after  his  physical  union  with,  or 
absorption  into  God,  God  would  still  remain,  whereas,  with  the 
Hindoo  nothing  would  remain,  for  his  Nirvana  is  but  annihilation 
— I  could  still  ask,  what  is  the  difference?  for  the  terms  that  de- 
scribe the  Nirvana  of  the  Hindoo  describe  also  the  God  of  the 
Christian.  "Nirvana  is  represented  as  something  which  has  no 
antecedent  cause,  no  qualities,  no  locality.     It  is  something  of 


THE  "mormon"   doctrine   OF  DEITY,  155 

which  the  utmost  we  may  as=?ert  is,  "'that  it  is.'"*  In  all  of 
which  one  may  see  Mr.  V's  "That  which  is;"  "I  Am  who  Am;" 
"Infiiite  Being;"  God,  "most  simple,  or  not  compound" — whose 
"essence  is  actual  being  or  existence." 

My  point  is,  that  the  text,  "I  and  ray  Father  are  one,"  re- 
fers to  a  moral  union — to  a  perfect  union  of  purpose  and  will — 
not  to  a  unity  or  identity  of  substance,  or  essence:  and  any 
other  view  than  this  is  shown  from  the  argument  to  be  absurd. 

But  Mr.  Van  Der  Donckt  would  cry  out  against  the  phys- 
ical union  of  man  with  God.  Both  his  interpretation  of  scrip- 
ture and  his  philosophy — especially  the  latter — would  require 
it.  Man  and  God,  in  bis  philosophy,  are  not  of  the  same  nature. 
God  is  not  physical,  while  man  is.  God  is  not  material,  but 
spiritual,  that  is,  according  to  Mr.  V.,  immaterial,  while  man  is 
material.  Man  is  finite,  Giid  infinite;  nothing  can  be  added  to 
the  infinite,  therefore,  man  cannot  be  added  to  the  infinite  in 
physical  union.  "The  nature  of  the  pares  would  cling  to  the 
whole,"  and  the  infinity  of  God  would  be  marred  by  the  phys- 
ical union  of  finite  parts  to  him;  hence,  the  onent^ss  of  Christ- 
ians with  Christ  and  God  the  Father  is  not  a  physical  oneness. 
But  if  the  union  of  the  Christians  with  Christ  and  God  is  not  to 
be  physical,  then  neither  is  the  union  of  Christ  and  God  the 
Father  physical,  for  the  oneness  in  the  one  case,  is  to  be  the 
same  as  the  oneness  in  the  other — "that  they  all  may  be  one; 
as  thou  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  may  also  be 
one  in  us  *  *  *  *  that  they  may  be  one  even  as  we  are 
one  (John  17:  21,  22). 

The  doctrine  of  physical  union  between  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  contended  for  by  Mr.  V.,  must  be  abandoned.  There  is  no 
help  for  it,  unless  he  is  prepared  to  admit  also  the  physical 
union  of  all  the  disciples  with  God — a  thing  most  repugnant  to 


Max  MuUer,  "Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,"  vol.  I,  p.  285. 


156  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

Mr,  V's  principles.  With  the  doctrine  of  physical  identity  gone, 
the  "oneness"  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  that  Mr.  V.  contends 
for,  goes  also,  and  two  separate  and  distinct  personalities,  or 
Gods,  ate  seen,  in  the  Father  and  the  Son,  whose  oneness  con- 
sists not  of  physical  identity,  but  of  agreement  of  mind,  concord 
of  will,  and  unity  of  purpose;  a  oneness  born  of  perfect  knowl- 
edge, equality  of  power  and  dominion.  But  if  a  perfect  one- 
ness, as  above  set  forth,  may  subsist  between  two  persons,  it 
may  subsist  with  equal  consistency  among  any  number  of  per- 
sons capable  of  attaining  to  the  same  degree  of  intelligence 
and  power,  and  thus  there  would  appear  some  reason  for  the 
prayer  of  Christ,  that  all  his  disciples  might  be  one,  even 
as  he  and  the  Father  are  one.  And  thus  one  may  account 
for  the  saying  of  David:  "God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of 
the  mighty:  he  judgeth  among  the  Gods"  (Psalm  82:  1);  for 
such  congregations  existed  in  heaven  before  the  foundations  of 
the  earth  were  laid;  and  such  a  congregation  may  yet  be  made 
up  of  the  redeemed  from  our  own  earth,  when  attaining  to  per- 
fect union  with  God  and  Christ. 

Of  The  Lord  Our  God  Being  One  God. 

But  I  shall  be  asked  how  all  this  is  to  be  reconciled  with  the 
scriptures  quoted  by  Mr.  V.,  and  relied  upon  as  the  basis  of  his 
argument  in  this  part  of  the  discussion — "Hear,  0  Israel;  The 
Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord"  (Deut.  6:4);  and  "I  alone  am,  and 
there  is  no  other  God  beside  me"  (Deut.  32:  39);  and, also  com- 
ing to  the  New  Testament,  "There  is  none  good  but  one,  that 
is  God"  (Matt.  19:  17). 

The  whole  apparent  difficulty  is  explained  by  Paul,  who,  I 
think,  will  be  accepted  as  a  remarkably  good  theologian.  He 
says:  "For  though  there  be  that  are  called  Gods,  whether  in 
heaven  or  in  earth  (as  there  be  Gods  many  and  Lords  many), 
but  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father"  (I  Cor.  8:  5,  6).  That 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF   DEITY.  157 

is,  "pertaining  to  us"  as  Joseph  Smith  explains,  "there  is  but  one 
God."  Ah,  but  Mr.  V.  has  explained  all  that,  and  destroyed 
all  the  force  of  "Mormon"  argument,  based  upon  this  Corinth- 
ian letter  passage,  by  saying  that  "a  man  must  not  be  a  lawyer 
to  know  that  the  fact  that  not  a  few  quacks  and  clowns  are 
called  doctors  does  not  make  them  such;"  and  then  follows  this 
— "Neither  Christ  nor  Paul  say  that  they  are  or  were  Gods,  but 
simply  that  they  were  called  Gods!" 

One  wonders  at  this,  when  he  takes  into  account  the  evi- 
dent carefulness  of  Mr.  V.  as  a  writer.  Jesus,  whom  he  quotes 
as  saying,  the  beings  referred  to  as  Gods  are  but  called  Gods, 
not  that  they  are  so,  really  fails  to  give  due  weight  to  the 
Psalm  which  Jesus  qotes:  "I  have  said  ye  are  Gods,  and  all  of 
you  are  children  of  the  Most  High"  (Psalm  82:  6).  Of  this 
scripture,  Jesus  says:  "Is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said,  ye 
are  Gods,"  and  he  quotes  with  evident  approval  these  inspired 
words  of  David,  for  he  adds — "the  scripture  cannot  he  broken" 
(John  10:  33);  that  is,  the  scripture  of  David  saying,  "ye  are 
Gods,"  is  true,  it  cannot  be  gainsaid.  Nor  is  this  indorsement 
of  David's  utterance  weakened  by  the  subsequent  remark  of 
Jesus,  "If  he  called  them  Gods  unto  unto  whom  the  word  of 
God  came,"  etc.;  for,  when  considered  in  the  light  of  all  the 
Psalmist  said,  and  all  that  Jesus  said,  the  "called  them  Gods" 
by  no  manner  of  means  signifies  that  they  were  not  Gods. 
David  said,  "ye  are  Gods,  and  all  of  you  are  children  of  the  Most 
High"  (Psalm  82:  6).  The  Jews  accused  Jesus  of  blasphemy, 
because  he  had  said  he  was  the  son  of  God  (John  10:  36);  in 
defense,  Jesus  quoted  the  passage  from  the  Psalms  where  it  is 
said  of  men,  "ye  are  Gods;  and  all  of  you  are  children  of  the 
Most  High" — as  showing  that  he  was  but  claiming  for  himself 
the  relationship  that  in  the  law  of  the  Jews  was  accorded  to 
men — sons  of  God,  children  of  the  Most  High,  and  hence,  he 
was  not  a  blasphemer.  In  other  words,  if  the  Psalmist  could  say 


158  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

to  those  he  addressed,  "all  of  you  are  children  of  the  Most 
High,"  why  should  he,  the  Christ,  be  considered  a  blasphemer 
because  he  called  himself  the  Son  of  God? 

Surely,  also,  the  gentleman  has  overlooked  Paul's  very 
emphatic  declaration  in  the  parenthetical  part  of  the  Sentence 
he  quotes:  viz.,  "There  be  Gods  many  and  Lords  many;  yet  to 
us  there  is  but  one  God." 

Now,  consider  with  this  explanation  of  Paul's  the  following: 

"Hear,  0,  Israel:  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord."— Ifoses. 

"The  head  of  the  Gods  appointed  one  God  for  us." — Joseph 
Smith* 

"He  [Aaron]  shall  be  to  thee  instead  of  a  mouth,  and  thou 
shalt  be  to  him  instead  of  God." — The  Lord  to  Moses  (Exodus 
4:  16). 

"See,  I  have  made  thee  a  God  unto  Pharaoh."^ — The  Lord 
unto  Moses  (Exodus  7:  1). 

"I  believe  those  Gods  that  God  reveals  as  Gods,  to  be  sons 
of  God,  and  all  can  cry  'Abba,  Father.' " — Joseph  Smith.f 

It  is  evident  from  the  above  passages  (Exodus  4:  16,  and 
Exodus  7:  1)  that  God  does  appoint  men  to  be  Gods,  even  in 
this  world.  Why  then  should  it  be  considered  error  to  believe 
that  from  "the  congregation  of  the  Mighty,"  where  "God 
judgeth  among  the  Gods"  (Psalm  82:  1),  there  should  be  ap- 
pointed One  who  should  be  our  God?  And  is  it  strange  that 
from  henceforth,  the  true  servants  of  God  should  stand  up  for 
the  dignity  and  honor  and  exclusiveness  of  the  power  and 
authority  of  that  One  God  over  this  earth  against  the  claims, 
and  to  the  exclusion  of  all  gods  and  powers,  that  men  in  their 
vain  imaginings  set  up  against  this  God  of  heaven  and  earth, 


*  From  discourse  delivered  10th  June,  1844.    Mill.  Star,  vol.  24, 
p.  108  et  seq. 

t  Sixteenth  of  June  sermon,  1844.    Mill.  Star,  vol.  24,  p.  140. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  159 

as  did  Moses,  Paul  and  Joseph  Smith?  No  wonder  that  Moses 
sent  ringing  down  through  the  centuries  that  clarion  sentence: 
"Hear,  0  Israel,  Our  God  is  one  Lord;"  that  the  Hebrew  race 
stood  as  the  witness  of  that  one  God,  and  fashioned  their 
nomenclature  accordingly;  or  that  Paul  said,  "Though  there  be 
that  are  called  Gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  in  earth — as  thei'e  be 
Gods  many,  and  L  ords  many — but  to  us  there  is  but  one  God ;" 
or  that  Joseph  Smith,  in  the  Dispensation  of  the  Fullness  of 
Times,  should  take  up  thp  same  refrain  as  these  ancient  servants 
of  God,  and  say,  "Pertaining  to  us,  there  is  but  one  God;" 
"Those  Gods  whom  God  reveals  as  Gods,  are  sons  of  God,  and 
all  can  cry  Abba,  Father!" 

Of  Our  Revelations  From  God  Being  Local. 

I  suggest,  as  a  further  evidence,  that  the  view  here 
presented  concerning  our  God,  and  the  assertion  of  his  oneness, 
that  the  revelations  in  the  Bible  are  revelations,  in  the  main, 
concerning  our  earth  and  the  heavens  pertaining  to  it;  that 
these  revelations  do  not  attempt  to  deal  with  or  furnish  an 
explanation  of  conditions  that  obtain  throughout  the  universe; 
that  they  do  not  attempt  to  give  us  any  explicit  information 
concerning  conditions  in  the  constellations  of  the  Pleiades,  Orion, 
Cassiopeia,  or  Ursa  Major,  to  say  nothing  of  those  galaxies  of 
worlds  which  lie  beyond  the  vision  of  men,  even  when  aided  by  the 
mightiest  telescope.  In  other  words,  the  revelations  of  the  Bible 
are,  in  the  main,  local;*  it  is  only  here  and  there  that  a  glimpse 


*  In  support  of  this  view  I  may  here  quote  the  Prophet  Joseph 
Smith.  "Everlasting  covenant  was  made  between  three  personages 
before  the  organization  of  this  earth,  and  relates  to  their  dispensation 
of  things  to  men  on  the  earth:  these  personages,  according  to  Abra- 
ham's record,  are  called  God  the  first,  the  Creator;  God  the  second, 
the  Redeemer;  and  God  the  third,  the  witness  or  Testator"  (See 
Richards'  and  Little's  I'ompendium,  Gems,  289). 


160  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

of  things  is  given  outside  of  our  heaven  and  our  earth.  That 
being  the  case,  the  revelation  of  God  to  the  Hebrew  race  was 
made  in  a  nomenclature  accordant  with  the  facts  to  be  ex- 
pressed, hence — "Hear,  0,  Israel:  our  God  is  one  Lord."  This 
idea  is  emphasized  in  the  Book  of  Moses,  found  in  the  Pearl  of 
Great  Price.  The  Lord  revealed  to  Joseph  Smith  some  of  the 
writings  of  Moses  in  which  the  Hebrew  prophet  makes  known 
the  source  of  his  knowledge  concerning  the  creations  of  God,  but 
it  was  concerning  our  earth  and  its  heavens  of  which  Moses  was 
commanded  to  write: 

Worlds  without  number  have  I  created,  *  *  *  jjy^ 
only  an  account  of  this  earth,  and  the  inhabitants  thereof,  give  I 
unto  you.  For  behold,  there  are  many  worlds  that  have  passed  away 
by  the  word  of  my  power.  And  there  are  many  that  now  stand,  and 
innumerable  are  they  unto  man;  but  all  things  are  numbered  unto 
me,  for  they  are  mine,  and  I  know  them.  And  it  came  to  pass  that 
Moses  spake  unto  th  Lord,  saying:  Be  merciful  unto  thy  servant,  0 
God,  and  tell  me  concerning  this  earth,  and  the  inhabitants  thereof, 
and  also  the  heavens,  and  then  thy  servant  will  be  content.  And  the 
Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying:  The  heavens,  they  are  many, 
and  cannot  be  numbered  unto  man;  but  they  are  numbered  unto 
me,  for  they  are  mine.  -x-  *  *  ^jjj  jjq^^  Moses,  my 
son,  I  will  speak  unto  thee  concerning  this  earth  upon  which  thou 
standest;  and  thou  shalt  write  the  things  which  I  shall  speak. 

And  again  the  Lord  said  to  Moses: 

And  it  came  to  pass  that  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying: 
Behold,  I  will  reveal  unto  you  concerning  this  heaven,  and  this  earth; 
write  the  words  which  I  speak. 

So  far  as  the  Hebrews  were  concerned,  however,  they  per- 
mitted the  truth  of  the  one  God  idea  committed  to  them  to  de- 
generate into  mere  superstition.  Through  race  pride,  and  vain 
glory  in  their  guardianship  of  the  name  of  the  one  God,  they 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  161 

hedged  it  about  with  such  secrecy  and  superstition  that,  under 
the  pretext  of  not  using  the  name  of  God  in  vain,  they  prohibited 
its  pronounciation  except  by  the  High  Priest  (and  he  was  to 
pronounce  it  but  once  a  year,  and  that  on  the  day  of  Atonement, 
when  he  entered  the  Holy  of  Holies);  finally  they  lost  the  true 
pronunciation  of  the  name  entirely.  The  historian  of  the 
Jews,  Josephus,  when  writing  the  antiquities  of  his  people  for 
the  information  of  the  Gentiles,  stated  that  it  was  not  lawful 
for  him,  though  a  priest,  to  utter  it.*  It  is  a  singular  fact,  but 
abundantly  demonstrated  in  the  history  alike  of  individuals  and 
nations,  that  when  the  adversary  of  men's  souls  fails  in  keeping 
the  truth  from  mankind,  he  seeks  to  destroy  the  effect  of  that 
truth  by  converting  it  into  a  mere  human  superstition.  The 
late  Erastus  Snow,  an  Elder  in  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter-day  Saints,  used  to  present  this  truth  by  a  very  effective 
figure.  Addressing  himself  to  a  congregation  that  had  been 
carried  into  some  excesses  of  superstitious  observances,  he  said: 
"We  will  suppose  that  drawn  immediately  in  front  of  you  is  the 
line  of  your  exact  duty.  Satan  will  make  every  effort  to  hold 
you  back  from  that  line.  When  he  discovers  that  it  is 
impossible  to  hold  you  back,  his  next  effort  will  be  to  push 
you  as  far  beyond  it  as  possible;  and,  being  forced  beyond  the  line 
of  duty  into  superstitious  observances,  is  liable  to  get  you 
into  as  much  difficulty  as  being  held  back  from  toeing  it 
squarely." 

Such  was  the  case  with  the  Jews,  with  reference  to  their 
being  made  witnesses  of  the  one  God  idea  for  our  earth. 
When  Lucifer   could  no  longer  blind  their  eyes  by  the  false 


*  Smith's  "Dictionary  of  the  Bible"  (Hackett  Edition),  vol.  2, 
art  Jehovah.  Also  Antiquities  of  the  Jews  (Josephus),  book  2, 
chap.  12. 


162  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

polytheism  of  the  pagan  world,  he  rushed  them  over  the  line 
of  the  truth  to  the  other  extreme — into  the  superstitions 
that  have  gathered  about  monotheism,  until  finally,  through 
such  teachers  as  Aristobulus  (150  B.  C.)  and  Philo  (con- 
tempory  with  Messiah),  they  were  brought  to  accept  many 
of  the  vagaries  of  the  Grecian  pagan  philosophy,  which,  after- 
wards, as  we  have  seen,  were  engrafted  into  the  Christian 
theology. 

Of  God  being  One  in  the  Generic  Sense. 

There  is  also  another  sense  in  which  the  "Oneness"  of  God 
may  be  apprehended;  and  yet  be  in  harmony  with  the  doctrines 
contended  for  in  this  "Rejoinder,"  and  the  discourse  it  defends. 
I  have  already  stated  the  doctrines  of  the  ('hurch  of  Christ 
respecting  the  immortality  of  the  ego,  the  intelligence  of  man; 
saying  that  it  is  self-existent,  uncreated,  and  as  eternal  as  God 
is;  indeed,  it  is  the  divine  in  man,  it  is  part  of  the  Eternal;  and 
now  the  time  has  come  to  say  something  further  in  reference 
to  this  matter.  I  find  a  word  on  the  subject  fitly  spoken  by  the 
late  Orson  Pratt,  in  a  discourse  delivered  in  1855,  in  Salt 
Lake  City.     He  said: 

There  is  one  revelation  that  this  people  are  not  generally 
acquainted  with.  I  think  it  has  never  been  published,  but  probably 
it  will  be  in  the  Church  History.  It  is  given  in  questions  and  answers. 
The  first  question  is,  "What  is  the  name  of  God  in  the  pure  language?" 
The  answer  says,  "Ahraan."  "What  is  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God?" 
Answer,  "Son  Ahman,  the  greatest  of  all  the  parts  of  God,  excepting 
Ahman."  "What  is  the  name  of  men?"  "Sons  Ahman,"  is  the 
answer.  "What  is  the  name  of  angels  in  the  pure  language?" 
"Anglo-man."  The  revelation  goes  an  to  say  that  Sons  Ahman  are 
the  greatest  of  all  the  parts  of  God  excepting  Son  Ahman,  and 
Ahman,  and  that  Anglo-man  are  the  greatest  of  all  the  parts  of  God 
excepting  Sons  Ahman,  Son  Ahman  and  Ahman,  showing  that  the 


THE   "mormon"    doctrine   OF   DEITY.  163 

angels  are  a  little  lower  than  man.*  Vfhat  is  the  conclusion  to  be 
drawn  from  this?  It  is  that  these  intelligent  beings  are  all  parts 
of  God.t 

This,  it  will  be  said,  is  a  bold  doctrine;  and  indeed  it  is  bold. 
I  love  it  for  its  boldness,  but  not  so  much  for  that,  as  for  the 
reason  that  it  is  true.  It  is  in  harmony  with  another  revelation 
given  through  Joseph  Smith,  wherein  it  is  said: 

Man  was  also  [as  well  as  Jesus]  in  the  beginning  with  God.     Intel- 
ligence, or  the  light  of  truth,  was  not  created  or  made,  neither  indeed 


*  It  may  be  thought,  at  the  first  reading  of  this  statement,  "the 
angels  are  a  little  lower  than  man,"  is  in  conflict  with  the  scripture, 
"Thou  madest  him  [man]  a  little  lower  than  the  angels"  (Heb.  2:  7). 
But  I  call  attention  to  the  marginal  rendering  of  the  passage  in  King 
James'  translation,  "Thou  madest  him  a  little  while  inferior  to  the 
angels."  Without  stopping  here  to  consider  which  is  the  better  transla- 
tion of  the  passage,  it  may  be  said  of  the  latter  that  it  is  in  better  har- 
mony with  the  context  of  the  passage  as  it  stands  here,  in  Hebrews,  and 
also  in  Psalms,  than  the  preferred  rendering  of  it  in  the  regular  text; 
for  in  both  places  it  says  of  man,  "Thou  crownedst  him  with  glory 
and  honor,  and  didst  set  him  over  the  works  of  thy  hands:  thou  hast 
put  all  things  in  subjection  under  his  feet.  For  in  that  he  put  all 
things  in  subjection  under  him,  he  left  nothing  that  is  not  put  under 
him.  But  now  we  see  not  yet  all  things  put  under  him."  Moreover, 
we  see  the  same  thing  is  said  of  Jesus  that  is  said  of  man:  "We 
see  Jesus  who  was  made  a  litle  lower  than  the  angels,  for  the  suffering 
of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and  honor"  (Heb.  2:  9).  Surely  "made 
a  little  lower  than  the  angels,"  when  said  of  Jesus  could  be  but  for 
"a  little  while  inferior  to,"  etc.;  and  that  only  in  the  matter  of  "the 
suffering  of  death."  So,  too,  with  man;  he  is  made  "a  little  while 
inferior  to  the  angels,"  after  which  period  he  would  rise  to  the  dignity 
of  his.  place,  when  it  would  be  seen,  as  said  in  the  text  with  which 
this  note  deals,  "the  angels  are  a  little  lower  than  man;"  that  is,  of 
course,  when  man  shall  have  attained  unto  his  exaltation  and  glory. 

t  Journal  of  Discouses,  Vol.  2,  p.  342. 


164  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

can  be.  *  *  *  Yot  man  is  spirit.  The  elements  are  eternal, 
and  spirit  and  element,  inseparably  connected,  receive  a  fullness  of 
joy;  and  when  separated,  man  cannot  receive  a  fullness  of  joy.  The 
elements  are  the  tabernacle  of  God;  yea,  man  is  the  tabernacle  of 
God,  even  temples  (Doc.  and  Gov.,  sec.  93:  29-35). 

Nor  is  the  doctrine  less  in  harmony  with  the  Jewish  scrip- 
tures: 

For  it  became  him,  for  whom  are  all  things  and  by  whom  are  all 
things,  in  bringing  many  sons  unto  glory,  to  make  the  captain  of 
their  salvation  perfect  through  suffering.  For  both  he  that  sandifieth 
and  they  who  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one;  for  ichich  cause  he  is  not 
ashamed  to  call  them  brethren. 

In  this  same  chapter  of  Hebrews,  Jesus,  as  well  as  man,  is 
spoken  of  as  being  made  "a  little  while  inferior  to  the  angels" 
(verses  7  and  9  marginal  reading);  and  he  is  spoken  of  by 
the  same  apostle  in  another  place  as  being  but  "the  first  born 
among  many  brethren"  (Rom.  8:  29).  Also  in  hia  great  dis- 
course in  Mars  Hill,  Paul  not  only  declares  that  God  "hath 
made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men" — but  he  also  quoted  with 
approval  the  Greek  poet  Aratus*,  where  the  latter  says:  "For 
we  are  also  his  [God's]  offspring;"  and  to  this  the  apostle  adds: 
"For  as  much,  then,  as  we  are  the  offspring  of  God  [hence  of 
the  same  race  and  nature],  we  ought  not  to  think  that  the 
Godhead  is  like  unto  gold,  or  silver,  or  stone,  graven  by  art 
after  man's  device"  (Acts  17:  26-30).  The  nature  of  our  own 
being,  one  might  add,  in  continuation  of  the  apostle's  reason- 
ing, should  teach  those  who  recognize  men  as  the  offspring  of 
God,  better  than  to  think  of  the  Godhead  as  of  gold,  or  silver, 
or  stone,  graven  by  art  after  man's  device,  since  the  nature  of 


*  He  was  a  poet  of  Cilicia,  of  which  province  Tarsus,  Paul's  native 
city,  was  the  capital.  He  wrote  about  four  hundred  years  before 
Paul's  time. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  165 

the  offspring  partakes  of  the  nature  of  the  parent;  and  our 
own  nature  teaches  us  that  men  are  not  as  stocks  and  stones, 
though  the  latter  be  graven  by  art  after  the  devices  of  men. 

Paul  might  also  have  quoted  the  great  Hebrew  poet:"  God 
standeth  in  the  congregation  of  the  mighty;  he  judgeth  among 
the  Gods.  *  *  *  /  have  said  ye  are  Gods;  and  all  of  you  are 
children  of  the  Most  High"  (Ps.  82:  1,  6,  7);  and  though  he  adds, 
"But  ye  shall  die  like  men,  and  fall  like  one  of  the  princes,'' 
it  does  not  detract  from  the  assertion,  "and  all  of  you  are 
children  of  the  Most  High  ;"  for  Jesus  died,  even  as  men 
die;  but  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  nevertheless,  and  he  himself  a 
Deity. 

The  matter  is  clear,  then,  men  and  Gods  are  of  the  same 
race;  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  so,  too,  are  all  men  the  off- 
spring of  God,  and  Jesus  but  the  first  born  of  many  brethren. 
Eternal  Intelligences  are  begotten  of  God,  spirits,  and  hence  are 
sons  of  God — a  dignity  that  never  leaves  them.  "Beloved," 
said  one  of  old,  "now  are  we  the  sons  of  G)d,  and  it  doth  not  yet 
appear  what  we  shall  be;  but  we  know  that  when  he  [Christ] 
shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him;  for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is" 
(I  John  3:  2). 

Here,  in  the  way  of  anticipating  an  objection,  I  shall 
pause  to  remark,  parenthetically,  that  I  am  not  unmindful  of 
the  array  of  evidence  that  may  be  massed  to  prove  that  it  is 
chiefly  through  adoption,  through  obedience  to  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  that  man  in  the  scripture  is  spoken  of  as  being  a  son  of 
God.  But  this  does  not  weaken  the  evidence  for  the  fact  for 
which  I  am  contending,  viz.,  that  man  is  by  nature  the  son  of 
God.  He  becomes  alienated  from  his  Father  and  the  Father's 
kingdom  through  sin,  through  the  transgression  of  the  law 
of  God;  hence  the  need  of  adoption  into  the  heavenly  king- 
dom, and  into  sonship  with  God.  But  though  alienated  from 
God  through  sin,  man  is  nevertheless  by  nature  the  son  of  God, 


166  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

and  needs  but  the  adoption  that  awaits  him  through  the  gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ  to  cry  again  in  renewed  and  perfect  fellowship, 
Abba,  Father! 

Return  we  now  from  this  brief  digression.  Man  being  by 
the  very  nature  of  him  a  son  of  God,  and  a  participant  in  the 
Divine  Nature --he  is  properly  a  part  of  God;  that  is,  when  God 
is  conceived  of  in  the  generic  sense,  as  made  up  of  the  whole 
assemblage  of  divine  Intelligences  that  exist  in  all  heavens  and 
all  earths. 

Of  God,  the  ypirit  of  the  Gods. 

From  the  presence  of  the  Gods  goes  out  the  influence  and 
power  men  sometimes  call  God,  or  the  Spirit  of  God;  from 
whose  presence  David  could  not  flee: 

If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  art  there:  if  I  make  my  bed  in 
hell,  behold  thou  art  there.  If  I  take  the  wings  of  the  morning,  and 
dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea;  even  there  shall  thy  hand 
lead  me,  and  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me.  Yea  the  darkness  hideth 
not  from  thee;  but  the  light  shineth  as  the  day;  the  darkness  and  the 
light  are  both  alike  to  thee  (Ps.  139:  7-12). 

This  Spirit  is  that  "Something  sacred  and  sublime,"  which 
men  recognize  as  moving  "wool-shod"  behind  the  worlds; 
"weighing  the  stars;  weighing  the  deeds  of  men."*  This  that 
Spirit  that  permeates  all  space;  that  makes  all  presence  bright; 
all  motion  guides;  the  Power  "unchanged  through  time's  all- 
devastating  flight;"  that  unpholds  and  sustains  all  worlds.  Hence 
it  is  said,  in  one  of  the  most  beautiful  of  the  revelations  God 
has  given  in  this  last  dispensation: 

As  also  he  is  in  the  moon,  and  is  the  light  of  the  moon,  and  the 
power  thereof  by  which  it  was  made,     As  also  the  light  of  the  stars, 


*  Edward  Markham. 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  167 

and  the  power  thereof  by  which  they  were  made.  And  the  earth  also, 
and  the  power  thereof;  even  the  earth  upon  which  you  stand.  And 
the  light  which  now  shineth,  which  siveth  you  light,  is  through  him 
who  enlighteneth  your  eyes,  which  is  the  same  light  that  quickeneth 
your  understandings;  which  light  proceedeth  forth  from  the  presence 
of  God  to  fill  the  immensity  of  space.  The  light  which  is  in  all  things; 
which  giveth  light  to  all  things;  which  is  the  law  by  which  all  things 
are  governed:  even  the  power  of  God  who  sitteth  upon  his  throne, 
who  is  in  the  bosom  of  eternity,  who  is  in  the  midst  of  all  things; 
*  *  *  The  earth  rolls  upon  her  wings,  and  the  sun  giveth  his 
light  by  day,  and  the  moon  giveth  her  light  by  night,  and  the  stars 
also  give  their  light,  as  they  roll  upon  their  wings  in  their  glory,  in 
the  midst  of  the  power  of  God.  *  *  *  Behold,  all  these  are  king- 
doms, and  any  man  who  hath  seen  any  or  the  least  of  these,  hath  seen 
God  moving  in  his  majesty  and  power  (Doc.  and  Gov.,  sec.  88  8-13 
and  45,  47). 

This,  then,  is  God,  who  is  not  far  removed  from  every  one 
of  us;  in  whom  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being.  This  is 
God  immanent  in  nature. 

And  as  we  dwell  in  him,  so,  too,  dwells  he  in  us;  and,  as 
man  more  expands  towards  divinity,  more  and  more  of  the  di- 
vine enters  into  his  being,  until  he  attains  unto  a  fullness  of 
light  and  truth;  of  power  and  glory;  until  he  becomes  perfectly 
one  in  God,  and  God  in  him.  This  the  meaning  of  the  Messiah's 
prayer,  made  for  all  those  who  become  his  disciples— "That  they 
all  may  be  one,  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee:  that 
they  also  may  be  one  in  us"  (.John  17:  21). 

To  the  same  effect  Paul  also  prayed: 

For  this  cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  of  whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and  earth  is  named, 
that  he  would  grant  you,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  glory,  to  be 
strengthened  with  might  by  his  Spirit  in  the  inner  man;  that  Christ 
may  dwell  in  your  hearts  by  faith;  that  ye,  being  rooted  and  grounded 
in  love,  may  be  able  to  comprehend  with  all  Saints  what  is  the  breadth. 


168  THE  "murmon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

and  length,  and  depth,  and  height;  and  to  know  the  love  of  Christ 
which  passeth  knowledge,  that  ye  may  be  filled  with  all  the  fullness 
of  God  (Eph.  3:  14-19). 

Then  again  he  said: 

Let  this  mind  be  in  you  which  was  also  in  Jesus  Christ:  who 
being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God 
(Philippians  2:  5,  6). 

It  is  possible  for  the  mind  of  God  to  be  in  man,  to  will  and 
to  do,  as  seemeth  him  [God]  good.  The  nature  of  the  Whole 
clings  to  the  Parts,  and  they  may  carry  with  them  the  light  and 
truth  and  glory  of  the  Whole.  Moreover,  by  appointment, 
any  One  or  Three  of  the  unit  Intelligences  may  become  the  em- 
bodiment and  representative  of  all  the  power  and  glory  and 
authority  of  the  sum  total  of  the  Divine  Intelligences;  in  which 
capacity  either  the  One  or  the  Three  would  no  longer  stand  only 
in  their  individual  characters  as  Gods,  but  they  would  stand  also 
as  the  sign  and  symbol  of  all  that  is  divine — and  would  act  as  and 
be  to  all  intents  and  purposes  The  One  God.  yVnd  so  in  every  in- 
habited world,  and  in  every  system  of  worlds,  a  God  presides. 
Deity  in  his  own  right  and  person,  and  by  virtue  of  the  essence 
of  him;  and  also  by  virtue  of  his  being  the  sign  and  symbol  of  the 
Collectivity  of  the  Divine  Intelligences  of  the  universe.  Having 
access  to  all  the  councils  of  the  Gods,  each  individual  Deity  be- 
comes a  partaker  of  the  collective  knowledge,  wisdom,  honor, 
power,  majesty,  and  glory  of  the  Body  Divine  —in  a  word,  the 
embodiment  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Gods  whose  influence  perme- 
ates the  universe. 

This  doctrine  of  Deity  teaches  a  divine  government  for  the 
world  that  is  in  harmony  with  our  modern  knowledge  of  the 
universe;  for,  as  I  have  remarked   elsewhere  in  effect:*  An  in- 


New  Witness  for  God,  pp.  473-5. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  169 

finitude  of  worlds  and  systems  of  worlds  rising  one  above  an- 
other in  ever-increasing  splendor,  in  limitless  space  and  eternal 
duration,  have,  as  a  concomitant,  an  endless  line  of  exalted 
men  to  preside  over  and  within  them,  as  Priests,  Kings,  Patri- 
archs, Gods!  Nor  is  there  confusion,  disorder,  or  strife  in  their 
vast  dominions;  for  they  all  govern  upon  the  same  righteous 
principles  that  characterize  the  government  of  God  everywhere. 
The  Gods  have  attained  unto  the  excellence  that  Jesus  prayed 
for  in  behalf  of  his  apostles,  and  those  who  might  believe  on 
their  word,  when  he  said:  "Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine 
own  name  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may 
be  one  as  ive  are."  I  say  the  Gods  have  attained  unto  the 
excellence  of  oneness  that  Jesus  prayed  his  disciples  might 
possess,  and  since  the  Gods  have  attained  unto  it,  and  all 
govern  their  worlds  and  systems  of  worlds  by  the  same  spirit, 
and  by  the  same  princ  iples,  there  is  a  unity  in  their  government 
that  makes  it  one  even  as  they  are  one.  Let  worlds  and  sys- 
tems of  worlds,  galaxies  of  systems  and  universes,  extend  as 
they  may  throughout  limitless  space,  Joseph  Smith  has  revealed 
the  existence  of  a  divine  government  which,  while  characterized 
by  unity,  is  co- extensive  with  all  these  worlds  and  world-sys- 
tems. 

Concluding  Reflections. 

The  subject  enlarges  as  one  enters  into  it;  but  I  feel  that 
here  I  may  let  the  matter  rest.  I  do  not  fear  the  effect  of  Mr. 
Van  Der  Donckt's  criticism  of  our  doctrine  of  Deity.  Placed 
side  by  side  with  the  few  positive  truths  which  God  has  so 
clearly  revealed  through  the  great  prophet,  seer  and  revelator, 
in  these  last  days — Joseph  Smith — ^yet  to  be  recognized  by  the 
world  as  one  of  God's  choicest  and  greatest  of  prophets — the 
vagaries  of  an  apostate  Christendom  will  have  no  attraction  for 
the  youth  of  Israel.     It  was  generous  in  the  Editors  of  the 

11 


170  THE   "mormon"   doctrine  OF   DEITY. 

Era,  to  give  place  to  the  really  able  article  of  Mr.  Van  Der 
Donckt.  I  am  glad  they  did  so,  for  several  reasons:  First, 
because  it  was  a  courteous  and  generous  act  in  itself;  second, 
it  stands  out  in  marked  contrast  to  the  treatment  accorded  us 
in  sectarian  religious  periodicals;  thij'd,  because  it  must  demon- 
strate to  our  youth,  that  we  have  no  fear  of  placing  our  prin- 
ciples where  they  may  be  tested  by  the  religious  doctrines  and 
philosophies  of  men;  and  although  the  elders  of  the  Church  of 
Christ  may  not  be  equal  in  learning  and  polemical  skill  with 
the  champions  of  other  systems,  yet  we  have  the  truth,  and 
our  confidence  is  that  it  will  hold  its  own  in  the  conflicts  that 
may  beat  upon  it.  We  have  the  truth,  I  repeat,  on  this  sub- 
ject; that  is,  we  have  the  truth  so  far  as  God  has  been  pleased 
to  reveal  it.  All  truth  respecting  God  is  not  yet  revealed, 
even  to  the  Church  of  Christ  ;  but  so  much  as  he  has 
revealed  is  true.  Our  feet  in  the  matter  have  been  set  in  the 
right  path;  we  have  lines  of  truth  placed  in  our  hands,  which, 
if  we  and  our  children  but  follow  patiently  and  with  becomiDg 
humility,  I  am  sure  will  lead  us  into  that  fullness  of  truth 
wherein  is  no  incompleteness,  but  all  is  truth — God's  truth,  and 
all  the  truth  about  God. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
I. 

JESUS  CHRIST:      THE  REVELATION  OF  GOD.* 

And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee,  the  only  true 
God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent  (St.  John's  Gospel  17;  3). 

And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an 
understanding,  that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  him 
that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God,  and 
eternal  life  (I  John  5:  20). 

It  will  be  taken  for  granted,  I  have  no  doubt,  that  the 
primary  object  in  the  earth-mission  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
was  to  redeem  mankind,  to  be  the  Savior  of  the  world.  We  have 
the  warrant  of  scripture  for  that.  It  is  shadowed  forth  in  the 
words  that  God  spoke  in  Eden  to  the  "Serpent,"  and  having  in 
mind  the  Lord  Jesus: 

And  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  between 
thy  seed  and  her  seed;  it  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruiae 
his  heel.f 

Turning  to  the  New  Testament,  we  read: 

For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlast- 
ing life.  For  God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the 
world,  but  that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved. J 


*A  discourse  delivered  in  the  Tabernacle,  Ogden,  Utah,  Tuesday 
evening,  April  22,  1902,  under  the  auspices  of  the  Young  Men's  Mut- 
ual Improvement  Association  of  the  Weber  Stake  of  Zion. 

tGen.  3:  15. 

tSt.  John  3:  16,  17. 


172  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

I  say  to  be  the  Savior  of  the  world  was  the  primary  pur- 
pose of  Christ's  mission.  But  there  is  another  purpose  spoken 
of  in  scripture  concerning  the  mission  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  To 
one  of  the  old  prophets  in  Israel  it  was  said:  "Behold,  a 
virgin  shall  conceive,  and  bear  a  son;  and  shall  call  his  name 
Immanuel."* — "which,"  says  Matthew  in  his  Gospel,  "being 
interpreted,  is  God  with  us."t 

In  connection  with  this  there  is  one  more  scripture  to  which 
I  desire  to  call  your  attention  : 

Great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness:  God  was  manifest  in  the 
flesh,  justified  in  the  spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the  Gen- 
tiles, believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up  into  glory.J 

That  this  passage  has  direct  reference  to  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  no  one  can  doubt;  for  to  none  but  to  him  does  the  lan- 
guage apply.  Here  let  me  say  with  reference  to  the  Bible  state- 
ment that  Christ  was  God  "manifest  in  the  flesh,"  that  some 
scholars  hold  that  the  Greek  word  translated  "manifest," 
in  our  English  Bible,  should  be  rendered  "manifested,"  a 
stronger  word;  so  that  Jesus  Christ,  if  this  rendering  of  the 
Greek  be  true,  according  to  the  teachings  of  Paul,  was  God 
"manifested"  in  the  flesh. 

With  this  brief  scriptural  introduction  to  the  subject,  and 
with  the  statement  clearly  before  you  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God, 
and,  moreover,  is  God  manifested  in  the  flesh,  I  desire  to  call 
your  attention  to  the  ideas  prevailint^  in  the  world  respecting 
Deity  at  the  time  of  Messiah's  advent  among  men;  and  this  to 
show  you  there  certainly  was  a  very  great  necessity  for  a  rev- 
elation of  God  being  given;  for  men  knew  him  not;  nor  had  they 


*  Isaiah  7:  14. 
t  Matt.  3:  23. 
J  I  Tim.  3:  16. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  173 

by  searching  been  able  to  find  him  out.  Men  were  without  the 
knowledge  of  God,  when  it  pleased  God  to  reveal  himself  to 
them  through  his  only  begotten  Son,  Jesus,  the  Christ. 

Beliefs  in  India  and  Egypt. 

I  first  direct  your  attention  to  India  and  Egypt.  In  these 
two  countries  what  is  commonly  called  Pantheism  i)revailed. 
Now,  I  know  that  word  represents  complex  rather  than  simple 
ideas  to  you,  and  needs  a  little  explanation.  Pantheism,  speak- 
ing in  a  general  way,  is  of  two  kinds:  First,  the  Pantheism 
that  sinks  all  nature  into  one  substance,  one  essence,  and  then 
concludes  that  that  one  substance  or  essence  is  God.  Such 
Pantheism  as  this  is  the  purest  Monism — that  is,  the  one  sub- 
stance theory;  and  is  spoken  of  by  some  of  our  philosophers  as 
the  purest  Theism — that  is,  faith  in  one  God.  Indeed,  Panthe- 
ism, in  this  aspect  of  it,  is  looked  upon  as  a  sort  of  exaggerated 
Theism;  for  it  regards  "God"  as  the  only  substance,  of  which 
the  material  universe  and  man  are  but  ever-changing  manifest- 
ations. It  is  the  form  of  Pantheism  which  identifies  mind  and 
matter,  the  finite  and  infinite,  making  them  but  manifestations 
of  one  universal  being;  but  in  effect  it  denies  the  personality, 
by  which  I  mean  the  individuality,  of  God.  This  was,  and,  for 
matter  of  that,  is  now,  the  general  belief  of  many  millions  in 
India.  The  Pantheism  which  expands  the  one  substance  into  all 
the  variety  of  objects  that  we  see  in  nature,  is  the  second  kind 
of  Pantheism  referred  to  a  moment  since,  and  regards  those 
various  parts  as  God,  or  God  expanded  into  nature.  This  leads 
to  the  grossest  kind  of  idolatry,  as  it  did  in  Egypt,  at  the  time 
of  which  I  am  speaking.  Under  this  form  of  Pantheism  men 
worshiped  various  objects  in  nature;  the  sun,  moon,  stars;  in 
fact,  anything  and  everything  that  bodied  forth  to  their 
minds  some  quality,  or  power,  or  attribute  of  the  Deity.     This 


174  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

was  the  Pantheism  of  Egypt,  and  led  to  the  abominable  and  dis- 
gusting idolatry  of  that  land. 

The  Religion  of  China. 

Turn  your  attention  now  northward  from  India,  and  take 
into  account  those  great  masses  of  our  race  inhabiting  China; 
and  you  will  find  there,  according  to  the  statement  of  Max 
Muller, 

A  colorless  and  unpoetical  religion;  a  religion  we  might  almost 
venture  to  call  monosyllabic,  consisting  of  the  worship  of  a  host  of 
single  spirits,  representing  the  sky;  the  sun,  storms  and  lightning, 
mountains  and  rivers;  one  standing  by  the  side  of  the  other  without 
any  mutual  attraction,  without  any  higher  principle  to  hold  them 
together.  In  addition  to  this  we  likewise  meet  in  China  with  the 
worship  of  ancestral  spirits,  the  spirits  of  the  departed,  who  are  sup- 
posed to  retain  some  cognizance  of  human  affairs,  and  to  possess 
peculiar  powers  which  they  exercise  for  good  or  evil.  This  double 
worship  of  human  and  natural  spirits  constitutes  the  old  and  popular 
religion  of  China,  and  it  has  lived  on  to  the  present  day,  at  least  in 
the  lower  ranks  of  society,  though  there  towers  above  it  a  more  ele- 
vated range  of  half  religious  and  half  philosophical  faith,  a  belief  in 
two  higher  Powers,  which,  in  the  language  of  philosophy,  may  mean 
Form  and  Matter,  in  the  language  of  ethics.  Good  and  Evil,  but 
which  in  the  original  language  of  religion  and  mythology  are  repre- 
sented as  Heaven  and  Earth.* 

Such  was  the  ancient  religion  of  China;  and  such,  to  a  very 
large  extent,  is  the  religion  of  China  to  this  day.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  the  great  Chinese  philosopher  Confucius  did- 
not  disturb  this  ancient  religious  belief.  He  did  not,  in  fact, 
profess  to  be  a  teacher  of  religion  at  all,  but  was  content  if  he 
could  but  influence  men  to  properly  observe  human  relations. 
On  one  occasion  he  was  asked  how  the  "spirits  could  be  served," 


*Science  of  Religion  (Muller)  pp.  61,  62. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  175 

to  which  he  made  answer,  "If  we  are  not  able  to  serve  men, 
how  can  we  serve  the  spirits?"  On  another  occasion  he  said  to 
his  followers,  "Respect  the  gods,  and  keep  them  at  a  dis- 
tance."* 

Religion  in  Northern  Europe. 

Let  us  now  enter  Northern  Europe,  among  the  Germanic 
tribes,  and  make  inquiry  as  to  what  conceptions  of  God  they 
held.  Here  you  find  a  shadowy,  undefined,  and  not  well  under- 
stood belief  in  the  existence  of  an  all-pervading  influence,  or 
spirit;  a  Supreme  Being,  to  whom  the  Goths,  at  least,  gave  the 
name  of  "Alfader,"  meaning  the  Father  of  all;  yet,  strange  to 
say,  they  paid  him  no  divine  honors,  gave  him  no  worship,  but 
contented  themselves  in  worshiping  inferior  deities,  their  old 
war  heroes  in  the  main,  whom  they  had  apotheosized  and  who, 
it  must  be  acknowledged,  represented  the  national  qualities  of 
that  people  at  that  time. 

Gods  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans. 

Having  thus  briefly  mentioned  the  faith  of  the  people  of 
north  Europe — and  I  can  do  no  more  than  this  in  each  instance 
— I  next  invite  your  attention  to  the  ideas  about  God  that 
obtained  among  the  highly  civilized  Romans.  And,  by  the  way, 
the  Romans  accepted,  for  the  most  part,  the  mythology  and 
the  religion  of  the  Greeks,  so  that  when  we  consider  the  ideas 
that  prevailed  among  the  Romans  about  God,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  we  are  at  the  same  time  considering  the  views  of 
God  that  were  entertained  by  the  Greeks  —a  people  noted  for 
the  subtlety  of  their  intellect,  for  their  powers  both  of  analy- 
sis and  of  synthesis:  and  for  intuition  of  intellect  which  made 
them  well  nigh  prophets,  at  least  of  an  intellectual,  if  not  of  a 
spiritual  order.     The  Romans  for  the  most  part  were  divided 

*  Ibid  p.  87. 


176  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

into  the  two  great  schools  of  philosophy,  the  Epicurean  and  the 
Stoic.  Some  of  our  young  students  will  be  telling  me  perhaps 
that  I  have  overlooked  the  Academics.  I  do  not  mention  them 
as  a  school  of  philosophy  for  the  reason  that,  in  my  judgment, 
they  had  no  philosophy;  they  advocated  nothing;  they  were  the 
agnostics  of  their  time — that  is,  they  were  people  who  did  not 
know,  and  like  our  modern  agnostics,  had  a  strong  suspicion 
that  nobody  else  knew.  They  represented  merely  the  negative 
attitude  of  mind  in  their  times.  Still  they  numbered  in  their 
following  some  of  the  most  considerable  men  of  Rome,  Cicero 
being  among  the  number.  By  the  way,  it  is  through  the  writ- 
ings of  Cicero — especially  through  his  Tusculan  Disputations — 
that  we  become  best  acquainted  with  the  theories  of  the  two 
chief  schools  of  philosophy  I  have  mentioned.  And  it  is  from 
his  writings  that  I  shall  here  condense  what  I  have  to  say  of  the 
creeds  of  these  schools  of  philosophy,  or  at  least  that  part 
which  concerns  us  here — the  part  relating  to  their  conceptions 
of  Deity,  and  first  as  to  the  Doctrine  of  Epicurus. 

Epicureans. 

The  Epicureans  held  that  there  jvere  Gods  in  existence. 
They  accepted  the  fact  of  their  existence  from  the  constant 
and  universal  opinion  of  mankind,  independent  of  education, 
custom  or  law.  "It  must  necessarily  follow,"  they  said,  "that 
this  knowledge  is  implanted  in  our  minds,  or,  rather,  innate  in 
us."  Their  doctrine  was:  "That  opinion  respecting  which 
there  is  a  general  agreement  in  universal  nature  must  infallibly 
be  true;  therefore  it  must  be  allowed  that  there  are  Gods." 

"Of  the  form  of  the  Gods,  they  held  that  because  the 
human  body  is  more  excellent  than  that  of  other  animals,  both 
in  beauty  and  for  convenience,  therefore  the  Gods  are  in  human 
form.  All  men  are  told  by  nature  that  none  but  the  human 
form  can  be  ascribed  to  the  Gods;  for  under  what  other  image 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  177 

did  it  ever  appear  to  anyone  either  sleeping  or  waking?"  Ye 
these  forms  of  the  Gods  were  not  "body,"  but  "something  like 
body;"  "nor  do  they  contain  blood,  but  something  like  blot>d." 
"Nor  are  they  to  be  considered  as  bodies  of  any  solidity,  or 
reducible  to  number."  "Nor  is  the  nature  or  power  of  the  Gods 
to  be  discerned  by  the  senses,  but  by  the  mind."  They  held, 
moreover,  that  the  universe  arose  from  chance;  that  the  Gods 
neither  did  nor  could  extend  their  providential  care  to  human 
affairs. 

The  duty  of  worshiping  the  Gods  was  based  upon  the  fact 
of  their  superiority  to  man.  "The  superior  and  excellent  nature 
of  the  Gods  requires  a  pious  adoration  from  men,  because  it  is 
possessed  of  immortality,  and  the  most  exalted  felicity;  for 
whatever  excels  has  a  right  to  veneration."  Yet  "all  fear  of 
the  power  and  anger  of  the  Gods  should  be  banished;  for  we 
must  understand  that  an;?er  and  affection  are  inconsistent  with 
the  nature  of  a  happy  and  immortal  being.  These  apprehen- 
sions being  removed,  no  dread  of  the  superior  power  remains." 
On  the  same  principles  that  the  existence  of  the  Gods  was 
allowed,  that  is,  on  the  pre-notion  and  universal  belief  of  their 
existence,  it  was  held  that  the  Gods  were  happy  and  immortal, 
to  which  the  Epicurians  added  this  doctrine:  "That  which  is 
eternally  happy  cannot  be  burdened  with  any  labor  itself,  nor 
can  it  impose  any  labor  on  another;  nor  can  it  be  influenced  by 
resentment  or  favor;  because  things  which  are  liable  to  such 
feelings  must  be  weak  and  frail." 

It  was  generally  held  by  the  opponents  of  Epicurus  that, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  did  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  the 
Gods  at  all;  but  dared  not  deny  their  existence  for  fear  of  the 
Athenian  law  against  impiety,  and  because  such  denial  would 
render  him  unpopular.  But  after  becoming  acquainted  with  his 
views  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Gods,  one  is  prepared  to  accept 
the  criticism  of  his  doctrines  which  Cicero  puts  in  the  mouth 


178  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

of  Cotta,  in  his  Tusculan  Disputations,  viz.,  "Epicurus  has 
allowed  a  deity  in  words  but  destroyed  him  in  fact.'  He  ren- 
dered his  Gods  as  intangible,  as  useless,  as  far  removed  from 
exciting  adoration,  or  of  controlling  the  universe,  as  have  the 
orthodox  Christian  sects  their  Diety,  who  is  said  to  be  without 
body,  or  parts,  or  passions;  which,  if  such  be  his  nature,  leaves 
him  without  quality  through  which  he  may  affect  humanity  or 
the  universe  either  for  good  or  evil. 

The  Stoics. 

I  next  take  up  the  school  of  Stoics.  The  Stoics  believed 
(1)  that  there  were  Gods;  (2)  they  undertook  to  define  their 
character  and  nature;  (3)  they  held  that  the  universe  is  gov- 
erned by  them,  and  (4)  that  they  exercise  a  superintendency 
over  human  affairs. 

The  evidence  for  the  existence  of  the  Gods  they  saw  prim- 
arily in  the  universe  itself.  "What  can  be  so  plain  and  evi- 
dent," they  argued,  "when  we  behold  the  heavens,  and  contem- 
plate the  celestial  bodies,  as  the  existence  of  some  supreme, 
divine  intelligence  by  which  these  things  are  governed?"  "Were 
it  otherwise,"  they  added,  "Ennius  would  not  with  universal  ap- 
probation have  said, 

Look  up  to  the  refulgent  heavens  above 
Which  all  men  call  unanimously  Jove — 
*    *     *     Of  Gods  and  men  the  sire. 

Of  the  nature  of  the  Deity  they  held  two  things:  First  of 
all,  that  he  is  an  animated  though  impersonal  being;  secondly, 
that  there  is  nothing  in  all  nature  superior  to  him.  "I  do  not 
see,"  says  one  well  versed  in  their  doctrines,  "what  can  be  more 
consistent  with  this  idea  and  pre-conception  than  to  attribute 
a  mind  and  divinity  to  the  world,  the  most  excellent  of  all  be- 
ings." The  God  of  the  Stoics  is  further  described  as  a  corporeal 


THE   "mormon"    doctrine  OF  DEITY.  179 

being,  united  to  matter  by  a  necessary  connection;  and,  more- 
over, as  subject  to  fate,  so  that  he  can  bestow  neither  rewards 
nor  punishments.  That  this  sect  held  to  the  extinction  of  the 
soul  at  death,  is  allowed  by  all  the  learned.  The  Stoics  drew 
their  philsophy  mainly  from  Socrates  and  Aristotle.  Their  cos- 
mology was  pantheistic,  matter  and  force  being  the  two  ultimate 
principles,  and  God  being  the  working  force  of  the  universe, 
giving  it  unity,  beauty  and  adaptation. 

The  Jews. 

I  shall  finish  this  brief  review  of  the  prevailing  ideas  about 
Deity  at  the  advent  of  Messiah  by  reference  to  the  state  of 
belief  respecting  God  among  the  Jews  at  this  period.  I  have 
reserved  the  consideration  of  their  views  upon  the  subject  until 
the  last  advisedly,  chiefly  for  the  reason  that  to  their  ancestors, 
in  very  ancient  times,  a  knowledge  of  the  true  God  was  re- 
vealed. Their  ancestors  constituted  a  nation,  a  people,  pecu- 
liarly related  to  God;  chosen  by  him,  it  would  seem,  to  stand  as 
his  witnesses  among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  But  at  the 
time  of  the  advent  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Jews  were  in  an 
apostate  condition,  and  ready  to  reject  their  God  when  he 
should  come.  Moreover,  their  leading  teachers,  especially  in 
the  two  centuries  preceding  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  were 
taking  every  step  that  their  ingenuity  could  devise  for  harmon- 
izing the  truths  which  God  had  made  known  to  them  with  the 
more  fashionable  conceptions  of  God  as  entertained  by  one  or 
the  other  of  the  great  sects  of  philosophy  among  the  Romans. 
The  way  had  been  prepared  for  the  achievement  of  this  end,  in 
the  first  place,by  the  translation  of  the  Hebrew  scriptures  into  the 
Greek  language,  which  version  of  the  Old  Testament  is  usually 
called  the  Septuagint,  ortheLXX.  This  latter  name  is  given  to  it 
because  of  a  tradition  that  the  translation  was  accomplished  by 
seventy,  or  about  seventy,  elders  of  the  Jews.    The  most  gen- 


180  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

erally  accepted  theory  concerning  it,  however,  is  that  it  was  a 
work  accomplished  at  various  times  between  280  B.C.  and  150 
B.  C,  The  books  of  Moses  being  first  translated  as  early  as  the 
time  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  284-246  B.  C,  while  the  Prophets 
and  Psalms  were  translated  somewhat  later.  It  is  not,  how- 
ever, the  time  or  manner  in  which  the  traslation  was  accom- 
plished that  we  are  interested  in,  but  the  character  of  the  trans- 
lation itself;  and  of  this,  Alfred  Edersheim,  in  his  "Life  and 
Times  of  Jesus,  the  Messiah,"  in  the  division  of  his  work  which 
treats  of  the  preparation  for  the  Gospel,  says  of  the  Septu- 
agint : 

Putting  aside  clerical  mistakes  and  raisreadings,  and  making 
allowance  for  errors  of  translation,  ignorance,  and  haste,  we  note 
certain  outstanding  facts  as  characteristic  of  the  Greek  version.  It 
bears  evident  marks  of  its  origin  in  Egypt,  in  its  use  of  Egyptian 
words  and  references,  and  equally  evident  traces  of  its  Jewish  com- 
position. By  the  side  of  slavish  and  false  literalism  there  is  great 
liberty,  if  not  license,  in  handling  the  original;  gross  mistakes  occur 
along  with  happy  renderings  of  very  difficult  passages,  suggesting 
the  aid  of  some  able  scholars.  Distinct  Jewish  elements  are  undeni- 
ably there,  which  can  only  be  explained  by  reference  to  Jewish  tra- 
dition, although  they  are  much  fewer  than  some  critics  have 
Supposed.  This  we  can  easily  understand,  since  only  those  traditions 
would  find  a  place  which  at  the  early  time  were  not  only  received, 
but  in  general  circulation.  The  distinctly  Grecian  elements,  how- 
ever, are  at  present  of  chief  interest  to  us.  They  consist  of  allusions 
to  Greek  mythological  terms,  and  adaptations  of  Greek  philosophical 
ideas.  However  few,  even  one  well-authenticated  instance  would  lead 
us  to  suspect  others,  and  in  general  give  to  the  version  the  charac- 
ter of  Jewish  Hellenising.  In  the  same  class  we  reckon  what  con- 
stitutes the  prominent  characteristics  of  the  LXX  version,  which, 
for  want  of  better  terras,  we  would  designate  as  rationalistic  and 
apologetic.  Difficulties — or  what  seemed  such — are  removed  by  the 
most  bold  methods,  and  by  free  handling  of  the  text;  it  need  scarcely 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine  OF  DEITY.  181 

be  said,  often  very  unsatisfactorily.  More  especially,  a  strenuous 
effort  is  made  to  banish  all  anthropomorphisms,  as  inconsistent  with 
their  ideas  of  the  Deity.* 

Later  the  same  authority  points  out  the  fact  that  the  Sep- 
tuagint  version  of  the  Hebrew  scriptures  bacame  really  the  peo- 
ple's Bible  to  that  large  Jewish  world  through  which  Christianity 
was  afterwards  to  address  itself  to  mankind.  "It  was  part  of 
the  case,"'  he  adds,  "that  this  translation  should  be  regarded 
by  the  Hellenists  as  inspired  like  the  original.  Otherwise  it 
would  have  been  impossible  to  make  final  appeal  to  the  very 
words  of  the  Greek;  still  less  to  find  in  them  a  mystical  and  al- 
legorical meaning."t 

The  foundation  thus  laid  for  a  superstructure  of  false  phil- 
osophy there  was  not  wanting  builders  who  were  anxious  to 
place  a  pagan  structure  upon  it.  About  the  middle  of  the 
second  century  B.C.,  one  Aristobulus,  a  Hellenist  Jew  of  Alexan- 
dria, sought  to  so  explain  the  Hebrew  scriptures  as  "to  bring  the 
Peripatetic  philosophy  out  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and  out  of  the 
other  Prophets."  Following  is  a  sample,  according  to  Eder- 
sheim,  of  his  allegorizing:  "Thus,  when  we  read  that  God  stood, 
it  meant  the  stable  order  of  the  world;  that  he  created  the 
world  in  six  days,  the  orderly  succession  of  time;  the  rest  of 
the  Sabbath,  the  preservation  of  what  was  created.  And  in  such 
manner  could  the  whole  system  of  Aristotle  be  found  in  the 
Bible.  But  how  was  this  to  be  accounted  for?  Of  course,  the 
Bible  had  not  learned  of  Aristotle,  but  he  and  all  other  philos- 
ophers had  learned  from  the  Bible.  Thus,  according  to  Aristo- 
bulus, Pythagoras,   Plato,  and   all  the  other  sages,  had  really 


*  "Jesus,    the  Messiah,"   by  Edersheim,  vol.  I,  pp.  27-8,  eighth 
edition. 

t  Ibid,  p.  29. 


182  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

learned  from  Moses,  and  the  broken  rays  found  in  their  writ- 
ings were  united  in  all  their  glory  in  the  Torah."* 

Following  Aristobulus  in  the  same  kind  of  philosophy  was 
Philo,  the  learned  Jew  of  Alexandria,  born  about  the  year  20  B. 
C.  He  was  supposed  to  be  a  descendant  of  Aaron,  and  belonged 
to  one  of  the  wealthiest  and  most  influential  families  among  the 
merchants  of  Egypt;  and  he  is  said  to  have  united  a  large  share 
of  Greek  learning  with  Jewish  enthusiasm.  He  followed  most 
worthily  in  the  footsteps  of  Aristobulus.  According  to  him, 
the  Greek  sages  had  learned  their  philosophy  from  Moses,  in 
whom  alone  was  all  truth  to  be  found.  "Not  indeed,  in  the 
letter,"  says  Edersheim,  "but  under  the  letter  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. If  in  Numbers  23: 19  we  read  'God  is  not  a  man,'  and  in 
Deut.  1-  31  that  the  Lord  was  'as  a  man,'  did  it  not  imply  on 
the  one  hand  the  revelation  of  absolute  truth  by  God,  and  on 
the  other,  accommodation  to  those  who  were  weak?  Here 
then,  was  the  principle  of  a  two-fold  interpretation  of  the  Word 
of  God— the  literal  and  the  allegorical.  *  *  *  To  begin 
with  the  former:  the  literal  sense  must  be  wholly  set  aside, 
when  it  implies  anything  unworthy  of  the  Deity — anything 
unmeaning,  impossible,  or  contrary  to  reason.  Manifestly  this 
canon,  if  strictly  applied,  would  do  away  not  only  with  all  an- 
thropomorphisms, but  cut  the  knot  wherever  difficulties  seemed 
insuperable.  Again,  Philo  would  find  an  allegorical,  along  with 
the  literal,  intepretation  indicated  in  the  reduplication  of  a  word, 
and  in  seemingly  superfluous  words,  particles,  or  expressions. 
These  could,  of  course,  only  bear  such  a  meaning  on  Philo's 
assumption  of  the  actual  inspiration  of  the  Septuagint  version."! 


*  "Jesus,  the  Messiah,"  Edersheim,  vol.  1,  p.  36. 

t  When  one  thinks  of  the  mischief  that  may  arise  from  such 
perversions  of  scripture  by  the  application  of  Philo's  principles  of 
interpretation,  we  do  not  marvel  that  some  of  the  Jews  regarded  the 
translation  of  the  Seventy  "to  have  been  as  great  a  calamity  to  Israel 
as  the  making  of  the  golden  calf." 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  183 

Edersheim  admits,  however,  that  in  the  Talmudic  canon,  the 
interpretation  where  "any  repetition  of  what  had  been  already 
stated,  would  point  to  something  new;"  and  holds  that  these 
are  comparatively  sober  rules  of  exegesis.  "Not  do  the  license," 
he  remarks,  "which  he  [Philo]  claimed,  of  freely  altering  the 
punctuation  of  sentences,  and  his  notion  that,  if  one  from 
among  several  synonymous  words  was  chosen  in  a  passage,  this 
pointed  to  some  special  meaning  attaching  to  it.  Even  more  ex- 
travagant was  the  idea  that  a  word  which  occurred  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  might  be  interpreted  according  to  every  shade  of 
meaning  which  it  bore  in  the  Greek,  and  that  even  another 
meaning  might  be  given  it  by  slightly  altering  the  letters."  Of 
Philo's  further  efforts  at  harmonizing  the  revelations  of  God  to 
the  Jews  with  the  teachings  of  the  Greeks,  it  will  only  be  neces- 
sary to  read  the  following  quotation  from  an  authority  upon 
such  subjects: 

Philo's  doctrine  starts  from  the  idea  that  God  is  "being"  abso- 
lutely bare  of  all  quality.  All  quality  in  finite  beings  has  limitation, 
and  no  limitation  can  be  predicated  of  God,  who  is  eternal, 
unchangeable,  simple  sub.''tance,  free,  self-sufficient.  To  predicate 
any  quality  of  God  would  be  to  reduce  him  to  the  sphere  of  finite 
existence.  Of  him  we  can  only  say  that  he  is,  not  what  he  is,  and 
such  purely  negative  predictions  as  to  his  being  appear  to  Philo 
*  *  *  the  only  way  of  securing  his  absolute  elevation  above  the 
world  [that  is,  above  and  outside  of  the  material  universe].  A  consis- 
tent application  of  Philo's  abstract  conception  of  God  would  exclude 
the  possibility  of  any  active  relation  of  God  to  the  world,  and  there- 
fore of  religion;  for  a  being  absolutely  without  quality  and  movement 
cannot  be  conceived  as  actively  concerned  with  the  multiplicity  of 
individual  things.  And  so,  in  fact,  Philo  does  teach  that  the  absolute 
perfection,  purity  and  loftiness  of  God  would  be  violated  by  direct 
contact  with  imperfect,  impure,  and  finite  things.  Rut  the  possibility 
of  a  connection  between  God  and  the  world  is  reached  through  a 
distinction  which  forms  the  most  important  point  in  his  theology  and 


184  THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY. 

cosmology.  The  proper  being  of  God  is  distinguished  from  the  infinite 
multiplicity  of  divine  ideas  or  forces:  God  himself  is  without  quality, 
but  he  disposes  of  an  infinite  variety  of  divine  forces,  through  whose 
mediation  an  active  relation  of  God  to  the  v^^orld  is  brought  about. 
In  the  details  of  his  teaching  as  to  these  mediating  entities,  Philo  is 
guided  partly  by  Plato  and  partly  by  the  Stoics;  but  at  the  same  time 
he  makes  use  of  the  concrete  religious  conceptions  of  heathenism  and 
Judaism.  Following  Plato,  he  first  calls  them  'Ideas,"  or  patterns  of 
all  things;  they  are  thoughts  of  God,  yet  possess  a  real  existence,  and 
were  produced  before  the  creation  of  the  sensible  world,  of  which 
they  are  the  keys.  *  *  *  Philo  maintains  that  the  divine  forces 
are  identical  with  the  "demons"  of  the  Greeks  and  the  "angels"  of  the 
Jews,  i.  e.,  servants  and  messengers  of  God,  by  means  of  which  he 
communicates  with  the  finite  world.  *  *  *  Philo  regards  all 
individual  "ideas"  as  comprehended  in  one  highest  and  most  general 
"idea"  or  force — the  unity  of  the  individual  idea — which  he  calls 
the  "logos"  or  "reason"  of  God,  and  which  is  again  regarded  as  oper- 
ative "reason."  The  logos,  therefore,  is  the  highest  mediator  between 
God  and  man,  the  world,  the  first-born  son  of  God,  the  archangel, 
who  is  the  vehicle  of  all  revelation,  and  the  high  priest  who  stands 
before  God  on  behalf  of  the  world.  Through  whom  the  world  was 
created.* 

In  all  this  one  may  see  only  too  plainly  the  effort  to  harmon- 
ize Jewish  theology  with  Greek  philosophy — an  effort  to  be  rid 
of  the  plain  anthropomorphism  of  the  Hebrew  scriptures  for  the 
incomprehensible  "being"  of  Greek  metaphysics. 

Thus  the  Jews — the  people  who  had  been  chosen  to  be  wit- 
nesses for  God  to  the  world — appeared  to  have  grown  weary  of 
the  mission  given  to  them.  Tired  were  they  of  standing  in  a 
position  where  their  hands  seemed  to  be  raised  against  all  men, 
and  all  men's  hands  against  them.  They  had  lost  the  spirit  that 
had  supported  their  fathers,  and  hence  were  searching  out  these 


*  Professor  E.  Schurer,  of  Univerity  of  Giessen,  art.  Phil*  in 
Encyclo.  Brit. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  185 

cowardly  compromises  by  which  harmony  could  be  shown  to 
exist  between  the  philosophy  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  revelations 
of  God  to  their  fathers. 

God  Revealed  to  the  World  in  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ. 

This  completes  the  survey  I  intended  to  make  of  this  field. 
Nowhere  have  we  found  a  knowledge  of  the  true  and  living 
God,  Nowhere  a  teacher  who  cones  with  definite  knowledge 
of  this  subject  of  all  subjects— a  subject  so  closely  related  to 
eternal  life,  that  to  know  God  is  said  in  the  scriptures  to  be 
life  eternal;  and  of  course,  the  corollary  naturally  follows,  viz  , 
not  to  know  God  is  not  to  possess  eternal  life.  We  can  form 
no  other  conclusion  from  the  survey  we  have  taken  of  the 
world's  ideas  respecting  the  existence  and  nature  of  God,  than 
that  forced  upon  us — the  world  stood  in  sore  need  of  a  revela- 
tion of  God.  He  whom  the  Egyptians  and  Indians  sought  for 
in  their  Pantheism,  must  be  made  known.  God,  whom  Confu- 
cius would  have  men  respect,  but  keep  at  a  distance,  must  draw 
near.  The  "Alfader"  of  the  Goths,  undefined,  incomprehensible 
t'^  them,  must  be  brought  out  of  the  northern  darkness  into 
glorious  light.  The  God-idea  that  prevailed  among  the  Greek 
philosophers  must  be  brought  from  the  mists  of  their  idle  spec- 
ulations and  made  to  stand  before  the  world.  He  whom  the 
Jews  were  seeking  to  deny  and  forsake  must  be  revealed  again 
to  the  children  of  men.  And  lo!  when  the  vail  falls  from  the 
revelation  that  God  gives  of  himself,  what  form  is  that  which 
steps  forth  from  the  background  of  the  world's  ignorance  and 
mystery?  A  man,  as  God  lives!  Jesus  of  Nazareth — the  great 
Peasant  Teacher  of  Judea.  He  is  God  revealed  henceforth 
to  the  world.  They  who  thought  God  impersonal,  with- 
out form,  must  know  him  henceforth  as  a  person  in  the 
form  of  man.  They  who  have  held  him  to  be  without  quality, 
must  henceforth  know   him  as   possessed   of  the  qualities  of 

12 


186  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

Jesus  of  Nazareth.  They  who  have  regarded  him  as  infinitely 
terrible,  must  henceforth  know  him  also  as  infinitely  gentle. 
Those  who  would  hold  him  at  a  distance,  will  now  permit  him  to 
draw  near.  This  is  the  world's  mystery  revealed.  This  is  God 
manifested  in  the  flesh.  This  is  the  Son  of  God,  who  comes  to 
reveal  the  Father,  for  he  is  the  express  image  and  likeness  of 
that  Father's  person,  and  the  reflection  of  that  Fa*her's  mind. 
Henceforth  when  men  shall  say,  Show  us  the  Father,  he  shall 
point  to  himself  as  the  complete  revelation  of  the  Father,  and 
say,  "He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father  also." 
Henceforth,  when  men  shall  dit-pute  about  the  "being"  and 
"nature"  of  God,  it  shall  be  a  perfect  answer  to  uphold  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  complete,  perfect  revelation  and  manifestation  of 
God,  and  through  all  the  ages  it  shall  be  so;  there  shall  be  no 
excuse  for  men  saying  they  know  not  God,  for  all  may  known 
him,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest,  so  tangible,  so  real  a  revela- 
tion has  God  given  of  himself  in  the  person  and  character  of 
Jesus  Christ.  He  lived  his  life  on  earth — a  life  of  sorrow  and 
of  gentleness,  its  pathway  strewn  with  actions  fraught  with 
mercy,  kindness,  and  love.  A  man  he  was,  approved  of  God 
among  men,  by  miracles,  and  wonders  and  signs  which  God  did 
by  him.  Being  delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel  and  fore- 
knowledge of  God,  men  took  and  by  wicked  hands  crucified  and 
slew  him,  but  God  raised  him  up.  having  loosed  the  pains  of  death, 
because  it  was  not  possible  that  he  should  be  holden  of  it; and 
exalted  him  on  high  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  whence  he  shall 
come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.* 

Mark  you,  in  all  this  there  is  not  a  word  about  the  myster- 
ious, ineffable  generation  of  the  Son  of  God  from  the  Father, 
together  with  all  the  mysteries  that  men  have  gathered  togeth- 
er in  their  learned  disquisitions  about  God.      No  question  is 


*This  synopsis  of  the  Christ's  life  is  in  Acts  2. 


THE  "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  187 

raised  as  to  whether  Jesus  was  made  out  of  nothing  or  begot- 
ten by  ineffable  generation  from  the  substance  of  the  Father. 
Whether  he  is  consubstantial,  that  is,  of  the  same  substance 
with  the  Father,  or  only  of  a  similar  substance.  Nor  is  there 
any  question  raised  as  to  whether  Jesus  was  "begotten"  before 
or  after  time  began.  All  these  and  a  hundred  other  questions 
arose  after  the  Christian  doctrine  of  Deity  began  to  come  in 
contact  with  the  Greek  and  other  philosophies.  Jesus  accepted 
the  existence  of  God  as  a  settled  fact,  and  proclaimed  himself 
to  be  the  Son  of  God:  offending  the  Jews  by  so  doing,  for  they 
saw  that  he  made  himself  equal  with  God;*  and  being  a  man, 
held  forth  himself  to  be  God.f  Slow  indeed  were  they  to  learn 
the  great  truth  plainly  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  God  is  a 
perfect  man.  Such  was  Jesus  Christ,  and  he  was  God  manifested 
in  the  flesh.  "Was,"  did  I  say?  Nay,  "is,"  I  should  have  said; 
and  such  will  he  remain  forever;  a  spirit  he  is,  clothed  with  an 
immortal  body,  a  resurrected  body  of  tangible  flesh  and  bones 
made  eternal,  and  now  dwelling  in  heaven  with  his  Father,  of 
whom  he  is  the  express  image  and  likeness;  as  well  now  as  when 
he  was  on  earth;  and  hence  the  Father  also  must  be  a  person- 
age of  flesh  and  bones,  as  tangible  as  the  exalted  man,  Christ 
Jesus  the  Lord. 

II. 

EVIDENCE   OF  CHRIST'S   DIVINITY   FROM   THE  SCRIPTURE. 

It  is  my  desire  on  this  occasion  to  place  in  the  hands  of 
the  Elders  of  Israel  such  tangible  proofs  from  the  scriptures 
concerning  Jesus  Christ  being  "God  manifested  in  the  fleeh," 
that  they  will  be  able  hereafter  to  maintain  the  doctrine  taught 
upon  this  subject  by  the  Church;  it  is  my  desire  to  cite  you 
evidence  from  which  our  young  men  may  maintain  the  doctrine 


*  John  5:  18. 
t  John  10:  30-33. 


188  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

that  God  is  an  exalted  man.  For  be  it  known  unto  you,  that 
plain  and  from  the  scriptures  indisputable  as  this  doctrine  of 
ours  is,  there  are  those  who  scorn  it,  who  call  it  blasphemy, 
and  who  roundly  denounce  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Lat- 
ter-day Saints  for  teaching  it. 

I  call  your  attention  then,  first  of  all,  to  the  fact  that 

Jesus  Christ  is  Called  God  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  first  proof  I  offer  for  this  statement  is  from  the  writ- 
ings of  Isaiah.  You  remember  perhaps  my  former  quotation 
from  Isaiah,  wherein  that  prophet  says,  "Behold,  a  virgin  shall 
conceive  and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel,"*  the 
interpretation  of  which  name  is,  according  to  Matthew,  "God 
with  us."t  So  that  this  man-child,  born  of  a  woman,  and  called 
"Immanuel,"  is  God;  and,  moreover,  is  "God  with  us" — that  is, 
with  men.     The  same  prophet  also  says: 

For  unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given;  and  the  gov- 
ernment shall  be  upon  his  shoulder;  and  his  name  shall  be  called 
Wonderful,  Counselor,  The  Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Father,  the 
Prince  of  Peace. % 

All  concede  that  this  is  in  plain  allusion  to  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  scriptures  here  directly  call  Him  "Ihe  Mighty  God,  He  is 
also  called  God  in  the  testimony  of  John.  Mark  this  language, 
for  it  is  a  passage  around  which  many  ideas  center,  and  to  which 
we  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  several  times.  In  the  preface 
to  his  Gospel,  John  says: 

In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God, 

and  the  Word  was  God.     The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God. 

*    *     *     And  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,  (and 


*  Isaiah  7:  14. 
t  Matt.  1:  23. 
%  Isaiah  9:  6. 


THE  "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  189 

we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father) 
full  of  grace  and  truth. 

There  can  be  no  question  but  direct  reference  is  here  made 
to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  being  the  "Word;"  and  the  "Word," 
or  Jesus  beiiig  with  the  Father  in  the  beginning,  and  the  "Word," 
or  Jesus  Christ,  also  being  God.  The  "Word,"  then,  as  used 
here  by  John,  is  one  of  the  titles  of  Jesus  in  his  pre-existent 
estate.  Why  called  the  "Word"  I  know  not,  unless  it  is  that 
by  a  "word"  we  make  an  expression;  and  since  Jesus  Christ  was 
to  be  the  expression  of  God,  the  revelation  of  God  to  the  chil- 
dren of  men,  he  was  for  that  reason  called  the  "Word."* 

Jesus  Declares  Himself  to  be  God— the  Son  of  God: 

Jesus  was  crucified  on  the  charge  that  he  was  an  impostor 
— that  he,  being  a  man,  said  that  "God  was  his  Father,  making 
himself  equal  with  God"  (John  5:  18). 

And  again:  "For  a  good  work  we  stone  thee  not,  but  for 
blasphemy,  and  because  that  thou  being  a  man,  makest  thyself 
God"  (John  10:  33). 

Again:  when  accused  before  Pilate,  who  declared  he  could 
''find  no  fault  in  him,"  the  Jews  answered  him,  "We  have  a  law, 
and  by  our  law  he  ought  to  die,  because  he  made  himself  the 
Son  of  God."  Moreover,  the  high  priest,  in  the  course  of  his 
trial  before  the  Sanhedrim  of  the  Jews,  directly  said  to  Jesus, 
"I  adjure  thee  by  the  living  God,  that  thou  tell  us  whether  thou 
be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.     Jesus  said  unto  him.  Thou  hast 


*  Since  the  delivery  of  the  above  discourse  I  note  the  following  in 
a  revelation  to  Joseph  Smith:  "In  the  beginning  the  Word  was,  for  he 
[Christ]  was  the  Word,  even  the  Messenger  of  Salvation."  (Doc.  and 
Gov.  Sec.  93.)  That  is,  it  appears  that  Messiah  was  called  the 
"Word"  because  He  was  the  "Messenger" — "the  Messenger  of  Salva- 
tion." 


190  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

said:  nevertheless,  I  say  unto  you,  Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the 
Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  in 
the  clouds  of  heaven"  (Matt  27:  63,  64). 

And  finally,  when  Jesus  appeared  to  the  eleven  disciples 
after  his  resurrection,  he  said  unto  them,  "All  power  is  given 
unto  me,  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Matt.  28:  18,  19).  A  clearer 
proclamation  of  his  divinity  could  not  be  made  than  in  the 
statement,  "all  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth,'' 
especially  when  it  is  followed  by  placing  himself  on  equal  foot- 
ing with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  does  when 
he  commands  his  disciples  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Nothing  can  be  added  to 
this,  except  it  be  the  words  of  God  the  Father  directly  addressed 
to  Jesus,  when  he  says,  "Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever  and 
ever"(Heb.  1:8). 

Jesus  Christ  to  be  Worshiped,  hence  God. 

Jesus  Christ  is  to  be  worshiped  by  men  and  angels;  and 
worship  is  an  honor  to  be  paid  only  to  true  Deity.  The  angels 
of  heaven  refuse  the  adoration  we  call  worship.  You  remem- 
ber when  the  Apostle  John  was  on  the  isle  of  Patmos,  and  God 
sent  a  heavenly  messenger  to  him,  how  the  Apostle  overawed 
by  the  brightness  of  his  glory  fell  upon  his  face  to  worship 
him,  and  the  angel  said:  "See  thou  do  it  not:  for  I  am  thy 
fellow  servant,  and  of  thy  brethren  the  prophets,  and  of  them 
which  keep  the  sayings  of  this  book:  Worship  God."*  So  you 
see  the  angels  refuse  divine  honors.  But  the  scriptures  prove 
that  Jesus  was  especially  to  be  worshiped;  hence  he  must  be 
Deity: 

♦Rev.  19:  10. 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  191 

For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time,  Thou  art  my 
son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee?  And  again,  I  will  be  to  him  a 
Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son.  And  again,  when  he  bringeth 
in  the  First  Begotten  into  the  world,  he  saith,  let  all  the  angels  of 
God  worship  him,* 

The  same  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians: 

Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a 
name  which  is  above  every  name:  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every 
knee  should  bow,  of  things  ia  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things 
under  the  earth;  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father. f 

There  are  other  passages  to  the  same  eifect,  but  it  is  per- 
haps unnecessary  for  me  to  turn  to  each  of  these  since  the 
ones  here  quoted  will  be  sufficient  to  establish  in  your  minds  the 
fact  contended  for. 

Jesus  Christ  is  the  Creator,  hence  God. 

Jesus  Christ  is  the  Creator.  Evidence  of  this  is  found  in 
the  testimony  of  John  from  which  I  have  already  quoted. 

In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God, 
and  the  Word  was  God.  The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God. 
All  things  were  made  by  him,  and  without  him  was  not  any  thing 
made  that  was  made.  In  him  was  life;  and  the  life  was  the  light 
of  men.J 

Again  in  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians: 

The  Father  *  *  *  hath  delivered  us  from  the  power  of 
darkness,  and  hath  translated  us  into  the  kingdom  of  h  *  * 

who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of  every  creat- 


*  Heb.  1:  5,  6. 
t  Phil.  2:  9,  10. 
t  1:  1-4. 


192  THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OP  DEITY. 

ure.  For  by  him  were  all  things  created,  that  are  in  heaven,  and 
that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones  or 
dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers:  all  things  were  created  by 
him,  and  for  him.* 

Again  io  Hebrews: 

God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  times 
past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken 
unto  us  by  his  Son,  whom  he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all  things,  by 
whom  also  he  made  the  worlds. 

Now  we  begin  to  see  the  relation  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son;  for  though  the  "Word"  be  God,  though  "Immanuel"  is  God, 
that  is,  "God  with  us,"  He  does  not  displace  God  the  Father, 
but  stands  in  the  relationship  of  a  son  to  him.  Under  the 
direction  of  the  Father,  he  created  worlds,  and  in  this  manner 
is  the  Creator  of  our  earth,  and  the  heavens  connected  with  the 
earth.  And  everywhere  the  scriptures  command  that  men  should 
worship  the  Creator.  In  fact  the  burden  of  the  cry  of  that 
angel  who  is  to  restore  the  gospel  in  the  hour  of  God's  judg- 
ment is. 

Fear  God,  and  give  glory  to  him;  for  the  hour  of  his  judgment 
is  come:  and  worship  him  that  made  heaven  and  earth  and  the  seas 
and  the  fountains  of  waters.f 

Jesus  Christ  equal  with  God  the  Father,  hence  God. 

After  the  resurrection,  Jesus  appeared  unto  his  disciples, 
and  said  to  them,  as  recorded  in  the  closing  chapter  of  Mat- 
thew: 

All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 


*  Col.  1:  12-17. 
t  Rev.  14:  7. 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  193 

Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you.* 

Observe  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  placed  upon  a  foot- 
ing of  equal  dignity  with  God  the  Father,  and  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  This  brings  to  mind  the  scripture  of  Paul,  where  he 
says,  speaking  of  Jesus: 

Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God.t 

So  also  is  Christ  given  equal  station  with  the  Father  and 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  apostolic  benediction  over  and  over 
again. 

May  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  love  of  God  and 
the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be  with  you  all. 

In  these  several  passages  we  have  Jesus  Christ,  after  his 
resurrection,  asserting  that  all  power  bad  been  given  unto  him, 
both  in  heaven  and  in  earth;  he  is  placed  upon  a  footing  of 
equal  dignity  with  God  the  Father  in  the  holy  Trinity — in  the 
Grand  Triumvirate  which  constitutes  the  Presiding  Council  or 
Godhead  reigning  over  our  heavens  and  our  earth — hence  God. 

I  now  wish  to  give  you  the  proof  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
express  image  of  the  Father;  the  express  image  of  his  person, 
as  well  as  the  revelation  of  the  attributes  of  God.  Following 
that  language  in  Hebrews  where  Jesus  is  spoken  of  as  having 
created  worlds  under  the  direction  of  the  Father,  it  is  said: 

Who  being  the  brightness  of  his  [the  Father's]  glory,  and  the 
express  image  of  his  person,  and  upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of 


*  Matt.  28:  18,  19. 
t  Phil.  2:  6. 


194  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

his  power,  when  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins,  sat  down  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high.* 

So  Paul  to  the  Corinthians: 

The  God  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the  minds  of  those  which 
believe  not,  lest  the  light  of  the  glorious  Gospel  of  Christ,  who  is  the 
image  of  God,  should  shine  unto  them.f 

So  also,  in  his  letter  to  the  Colossians,  when  speaking  of 
Christ  Paul  says: 

Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first  born  of  every 
creature,  t 

Being  "the  express  image  of  his  person,"  then  the  "image 
of  the  invisible  God,"  Jesus  becomes  a  revelation  of  the  person 
of  God  to  the  children  of  men,  as  well  as  a  revelation  of  his 
character  and  attributes.  Again,  you  have  the  scriptures 
saying: 

For  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  [Christ  Jesus]  should  all 
fullness  dwell.  *  *  *  For  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily.§ 

All  there  is,  then,  in  God,  there  is  in  Jesus  Christ.  All 
that  Jesus  Christ  is,  God  is.  And  Jesus  Christ  is  an  immortal 
man  of  flesh  and  bone  and  spirit,  and  with  his  Father  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  will  reign  eternally  in  the  heavens. 

III. 

THE  CHARACTER  OF  GOD  REVEALED  IN  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS  CHRIST, 

Having   proved  from  the  scriptures  that  Jesus  Christ  is- 
God,  and   the  revelation  of  God  to  man,  I  come   to  another 


♦  Heb.  3:  3. 
t  II  Cor.  4.  4. 
t  Col.  1:5. 
§  Col.  1:  19;  ?:  9. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  195 

branch  of  my  subject.  I  now  wish  to  show  you  that  Jesus  Christ 
manifested  God  also  in  his  life;  and  although  I  have  been  ad- 
dressing you  for  some  time,  1  am  quite  sure  you  yourselves  would 
not  be  entirely  satisfied  with  the  treatise  upon  this  subject, 
unless  I  pointed  out  how  God  would  act  under  the  variety 
of  circumstances  in  which  it  is  our  privilege  to  behold  him 
placed. 

The  Humility  oj  God. 

First  of  all,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  deep,  the  profound 
humility  of  God;  his  great  condescenfion  in  living  among  men, 
as  he  did,  for  our  instruction;  and  from  that  circumstance 
would  draw  to  your  attention  the  lesson  of  humility  his  life 
teaches.  The  heights  of  glory  to  which  Jesus  had  attained, 
the  power  and  dignity  of  his  position  in  the  heavenly  king- 
dom, of  course,  cannot  be  comprehended  by  us  in  our  present 
finite  condition,  and  with  our  limited  knowledge  of  things. 
Great  and  exalted  as  we  might  think  him  to  be,  you  may  depend 
upon  it  he  was  exalted  infinitely  higher  than  that.  Then  when 
jou  think  of  one  living  and  moving  in  the  courts  of  heaven  and 
mingling  in  the  councils  of  the  Gods,  consenting  to  come  down 
to  this  earth  and  pass  through  the  conditions  that  Jesus  passed 
through,  do  you  not  marvel  at  his  humility?  To  be  born  under 
such  circumstances  as  would  enable  wicked  man  to  cast  reflection 
upon  his  very  birth!*  To  be  born,  too,  in  a  stable,  and  to  be 
cradled  in  a  manger!  To  grow  up  a  peasant,  with  a  peasant's 
labor  to  perform,  and  a  peasant's  fare  to  subsist  upon  from 
childhood  to  manhood — do  you  not  marvel  at  this  great  humility, 
at  this  great  condescension  of  God?     And  by  his  humility,  are 


*  St.  John  8:  41. 


196  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

not  men  taught  humility,  as  they  are  taught  it  by  no  other 
circumstance  whatsoever! 

The  Obedience  oj  God. 

Of  his  youth,  we  know  but  little;  but  the  little  we 
know  reveals  a  shining  quality,  either  for  God  or  man  to 
possess.  You  must  remember,  in  all  our  consideration  of  the 
life  of  Messiah,  one  truth,  which  comes  to  us  from  the 
scriptures  in  an  incidental  way,  viz.,  that  "In  his  humiliation  his 
judgment  was  taken  from  him."*  As  the  veil  is  drawn  over  our 
minds  when  our  pre  existent  spirits  come  into  this  world,  and 
we  forget  the  Father  and  mother  of  the  spirit  world,  and  the 
positions  we  occupied  there,  so,  too,  with  Jesus;  in  his  humilia- 
tion his  judgment  was  taken  from  him;  he  knew  not  at 
first  whence  he  came,  nor  the  dignity  of  his  station  in  heaven. 
It  was  only  by  degrees  that  he  felt  the  Spirit  working  within 
him  and  gradually  unfolding  the  sublime  idea  that  he  was 
peculiarly  and  pre-eminently  the  Son  of  God  in  very  deed.  When 
at  Jerusalem,  about  twelve  years  of  age,  he  began  to  be 
conscious  of  the  suggestions  of  the  Spirit  within  him,  and 
hence  allowed  the  caravan  with  which  he  had  come  from 
distant  Galilee  to  Judea  to  start  upon  the  return  journey 
without  him,  much  to  the  perplexity  and  sorrow  of  his 
supposed  father,  Joseph,  and  his  mother  Mary.  They 
missing  him,  returned  and  found  him  in  the  temple  disputing 
with  the  doctors  and  lawyers.  Thev  reprimanded  him,  as  they 
would  reprimand  any  boy  guilty  of  similar  conduct;  but  when 
they  reproved  him,  he  answered,  "Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be 
about  my  Father's  business."  He  began  to  understand  his 
mission.  The  spirit  promptings  were  at  work  in  his  soul. 
And  while  ultimately  the  spirit  was  given  without   measure 

*  Acts  8:  33. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  197 

unto  him,*  it  was  not  so  at  first,  for  "He  recived  not  of  the 
fullness  at  the  first,  but  received  grace  for  grace. "f  The 
child  Jesus  "grew,  and  waxed  strong  in  spirit,  filled  with  wis- 
dom: and  the  grace  of  God  was  upon  him.  *  *  "^  And 
Jesus  increased  in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God 
and  man."}  But  notwithstanding  Jesus,  at  twelve  years  of  age, 
and  earlier,  began  to  experience  the  operations  of  the  Spirit 
calling  his  soul  to  his  mission,  still  we  are  told  that  he  returned 
with  his  parents  to  Galilee,  "and  was  subject  unto  them."  He 
who  had  given  the  law,  "Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother," 
in  this  act  exemplified  the  honor  that  he  entertained  for  that 
law,  in  his  practice  of  it. 

We  next  see  him  coming  to  the  banks  of  Jordan,  where  a 
prophet  of  God  is  baptizing — one  of  those  strange,  eccentric 
men,  who  lived  for  the  most  part  in  the  wilderness,  whose  food 
was  locusts  and  wild  honey,  and  whose  clothing  was  the  skins 
of  wild  animals;  and  yet  through  all  this  eccentricity,  through 
all  this  oddness  of  character,  shone  the  divine  powers  of  God 
in  this  messenger,  and  multitudes  of  people  gathered  to  his 
preaching  by  the  Jordan,  where  he  baptized  them  for  the  re- 
mission of  their  sins.  By  and  by,  Jesus  comes  and  demands 
baptism  at  this  man's  hands;  and  as  he  enters  The  water,  the 
prophet  stays  him,  and  says,  "1  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee, 
and  comest  thou  to  me?"  Already,  doubtless,  shining  through 
this  "expression  of  God,"— this  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  — the  servant 
of  the  Lord,  in  attune,  through  the  spirit  of  inspiration,  with 
the  very  God  who  was  approaching  him,  felt  the  divinity  of  his 
presence,  and  would  fain  acknowledge  his  own  inferiority. 
What  was  the  reply?  "Suflfer  it  to  be  so  now:  for  thus  it 
becometh  us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness."    He  who  had  said  that 


*  St.  John  3:  34. 

t  Doc.  and  Gov.,  Sec.  93:  12,  13. 

i  Luke  2:  40,  52. 


198  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

men  must  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  though  him- 
self sinless,  would  honor  that  law  by  obedience  unto  it. 
Thus  we  learn  that  God  can  not  only  give  law,  but  he  can 
obey  law.  Indeed,  only  those  who  know  how  to  obey  law  are 
qualified  to  make  it. 

The  Patience  oj  God  Under  Temptation. 

Next  we  shall  see  how  God,  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ, 
manages  himself  under  temptation.  After  his  baptism,  he  was 
driven  of  the  spirit  into  the  wilderness,  where  he  fasted  forty 
days  and  forty  nights.  There  under  the  quiet  stars,  and  in  the 
desert,  he  was  consecrating  his  life  to  the  service  of  God  the 
Father,  and  gathering  to  himself  those  spiritual  forces,  and 
calling  up  those  divine  powers,  that  should  carry  him  through 
the  three  years  of  storm  and  tempest  that  must  be  his  in  the 
fulfillment  of  his  mission.  When  he  had  reached  his  greatest 
point  of  weakness,  when  "an  hungtred,"  and  fainting  from 
his  long  fast,  whom  do  you  suppose  came  into  his  presence  to 
tempt  him?  No  other  than  his  arch-enemy;  the  one  with  whom 
he  contended  in  the  councils  of  God  before  the  foundations  of 
this  earth  were  laid,  when  the  great  plan  of  life  and  salvation 
was  being  discussed — Lucifer,  in  the  full  pride  of  his  strength 
and  glory  came  tempting  him.  I  say  Lucifer  came  in  the 
fullness  of  his  strength  and  glory;  for  I  take  it  that  at  this 
time  he  had  well-nigh  reached  the  pinnacle  of  his  power.  We 
have  seen  that  he  had  blinded  all  the  races  of  men  respecting 
God.  Truly,  he  held  the  nations  of  the  world  and  their  glory 
within  his  own  hands:  and  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God  was 
not  had  among  men.  Proudly,  therefore,  he  steps  to  the  side 
of  the  weakened  God,  to  propound  certain  questions  to  him. 
In  substance,  he  said,  "You  have  had  whisperings  of  the  Spirit 
that  you  are  Deity,  that  you  are  the  Son  of  God.  If  so, 
exercise  your  creative  power,  turn  these  stones  into  bread,  and 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  199 

satisfy  your  hunger.  Come,  since  you  are  a  God,  you  must 
needs  have  creative  powers;  try  it  upon  these  stones  and 
hunger  no  more."  God,  in  the  presence  of  his  arch-enemy,  still 
retained  his  humility,  and  answered  out  of  the  scriptures:  "It 
is  written,  Man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone." 

After  that,  Lucifer  takes  the  Christ  to  the  pinnacle  of  the 
temple,  and  tries  him  upon  another  side— a  side  upon  which 
good  men  are  particularly  vulnerable,  the  side  of  their  vanity, 
that  prompts  them  to  believe  they  are  the  special  favorites 
of  heaven,  and  that  God  had  given  his  angels  charge  concerning 
them.  Christ's  tempter  said,  "If  thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  cast 
thyself  down:  for  it  is  written,  he  shall  give  his  angels  charge 
concerning  thee:  and  in  their  hands  they  shall  bear  thee  up, 
lest  at  any  time  thou  dash  thy  foot  against  a  stone."  Again 
the  Son  of  God  answers  in  humility,  and  still  out  of  the  scrip- 
tures: "It  is  written  also.  Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God." 
Because  God  has  given  you  certain  promises,  you  apostles,  and 
prophets,  and  men  of  God;  because  you,  by  your  righteousness, 
perchance  have  made  yourselves  of  the  elect  of  God,  it  is  not 
becoming  that  you  should  be  putting  God  constantly  upon 
trial.  "Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God."  Walk  your 
pathway  in  the  light  of  common  sense,  and  be  not  puffed  up 
with  vanity  because  there  is  something  special  in  your  relation- 
ship with  God. 

Lucifer  next  approaches  Jesus  upon  the  side  most  vulner- 
able of  all,  in  quick  and  mighty  spirits — on  the  side  of  ambition. 
I  take  it  that  there  have  been  but  few  strong  men  who  have 
not  felt  the  desire  to  rule,  to  govern;  and  not  always  selfishly, 
either,  or  for  personal  ends,  but  sometimes  out  of  an  honest 
thought  that  they  can  do  somewhat  of  good  to  humanity.  Even 
good  men  may  love  power,  and  may  aspire  to  the  righteous  ex- 
ercise of  it.  It  was  upon  this  side  that  Lucifer  sought  to 
break  in  upon  the  virtue  of  Jesus.     He  unveils  the  kingdoms  of 


200  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  op  deity. 

the  world;  which  he  holds  in  his  thraldom;  he  reveals  their 
glory,  and  the  might  and  majesty  to  which  men  may  attain,  if 
only  they  can  grasp  the  sceptre  of  some  great  empire.  Now, 
says  he,  "All  these  things  will  I  give  thee,  if  thou  wilt  fall 
down  and  worship  me."  He  who  has  answered  in  tones  so  hum- 
ble up  to  this  point;  and  has  endured  the  taunts  and  question- 
ings of  his  great  enemy  with  becoming  modesty  and  humility,  now, 
evidently,  feels  stirring  within  him  some  of  those  mister  pow- 
ers that  may  shake  the  world  and  send  the  stars  out  of  their 
courses,  "Get  thee  hence,  Satan,"  said  he,  "for  it  is  written, 
Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou 
serve  "  The  spirit  of  the  Son  of  God  was  aroused,  it  was  time 
for  Lucifer's  departure,  and  so  he  left  Jesus,  and  angels  came 
and  ministered  unto  him.  So  God  deports  himself  under  trial 
and  temptation.     How  splendid  the  lesson  for  man  ! 

The  Compassion  and  Impartiality  of  God. 

Jesus  was  possessed  of  infinite  compassion.  The  incidents 
that  I  shall  relate  to  you,  in  support  of  this  statement,  are  in 
quotations  that  are  free,  and  yet,  I  think,  justified  by  the  spirit 
of  the  several  occasions.  After  all,  it  is  the  spirit  that  giveth 
life;  the  letter  killeth;  so  let  us  look  at  these  things  in  the 
spirit  of  them.  You  see  him  one  day  with  some  of  his  disciples 
approaching  the  little  village  of  Nain,  "his  raiment  dusty  and 
his  sandals  worn."  As  they  draw  near,  the  gate  is  opened  and 
a  funeral  procession  marches  out.  The  mother  of  the  young 
man  whose  body  is  being  borne  by  his  neighbors  to  the  final 
resting  place,  walks  feebly  and  weeping  beside  the  bier,  deso- 
late in  her  loneliness.  As  Jesus  saw  that  poor  woman  in  the 
midst  of  her  sorrow,  his  heart— I  pray  you  think  of  it,  for  we 
are  speaking  of  God  when  we  speak  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Creator 
of  heaven  and  earth — the  heart  of  God,  is  moved  with  compas- 
sion towards  this  woman.     He  stops  the  bier,  takes  the  dead  by 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  201 

the  hand,  and  says,  "Young  man,  I  say  unto  you.  Arise."  ^  And 
he  arose.  Jesus  Christ  gave  this  woman  back  her  son.  It  was 
an  act  of  beautiful  compassion,  one  of  many,  which  illustrates 
how  tender  and  sympathetic  is  the  heart  of  our  God  ! 

Nor  was  his  ministry  confined  exclusively  to  the  poor,  to 
the  widows,  to  the  lonely.  He  despised  not  rulers,  nor  the  rich, 
because  they  were  rich;  but  was  willing,  if  only  they  could  put 
themselves  in  a  position  to  receive  the  manifestations  of  his 
compassion — he  was  willing  to  minister  unto  them.  This  is 
proved  in  the  case  of  Jairus,  one  of  the  rulers  of  the  Jews, 
and  a  man  of  great  wealth.  You  will  remember  that  he  came 
running  to  the  Master  with  his  sorrow — his  daughter  was  lying 
dangerously  ill  at  home;  and  such  was  his  faith  that  if  the 
Master  would  but  speak  the  word,  she  would  be  healed.  While 
yet  he  spake,  one  of  his  servants  came  running,  saying,  "Thy 
daughter  is  dead:  trouble  not  the  Master."  But.'  Jesus  heeded 
not  the  word  of  the  servant.  He  had  heard  Jairus'  cry  of  faith, 
and  responsive  to  that  faith-cry,  he  made  his  way  to  the  home  of 
the  ruler,  put  out  those  who  were  unbelieving,  and  taking 
the  maid  by  the  hand,  gave  her  back  to  the  gladness  of  life, 
into  the  arms  of  the  joyous  father.  The  faith  of  that  rich  man 
was  as  great  as  the  faith  of  any  we  meet  with  in  all  the  minis- 
try of  the  Lord.  So,  wealth  is  not  necessarily  a  hindrance  to 
faith.  God  is  as  close  to  the  faithful  rich  as  to  the  faithful 
poor,  and  as  ready  to  grant  them  his  mercy,  according  to  their 
faith.  I  sometimes  think  we  make  a  mistake  when  we  would 
flout  those  who  are  rich  and  put  them  outside  the  pale  of  God's 
mercy  and  goodness  because  of  what  may  be  nothing  but  a 
prejudice — which  in  reality  may  be  our  envy — of  the  rich. 

While  on  the  way  to  the  ruler's  house,  another  incident 
happened  that  is  very  remarkable.  A  woman  in  the  throng,  a 
long  time  afflicted  with  a  grievous  ailment,  said  in  her  heart  as 
she  saw  him  pass,  "If  I  may  but  touch  his  garment,  I  shall  be 

13 


202  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

whole."  Accordingly  she  crowded  her  way  forward,  dropped 
upon  h^r  knee,  clutched  the  garment,  and  received  the  divine 
power  from  him  which  cleansed  her  body  and  healed  her  com- 
pletely. Jesus,  observing  that  something  had  happened  to  him, 
turned  to  the  apostles  and  said,  "Who  touched  me  ?"  They 
replied,  "Master,  the  multitude  throng  thee  and  press  thee,  and 
sayest  thou.  Who  touched  me?"  as  if  that  was  not  to  be  ex- 
pected in  such  a  crowd.  Ah!  said  Jesus,  but  "I  perceive  that 
virtue  is  gone  out  of  me."  What  was  it?  Simply  that  through 
this  poor  woman's  faith — who  supposed  herself  so  far  removed 
from  God  that  she  dare  not  come  into  his  presence  and  ask  for 
the  blessing  she  desired,  but  undertook  to  obtain  it  by  indirect 
means — through  her  faith  and  touching  the  garment  of  the 
Lord,  the  healing  virtues  passed  from  God  to  her  in  such  a 
tangible  manner  that  he  felt  their  departure,  just  as  some  of 
you  elders,  when  administering  to  one  who  was  full  of  faith 
have  felt  your  spiritual  strength  and  life  go  out  from  you  leav- 
ing you  weak  and  almost  helpless,  but  giving  healthful  life  to 
the  afflicted.  I  speak  to  men  who  have  experience  in  these 
things,  and  I  know  that  scores  of  you  could  bear  witness  to  the 
truth  of  this  phenomenon.  If  our  lives  can  but  touch  the  life 
of  God,  such  is  his  nature  that  we  shall  partake  of  the  virtues 
that  go  out  from  him. 

What  shall  I  say  of  lepers  that  crowded  into  Messiah's  pres- 
ence, and  who,  notwithstanding  the  loathsomeness  of  their  [dis- 
ease, found  sympathy  and  help  from  contact  with  him?  What  of 
the  blind,  the  lame,  the  halt?  Why,  let  us  not  speak  of  them;  for 
though  it  is  a  great  thing  that  their  bodies  should  be  healed, 
and  they  should  go  through  the  community  singing  the  praises 
of  him  who  had  restored  them,  there  are  better  things  to  speak 
of — the  healing  of  men's  souls,  the  purifying  of  their  spirits. 

God's  Treatment  of  Sinners. 

Let  us  ask,  rather,  how  did  Jesus  Christ — God — deal  with 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OP   DEITY.  203 

sinners?  I  take  one  incident  that  has  always  appealed  very  strong- 
ly to  me,  and  illustrates  the  spirit  in  which  Christ  deals  with  sin- 
ners; for  this  God  of  ours  is  peculiarly  the  friend  of  sinners,  not 
because  of  their  sins,  however,  but  in  spite  of  them;  and  because 
of  his  compassion  upon  those  so  unfortunate  as  to  be  under  the 
bondage  of  sin.  The  over-righteous  Pharisees  of  Christ's  time 
would  not  for  the  world  come  in  contact  with  sinful  men,  lest 
they  themselves  should  be  polluted.  They  gathered  the  robes 
of  their  scanctity  about  them,  and  considered  themselves  in 
such  close  relation  with  God  that  they  could  afford  to  despise 
his  poor,  unfortunate,  sinful  children,  instead  of  holding  out 
the  hand  that  would  bring  them  from  the  kingdom  of  darkness 
into  the  brightness  and  glory  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  not 
80  with  Jesus  Christ.  When  he  was  accused  by  this  class  of 
men  of  mingling  with  publicans  and  sinners,  his  answer  to  them 
was,  "They  that  are  whole  need  not  a  physician;  but  they  that 
are  sick.  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  re- 
pentance." As  if  he  had  said,  you  who  are  righteous  and 
have  no  need  of  healing  for  sin,  stand  by  yourselves;  my  mis- 
sion is  not  to  you,  but  to  those  who  have  need  of  God's  help. 
Such  was  the  spirit  of  his  answer.  The  incident  to  which  I  re- 
fer as  illustrative  of  his  compassion  for  sinners,  is  this:  The 
Jews  were  always  on  the  alert  to  entrap  the  Messiah's  feet  and 
bring  him  into  contradiction  with  the  law  of  Moses.  The  law 
of  Moses,  as  first  given  to  Israel,  was  that  if  any  should  be 
found  in  adultery  they  should  be  stoned  to  death;  but  the  Rab- 
bis, by  nice  discriminations  of  words,  practically  had  rendered 
that  law  a  dead  letter,  by  reason  of  which  the  adulterers  in 
Israel  escaped  the  punishment  that  God  had  decreed  against 
them.  Therefore,  they  thought  if  they  could  take  a  person 
who  unquestionably  had  been  guilty  of  this  crime  and  bring  him 
or  her  into  the  presence  of  Jesus,  they  would  either  bring  him 
in  conflict  with  the  law  of  Moses,  or  with  the  tradition  of  the 


204  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

elders,  and  in  either  case  would  have  sufficient  cause  to  de- 
nounce him  before  the  people.  So  they  found  a  woman,  caught 
in  the  act;  they  dragged  her  through  the  streets,  and 
cast  her  at  his  feet.  "Master,"  said  they,  "this  woman,  was 
taken  in  adultery,  in  the  very  act.  Now  Moses  in  the  law  com- 
manded us,  that  such  should  be  stoned:  but  what  sayest  thou?" 
He  replied,  "He  that  is  without  sin  among  you,  let  him  first  cast 
a  stone  at  her."  One  by  one  they  slunk  away,  until  the  woman 
was  left  alone  with  Jesus.  When  Jesus  looked  around,  and  saw 
none  but  the  woman,  he  said  to  her,  "Woman,  where  are  thine 
accusers?  hath  no  man  condemned  thee?"  "No  man,  Lord," 
she  said.  Then  Jesus  said:  "Neither  do  I  condemn  thee:  go 
and  sin  no  more."  That  is  how  God  deals  with  sinners.  It  is 
written  that  God  cannot  look  upon  sin  with  the  least  degree  of 
allowance,  and  that  is  true,  he  cannot;  but  how  about  the  sin- 
ner? Why,  he  may  look  upon  the  sinner  with  infinite  compas- 
sion. While  sin  must  always  be  hateful,  yet  will  he  help  and 
love  the  sinner,  if  he  will  but  go  his  way  and  sin  no  more.  Such 
is  our  human  weakness,  and  so  nearly  the  level  upon  which  we 
all  move,  that  there  is  none  of  us  but  will  plead  mightily  for 
mercy;  and,  thank  God,  we  shall  not  plead  in  vain;  for,  while 
our  Judge  cannot  look  upon  sin  with  any  degree  of  allowance, 
his  heart  goes  out  in  compassion  and  love  to  men  and  he  will 
help  them  to  overcome  sin,  to  fight  a  good  fight,  to  keep  the 
faith,  and  at  last  enable  them  to  win  the  crown  in  the  kingdom 
of  our  God. 

God^s  Spirit  of  Toleration. 

Jesus,  moreover,  was  tolerant.  You  will  recall  the  circum- 
stance of  his  having  to  go  through  Samaria,  and  you  remember 
that  the  Samaritans  hated  the  Jews,  and  Jesus  was  a  Jew.  Some 
of  his  disciples  went  into  a  village  of  Samaria,  through  which 
Jesus  would  have  to  pass,  and  sought  to  make  arrangements  for 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF   DEITY.  205 

the  Master  to  stay  over  night;  but  the  Samaritans  closed  their 
doors  against  him.  They  had  heard  of  him;  he  was  a  Jew;  and 
in  the  narrowness  of  their  minds  they  would  not  admit  the 
hated  Jew  into  their  homes.  This  very  much  angered  the  disci- 
ple John,  who  loved  Jesus  dearly.  He  was  one  of  the  "sons  of 
thunder,"  and  possessed  of  a  spirit  that  could  love;  and  being 
strong  in  love,  as  is  often  the  case — I  was  going  to  say  as  is 
always  the  case — he  was  likewise  strong  in  hating.  He  was  the 
type  of  man  that  does  both  heartily.  Hence,  he  went  to  the 
Master  and  asked  him  if  he  might  not  call  down  fire  from  heav- 
en upon  those  Samaritans  for  thus  rejecting  the  Master.  Jesus 
replied:  "Ye  know  not  what  spirit  ye  are  of.  The  Son  of  Man 
came  to  save,  not  to  destroy."  A  broadness,  a  liberality  truly 
glorious. 

Jesus  was  properly  broad  minded — liberal.  On  one  occasion 
some  of  the  disciples  found  one  casting  out  devils  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  and  they  forbade  him,  because  he  followed  not  the 
Master.  When  they  came  into  the  presence  of  Jesus,  they  re- 
ported this  case  and  told  what  they  had  done.  Jesus  said,  "For- 
bid him  not:  for  there  is  no  man  which  shall  do  a  miracle  in  my 
name,  that  can  lightly  speak  evil  of  me."  Then  he  gave  us  the 
other  half  of  that  truth,  "He  that  is  not  for  me  is  against  me," 
by  saying,  "For  he  that  is  not  against  us  is  for  us."  Thus  he 
corrected  the  narrow-mindedness  of  his  own  apostles. 

The  Severity  oj  God. 

But  notwithstanding  all  his  mercy,  his  tolerance,  his  pa- 
tience and  gentleness,  there  were  times  when  he  who  was  so 
infinitely  merciful  could  also  be  infinitely  just;  he  who  was  so 
infinitely  compassionate  could  be  infinitely  severe.  I  give  you 
an  instance  of  it.  He  had  struggled  long  and  hard  with  those 
hypocrites,  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees;  and  fiaally  the  voice  of 


206  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

justice  and  reproof,  as  it  is  to  be  found  in  God,  speaks  forth 
through  Jesus  Christ,  and  this  is  what  he  said : 

Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites!  for  ye  shut  up 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  men:  for  ye  neither  go  in  yourselves, 
neither  suffer  ye  them  that  are  entering  to  go  in.  Woe  unto  you, 
scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites!  for  ye  devour  widows'  houses,  and 
for  a  pretense  make  long  prayers:  therefore  ye  shall  receive  the 
greater  damnation. 

That  is  not  so  gentle,  is  it?    Listen  again: 

Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites!  for  ye  compass 
sea  and  land  to  make  one  proselyte,  and  when  he  is  made,  ye  make 
him  twofold  more  the  child  of  hell  than  yourselves.  Woe  unto  you, 
ye  blind  guides,  which  say,  Whosoever  shall  swear  by  the  temple,  it 
is  nothing;  but  whosoever  shall  swear  by  the  gold  of  the  temple,  he 
is  a  debtor!  Ye  fools  and  blind:  for  whether  is  greater,  the  gold,  or 
the  temple  that  sanctifieth  the  gold?  And,  Whosoever,  shall  swear 
by  the  altar,  it  is  nothing;  but  whosoever  sweareth  by  the  gift  that 
is  upon  it,  he  is  guilty.  Ye  fools  and  blind:  for  whether  is  greater, 
the  gift,  or  the  altar  that  sanctifieth  the  gift?  *  *  *  Ye 
blind  guides,  which  strain  at  a  gnat,  and  swallow  a  camel.  Woe 
unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees!  for  ye  make  clean  the  outside  of  the 
cup  and  of  the  platter,  but  within  they  are  full  of  extortion  and 
excess.  Thou  blind  Pharisee,cleanse  first  that  which  is  within  the  cup 
and  platter,  that  the  outside  of  them  may  be  clean  also.  Woe  unto 
you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites!  for  ye  are  like  unto  whited 
sepulchres,  which  indeed  appear  beautiful  outward,  but  are  within 
full  of  dead  men's  bones,  and  of  all  uncleanness.  Even  so  ye  also 
outwardly  appear  righteous  unto  men,  but  within  ye  are  full  of 
hypocrisy  and  iniquity.  Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypo- 
crites! because  ye  build  the  tombs  of  the  prophets,  and  garnish  the 
sepulchres  of  the  righteous,  and  say,  If  we  had  been  in  the  days  of 
our  fathers,  we  would  not  have  been  partakers  with  them  in  the 
blood  of  the  prophets.  Wherefore  ye  be  witnesses  unto  yourselves, 
that  ye  are  the  children  of  them  which  killed  the  prophets.    Fill  ye 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  207 

up  then  the  measure  of  your  fathers.     Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of 
vipers,  how  can  ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell? 

And  this  from  that  gentle,  compassionate  man!  The  voice 
of  God  in  its  severity  speaks  through  these  tones,  and  bids  us 
understand  that  it  must  be  a  terrible  thing  to  fall  under  the 
displeasure  of  God.  Think  of  the  infinite  difference  between 
that  sweet  compassion  which  he  has  for  the  penitent  sinner,  and 
this  severe  but  just  arraignment  of  those  who  persist  in  their 
sins!  A  warning  to  all  men  to  beware  of  the  justice  of  God, 
when  once  it  shall  be  aroused! 

God  Completely  Revealed  Through  Christ. 

My  friends,  this  Jesus  Christ  is  God  manifested  in  the 
flesh,  proved  to  be  so  from  the  scripture;  the  character  of  God 
is  revealed  in  the  wonderful  life  that  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God, 
lived  on  earth;  in  it  we  see  God  in  action;  and  from  it  we  see 
the  gentleness,  the  compassion,  and  also  the  justice  and  severity 
of  God.  Jesus  Christ  is  God;  and  he  is  also  man;  but  I  take 
no  stock  in  those  sectarian  refinements  which  try  to  tell  us 
about  the  humanity  of  Jesus  being  separate  from  the  divinity 
of  Jesus.  He  himself  made  no  such  distinctions.  He  was 
divine,  spirit  and  body,  and  spirit  and  body  was  exalted  to 
the  throne  of  his  Father,  and  sits  there  now  with  all  the  powers 
of  the  Godhead  residing  in  him  bodily,  an  immortal,  glorified, 
exalted  man!  The  express  image  and  likeness  God  of  the 
Father;  for  as  the  Son  is,  so  is  the  Father.  Yet  when  we  an- 
nounce to  the  world  that  we  believe  God  to  be  an  exalted  man, 
we  are  told  that  we  are  blasphemers.  But  as  long  as  the 
throne  of  Jesus  Christ  stands  sure,  so  long  as  his  spirit  remains 
in  his  immortal  body  of  flesh  and  bones,  glorified  and  everlasting, 
shall  keep  his  place  by  the  side  of  the  Father,  so  long  will  the 
doctrine  that  God  is  an  exalted  man  hold  its  place  against  the 
idle  sophistries  of  the  learned  world.     The  doctrine  is  true.     It 


208  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

canot  be  unthroned.  A  truth  is  a  solemn  thing.  Not  the 
mockery  of  ages,  not  the  lampooning  of  the  schoolmen,  not  the 
derision  of  the  multitude,  not  the  blasphemy  of  the  world,  can 
affect  it;  it  will  always  remain  true.  And  this  doctrine,  announced 
by  Joseph  Smith  to  the  world,  that  God  is  an  exalted  man,  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  revelation  of  God  to  the  world,  and  that  he  is 
just  like  his  Father,  and  that  those  who  are  his  brethren  may  be- 
come as  he  is,  when  they  have  walked  in  his  footsteps — that  is 
a  doctrine  that  will  stand  sure  and  fast  as  the  throne  of  God 
itself.  For  Jesus  Christ  was  God  manifested  in  the  flesh.  He 
was  the  revelation  of  God  to  the  world.  He  was  and  is  and 
ever  will  remain  an  exalted  man.  He  is,  and  always  will  re- 
main, God. 


CHAPTER  V. 

A   COLLECTION   OF  PASSAGES    FROM    "mORMON"  WORKS,  SETTING 
FORTH    "mormon"   VIEWS    OF  DEITY. 

In  this  chapter  I  present  a  collection  of  "Mormon"  utter- 
ances on  the  subjects  of  Deity,  of  man,  and  of  his  relationship 
to  God.  They  are  selected  from  discourses  and  other  writings 
of  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  from  the  Book  of  Mormon,  the 
revelations  in  the  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  the  Pearl  of  Great 
Price,  some  of  the  earlier  Church  publications,  and  last  of  all, 
I  give,  by  permission,  a  recent  discourse  by  President  Joseph 
F.  Smith.  These  utterances  are  arranged  in  an  order,  and 
with  the  view  of  establishing  the  fact  that  from  the  beginning 
of  what  the  world  calls  "Mormonism,"  the  views  contended  for 
in  the  body  of  this  work,  have  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Church. 

Ike  Father  and  the  Son  are  Represented  as  Distinct  Persons, 
and  also  as  Being  in  the  Form  of  Men,  in  the  First  Vision 
of  the  Prophet  of  the  New  Dispensation. 

It  is  well  known  that  while  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  was  a 
lad,  but  fourteen  years  of  age,  he  became  much  exercised  on  the 
subject  of,  religion,  and  very  much  perplexed  in  consequence  of 
the  division  and  strife  existing  among  the  religious  sects,  by 
which  he  was  surrounded.  And  now  his  own  account  as  to  how 
he  sought  wisdom  and  obtained  a  very  important  revelation,  in 


210  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

which  he  learned  very  important  truths,  both  concerning  God 
and  the  state  of  the  religious  world: 

In  the  midst  of  this  war  of  words  and  tumult  of  opinions,  I  often 
said  to  myself:  What  is  to  be  done?  Who  of  all  these  parties  are 
right;  or,  are  they  all  wrong  together?  If  any  one  of  them  he  right, 
which  is  it,  and  how  shall  I  know  it?  While  I  was  laboring  under 
the  extreme  difficulties  caused  by  the  contests  of  these  parties  of 
religionists,  I  was  one  day  reading  the  Epistle  of  James,  first  chap- 
ter and  fifth  verse,  which  reads: 

If  any  of  you  lack  wisdom,  let  him  ask  of  God,  that  giveth  to  all 
men  liberally,  and  upbraideth  not;  and  it  shall  be  given  him. 

Never  did  any  passage  of  scripture  come  with  more  power  to 
the  heart  of  man  than  this  did  at  this  time  to  mine.  It  seemed  to 
enter  with  great  force  into  every  feeling  of  my  heart.  I  reflected 
on  it  again  and  again,  knowing  that  if  any  person  needed  wisdom 
from  God,  I  did;  for  how  to  act  I  did  not  know,  and  unless  I  could 
get  more  wisdom  than  I  then  had,  I  would  never  know;  for  the 
teachers  of  religion  of  the  different  sects  understood  the  same 
passages  of  scripture  so  differently  as  to  destroy  all  confidence  in 
settling  the  question  by  an  appeal  to  the  Bible. 

At  length  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  I  must  either  remain  in 
darkness  and  confusion,  or  else  I  must  do  as  James  directs,  that  is, 
ask  of  God.  I  at  length  came  to  the  determination  to  ask  of  God, 
concluding  that  if  he  gave  wisdom  to  them  that  lacked  wisdom,  and 
would  give  liberally,  and  not  upbraid,  I  might  venture. 

So,  in  accordance  with  this,  my  determination  to  ask  of  God, 
I  retired  to  the  woods  to  make  the  attempt.  It  was  on  the  morning 
of  a  beautiful  clear  day,  early  in  the  spring  of  eighteen  hundred  and 
twenty.  It  was  the  first  time  in  my  life  that  I  had  made  such  an 
attempt,  for  amidst  all  my  anxieties,  I  had  never  as  yet  made  the  at- 
tempt to  pray  vocally. 

After  I  had  retired  to  the  place  where  I  had  previously  designed 
to  go,  having  looked  around  me,  and  finding  myself  alone,  I  kneeled 
down  and  began  to  offer  up  the  desires  of  my  heart  to  God.    I  had 


THE   '"mormon"    doctrine   OF  DEITY.  211 

scarcely  done  so  when  immediately  I  was  seized  upon  by  some  power 
which  entirely  overcome  me,  and  had  such  an  astonishing  influence 
over  me,  as  to  bind  my  tougue  so  that  I  could  not  speak.  Thick 
darkness  gathered  around  me,  and  it  seemed  to  me  for  a  time  as  if  I 
were  doomed  to  sudden  destruction. 

But,  exerting  all  my  powers  to  call  upon  God  to  deliver  me  out 
of  the  power  of  this  enemy  which  had  seized  upon  me;  and  at  the 
very  moment  when  I  was  ready  to  sink  into  despair  and  abandon  my- 
self to  destruction — not  to  an  imaginary  ruin,  but  to  the  power  of 
some  actual  being  from  the  unseen  world,  who  had  such  marvelous 
power  as  I  had  never  before  felt  in  any  being — just  at  this  moment 
of  great  alarm,  I  saw  a  pillar  of  light  exactly  over  my  head,  above 
the  brightness  of  the  sun,  which  descended  gradually  until  it  fell 
upon  me.  It  no  sooner  appeared  than  I  felt  myself  delivered  from 
the  enemy  which  held  me  bound. 

When  the  light  rested  upon  me  I  saw  two  personages,  whose  bright- 
ness and  glory  defy  all  description,  standing  above  me  in  the  air.  One 
of  them  spake  unto  me,  calling  me  by  name,  and  said,  pointing  to  the 
other:  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  hear  Him!" 

My  object  in  going  to  enquire  of  the  Lord,  was  to  know,  which, 
of  all  the  sects,  was  right;  that  I  might  know  which  to  join.  No 
sooner,  therefore,  did  I  get  possession  of  myself,  so  as  to  be  able  to 
speak,  than  I  asked  the  personages  who  stood  above  me  in  the  light, 
which,  of  all  the  sects,  was  right — and  which  I  should  join. 

I  was  answered  that  I  must  join  none  of  them,  for  they  were  all 
wrong,  and  the  personage  who  addressed  me  said  that  all  their 
creeds  were  an  abomination  in  his  sight;  that  those  professors  were 
all  corrupt;  that  they  draw  near  to  me  with  their  lips,  but  their 
hearts  are  far  from  me;  they  teach  for  doctrines  the  commandments 
of  men,  having  a  form  of  godliness,  but  denying  the  power  thereof. 

He  again  forbade  me  to  join  with  any  of  them;  and  many  other 
things  did  he  say  unto  me,  which  I  cannot  write  at  this  time.  * 


*  Pearl   of  Great   Price,  pp.  83-85.    Also   History   of  Church 
Vol.  I,  pp.  4-6. 


212  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

Of  the  importance  of  this  vision,  and  the  effects  growing 
out  of  it,  I  have  elsewhere  said: 

First,  it  is  a  flat  contradiction  to  the  sectarian  assumption 
that  revelation  had  ceased;  that  God  had  no  further  com- 
munication to  make  to  man. 

Second,  it  reveals  the  errors  into  which  men  had  fallen, 
concerning  the  personages  of  the  Godhead.  It  makes  it  mani- 
fest that  God  is  not  an  incorporeal  being  without  form,  or  body, 
or  parts;  on  the  contrary  he  appeared  to  the  Prophet  in  the 
form  of  a  man,  as  he  did  to  the  ancient  prophets.  Thus,  after 
centuries  of  controversy,  the  simple  truth  of  the  scriptures, 
which  teach  that  man  was  created  in  the  likeness  of  God — 
hence  God  must  be  the  same  in  form  as  man — was  re-affirmed. 

Third,  it  corrected  the  error  of  the  theologians  respecting 
the  oneness  of  the  persons  of  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Instead 
of  being  one  person,  as  the  theologians  teach,  they  are  distinct 
in  their  personality;  and  there  is  a  plurality  of  Gods,  for  the 
Father  and  the  Son  are  two  individuals,  as  much  so  as  any  father 
and  son  on  earth;  and  the  oneness  of  the  Godhead  referred  to 
in  the  scriptures,  must  have  reference  to  unity  of  purpose  and 
of  will;  the  mind  of  one  being  the  mind  of  the  other,  and  so  as 
to  will  and  other  attributes.  In  other  words,  the  oneness  of 
the  Godhead  is  a  moral  and  spiritual  union,  not  a  physical  one. 

The  announcement  of  these  truths,  coupled  with  that  other 
truth  proclaimed  by  the  Son  of  God,  viz.:  that  none  of  the  sects 
and  churches  of  Christendom  were  acknowledged  as  the  church 
or  kingdom  of  God,  furnish  the  elements  for  a  religious  revolu- 
tion that  will  affect  the  very  foundations  of  modern  Christian 
theology.  In  a  moment,  all  the  rubbish  concerning  theology, 
which  had  accumulated  through  all  the  centuries  since  the  gos- 
pel and  authority  to  administer  its  ordinances  had  been  taken 
from  the  earth,  was  grandly  swept  aside — the  living  rocks  of 
truth  were  made  bare  upon  which  the  Church  of  Christ  was  to 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  213 

be  founded — a  New  Dispensation  of  the  gospel  was  about  to  be 
committed  to  the  earth — God  had  raised  up  a  witness  for 
himself  among  the  children  of  men.* 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  GODHEAD  ACCORDING  TO  THE  BOOK  OF 

MORMON. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  is  not  a  formal  treatise  on  the  sub- 
ject of  theology.  It  is  in  the  main  an  abridgment  of  ancient 
Nephite  and  Jaredite  records,  and  recounts  the  hand-dealings 
of  God  with  these  ancient  peoples.  The  existence  of  God  it 
takes  for  granted,  and,  of  course,  since  its  revelations  are  local, 
that  is,  they  pertain  to  this  earth  and  its  inhabitants  only,  it 
has  reference  to  our  Godhead  alone.  It  makes  reference, 
therefore,  only  to  our  God,  and  speaks  of  him  in  the  singular 
number — as  being  one.  Rut  notwithstanding  this,  the  three 
persons  of  the  Godhead  are  frequently  spoken  of  as  being 
separate  and  distinct  personalities,  as  the  following  passages 
will  illustrate.  A  Nephite  prophet,  reasoning  upon  the  subject 
of  the  resurrection  and  the  restoration  that  will  be  brought 
about  in  connection  therewith,  says: 

But  all  things  shall  be  restored  to  their  perfect  frame,  as  they 
are  now,  or  in  the  body,  and  shall  be  brought  and  be  arraigned  be- 
fore the  bar  of  Christ  the  Son,  and  God  the  Father,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  is  one  eternal  God,  to  be  judged  according  to  their 
works,  whether  they  be  good  or  whether  they  be  evil.  * 

Again,  the  Savior  when  instructing  the  Nephites  in  the 
manner  of  baptizing,  said : 

And  now  behold,  these  are  the  words  which  ye  shall  say,  calling 
them  [those  to  be  baptized]  by  name;  saying:  Having  authority  given 


*  New  Witnesses  for  God,  vol.  I,  pp.  173-4. 
*Alma,  11:44. 


214  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

me  of  Jesus  Christ,  I  baptize  you  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     Amen.  *  *  « 

And  after  this  manner  shall  ye  baptize  in  my  name,  for  behold,  verily 
I  say  unto  you;  that  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are 
one;  and  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me,  and  the  Father 
and  I  are  one,  *  *  *  *  ^^^  ^j^jg  jg 

my  doctrine,  and  it  is  the  doctrine  which  the  Father  hath  given  unto 
me;  and  I  bear  record  of  the  Father,  and  the  Father  beareth  record 
of  me,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  beareth  record  of  the  Father  and  me, 
*  *  *  *  This  is  my  doctrine,  and  1  bear  record 

of  it  from  the  Father;  and  whoso  believeth  in  me,  belie veth  in  the 
Father  also,  and  unto  him  will  the  Father  bear  record  of  me;  for  he 
will  visit  him  with  fire,  and  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  * 

Also  the  Prophet  Mormon,  speaking  of  the  work  of  Christ, 
says: 

And  he  hath  brought  to  pass  the  redemption  of  the  world, 
whereby  he  that  is  found  guiltless  before  him  at  the  judgment  day, 
hath  it  given  unto  him  to  dwell  in  the  presence  of  God  in  his  king- 
dom, to  sing  ceaseless  praises  with  the  choirs  above,  unto  the  Father 
and  unto  the  Son,  and  unto  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  are  one  God.  f 

Seeing,  then,  that  reference  is  so  frequently  made  to  the 
members  of  the  Godhead  as  seperate  and  distinct  persons,  it  is 
clear  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  in  harmony  with  the  views 
contended  for  in  the  body  of  this  work,  as  to  the  plurality  of 
Gods,  and  the  doctrine  receives  increased  emphasis  from  other 
passages  of  the  work.     The  Prophet  Alma,  for  instance,   says: 

He  [God]  gave  commandments  unto  men,  they  having  first 
transgressed  the  first  commandments  as  to  things  which  were  tem- 
poral, and  becoming  as  Gods,  knowing  good  from  evil,  etc. 


♦niNephi,  11:  24-27;  32,  35. 
t  Mormon,  7:  7. 
t  Alma.  12:  31. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF   DEITY.  215 

Then  again,  the  Savior  when  instructing  the  Nephite 
apostles,  said  to  them: 

Ye  shall  be  judges  of  this  people,  according  to  the  judgment 
which  I  shall  give  unto  you,  which  shall  be  just;  therefore,  what 
manner  of  men  ought  ye  to  be?     Verily  I  say  unto'  you,  even  as  I 

the  Kingdom  of  my  Father;  yea,  your  joy  shall  be  full,  even  as  the 
Father  hath  given  me  fullness  of  joy;  ajid  ye  shall  be  even  as  I  am,  and 
I  am  even  as  the  Father;  and  the  Father  and  I  are  one.  * 

If  the  disciples  became  as  Christ,  and  Christ,  we  are  as- 
sured, is  as  the  Father  is,  then  these  words  of  Jesus  contem- 
plate that  these  men  will  become  as  God  now  is,  and  hence 
Gods,  and  hence  a  plurality  of  Gods. 

With  reference  to  the  form  of  God,  the  Book  of  Mormon 
has  two  very  important  and  very  emphatic  passages  on  the 
subject.  The  first  Nephi,  in  a  great  vision  given  to  him  of  the 
future,  was  attended  by  a  spirit  who  gave  him  explanations,  as 
the  several  parts  of  his  vision  passed  before  him.  And  now 
Nephi's  account: 

And  it  came  to  pass  that  the  Spirit  said  unto  me.  Look!  and  I 
looked,  and  beheld  a  tree;  *  *  *  *  ^^^ 

the  beauty  thereof  was  far  beyond,  yea,  exceeding  all  beauty,  and 
the  whiteness  thereof  did  exceed  the  whiteness  of  the  driven  snow. 
And  it  came  to  pass  after  I  had  seen  the  tree,  I  said  unto  the  Spirit : 
I  behold  thou  hast  shown  unto  me  the  tree  which  is  precious 
above  all.  And  he  said  unto  me:  What  desirest  thou?  And  I  said 
unto  him:  To  know  the  interpretation  thereof;  for  I  spake  unto  him 
as  a  man  speaketh; /or  I  beheld  that  he  was  in  the  form  of  a  man;  yet, 
nevertheless,  I  knew  that  it  was  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord;  and  he  spakp  un- 
to me  as  a  man  speaketh  with  another,  f 


*  III  Nephi,  27:  27;  28:  10. 
1 1  Nephi,  11:8-11, 


216  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

The  second  passage  alluded  to  is  found  in  the  book  of 
Ether.  The  Prophet  Moriancumr,  the  brother  of  Jared,  when 
about  to  depart  with  his  colony  in  barges  across  the  great 
deep,  had  prepared  certain  stones  which  he  prayed  the  Lord  to 
make  luminous,  that  they  might  have  light  in  the  barges  while 
on  their  journey.  He  had  approached  the  Lord  with  great 
faith,  and  expressed  full  confidence  in  the  power  of  God  to  do 
the  thing  for  which  he  prayed;  and  now  the  Book  of  Mormon 
statement  of  the  matter: 

And  it  came  to  pass  that  when  the  brother  of  Jared  had  said 
these  words,  behold  the  Lord  stretched  forth  his  hand  and  touched 
the  stones,  one  by  one  with  his  finger;  and  the  vail  was  taken  from 
off  the  eyes  of  the  brother  of  Jared,  and  he  saw  the  finger  of  the 
Lord;  and  it  was  as  the  finger  of  a  man,  like  unto  flesh  and  blood; 
and  the  brother  of  Jared  fell  down  before  the  Lord,  for  he  was  struck 
with  fear.  *  *  *  *  And  the  Lord  said 

unto  him,  arise,  why  hast  thou  fallen?  And  he  said  unto  the  Lord,  I 
saw  the  finger  of  the  Lord,  and  I  feared  lest  he  should  smite  me;  for 
I  knew  not  that  the  Lord  had  flesh  and  blood.  And  the  Lord  said 
unto  him.  Because  of  thy  faith  thou  hast  seen  that  I  shall  take  upon 
me  flesh  and  blood;  and  never  has  man  come  before  me  with  such  ex- 
ceeding faith  as  thou  hast;  for  were  it  not  so,  you  could  not  have 
seen  my  finger.  *  *  *  *  ^jjj  when  he  had 

said  these  words,  behold,  the  Lord  shewed  himself  unto  him,  and  said. 
Because  thou  knowest  these  things,  you  are  redeemed  from  the  fall; 
therefore  you  are  brought  back  into  my  presence ;  therefore  I  shew 
myself  unto  you.  Behold,  I  am  he  who  was  prepared  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world  to  redeem  my  people.  Behold,  I  am  Christ. 
I  am  the  Father  and  the  Son.*     In  me  shall  all  mankind  have  light, 


*  This  expression  made  several  times  in  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
should  not  confuse  the  reader.    Jesus  is  spoken  of  in  this  passage 
-as  both  Father  and  Son  for  the  reason  that  he  received  of  the  full- 
ness of  the  Father;  that  is,  a  fullness  of  his  glory,  his  power,  and 
dominion,  hence  Jesus    represented  God   in  his   completeness — "in 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  217 

and  that  eternally,  even  they  who  shall  believe  on  .my  name;  and 
they  shall  become  ray  sons  and  my  daughters.  And  never  have  I 
shewed  myself  unto  man  whom  I  have  created,  for  never  has  man 
believed  in  me  as  thou  hast.  Seest  thou  that  thou  art  created  after 
mine  own  image?  Yea,  even  all  men  were  created  in  the  beginning, 
after  mine  own  image.  Behold,  this  body,  which  you  now  behold,  is 
the  body  of  my  spirit;  and  man  have  I  created  after  the  body  of  my 
spirit;  and  even  as  I  appear  unto  thee  to  be  in  the  spirit,  will  I  ap- 
pear unto  my  people  in  the  flesh.* 

From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  in  harmony 
with  the  Bible's  plain  anthropomorphism;  as  also  the  one  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  other  in  affirming  the  necessary  plurality  of  Gods. 

THE  DOCTRINES  OF  THE  GODHEAD  AND  MAN  ACCORDING  TO  THE 
BOOK  OF  ABRAHAM. 

The  book  of  Abraham  came  into  the  hands  of  the  Prophet 
Joseph  Smith  in  the  form  of  Egyptian  papyrus,  in  the  summer  of 
1835.  The  following  winter  in  his  history  the  Prophet  frequently 
speaks  of  working  upon  the  translation  of  this  ancient  record. 
The  translation  was  not  completed  and  published,  however,  un- 
til March,  1842,  at  Nauvoo,  when  it  appeared  in  the  Times  and 
Seasons,  numbers  9  and  10,  Vol.  III.     In  his  writings  and  teach- 


*  Ether  3:  6-16. 


him  dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily"  (Col.  2:  9);  hence 
Deity  complete,  hence  both  Father  and  Son.  In  another  sense  also 
is  Jesus  the  "very  eternal  Father  of  heaven  and  earth:"  he  is  the  im- 
mediate creator  of  them:  and  to  the  extent  that  a  creator  may  be 
regarded  as  a  father,  Jesus  may  be  regarded  as  the  very  eternal 
Father  of  heaven  and  earth.  He  is  called  the  Son  because  he  taber- 
nacled in  the  flesh,  and,  in  his  earthly  career,  received  not  a  fullness 
of  the  Godhead  at  first.  SeelDoctrine  and  Covenants,  Sec.  93.  Also 
Mosiah  15:  1-4,  and  the  remarks  of  President  Joseph  F.  Smith  in 
this  chapter, 
14 


218  The  "mormon"  doctrine  op  deity. 

ings  the  Prophet  frequently  refers  to  this  ancient  record  with 
every  mark  of  approval.  In  the  first  publication  of  the  work 
the  introductory  heading  declared  it  to  be  "the  Book  of  Abra- 
ham, written  by  his  own  hand  upon  papyrus."  It  will  be  un- 
derstood, then,  that  its  doctrines  are  those  of  the  great 
prophet-patriarch,  Abraham.  The  book  gives  an  account  of 
the  call  of  Abraham  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  and  his  sojourn 
and  adventures  in  Egypt.  The  extracts  from  it  here  given 
deal  with  the  revelations  of  God  to  the  patriarch  concerning 
the  planetary  system,  pre-existence  and  nature  of  man,  and  the 
creation  of  the  earth  by  the  Gods — for  Abraham  throughout 
his  account  of  creation  uses  the  plural,  "the  Gods  said  let  there 
be  light;"  "the  Gods  said  let  us  make  man  in  our  image,"  etc., 
etc.,  hence  it  is  clear  that  the  doctrine  of  the  plurality  of  Gods 
was  plainly  taught  through  this  sacred  scripture  in  the  days  of 
Joseph  Smith,  for  he  translated  it,  and  it  was  published  by  him 
in  the  Times  and  Seasons  while  he  was  the  editor  of  that  jour- 
nal.    And  now  a  few  extracts  from  the  book  itself: 

And  I,  Abraham,  had  the  Urim  and  Thuramim,  which  the  Lord 
my  God  had  given  unto  me,  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees;  and  I  saw  the 
stars,  that  they  were  very  great,  and  that  one  of  them  was  nearest 
unto  the  throne  of  God;  and  there  were  many  great  ones  which  were 
near  unto  it;  and  the  Lord  said  unto  me  :  These  are  the  governing 
ones;  and  the  name  of  the  great  one  is  Kolob,  because  it  is  near  unto 
me,  for  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God:  and  I  have  set  this  one  to  govern  all 
those  which  belong  to  the  same  order  as  that  upon  which  thou  stand- 
est.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  me,  by  the  Urim  and  Thumraim,  that 
Kolob  was  after  the  manner  of  the  Lord,  according  to  its  times  and 
seasons  in  the  revolutions  thereof;  that  one  revolution  was  a  day 
unto  the  Lord,  after  his  manner  of  reckoning,  it  being  one  thousand 
years  according  to  the  time  appointed  unto  that  whereon  thou  stand- 
est.  This  is  the  reckoning  of  the  Lord's  time,  according  to  the  reck- 
oning of  Kolob. 

*  *  ♦  * 

i      ,  said  unto  me:  Now,  Abraham,  these  two  facts 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  219 

exist,  behold  thine  eyes  see  it;  it  is  given  unto  thee  to  know  the 

times  of  reckoning,  and  the  set  lime,  yea,  the  set  time  of  the  earth 

upon   which   thou  standest,  and  the  set  time  of  the  greater  light 

which  is  set  to  rule  the  day,  and   the   set  time  of  the  lesser  light 

which  is  set  to  rule  the  night.     Now  the  set  time  of  the  lesser  light 

is  a  longer  time  as  to  its  reckoning  than  the  reckoning  of  the  time 

of  the  earth  upon  which  thou  standest.     And  where  these  two  facts 

exist,  there  shall  be  another  fact  above  them,  that  ia,  there  shall  be 

another  planet  whose  reckoning  of  time  shall  be  longer  still;  and 

thus  there  shall  be  the  reckoning  of  the  time  of  one  planet  above 

another,  until  ihou  come  nigh  unto  Kolob,  which  Kolob  is  after  the 

reckoning  of  the  Lord's  time,  which  Kolob  is  set  nigh  unto  the  throne 

of  God,  to  govern  all  those  planets  which  belong  to  the  same  order 

as  that  upon  which  thou   standest.     And   it   is  given  unto  thee  to 

know  the  set  time  of  all   the  stars   that  are  set  to  give  light,  until 

thou  come  near  unto  the  throne  of  God.     Thus  I,  Abraham,  talked 

with  the  Lord  face  to  face,  as  one  man  taketh  with  another;  and  he 

told  me  of  the  works  which  his  hands  had  made;  and  he  said  unto 

me:  My  son,  my  son,  (and  his  hand  was  stretched  out,)  behold  I  will 

show  you  all  these.     And  he  put  his  hand  upon  mine  eyes,  and  I  saw 

those  things  which  his  hand  had  made,  which  were  many;   and  they 

multiplied  before  mine  eyes,  and  I  could  not  see  the  end  thereof. 
*  *  *  * 

And  it  was  in  the  night  time  when  the  Lord  spake  these  words 
unto  me:  I  will  multiply  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  like  unto 
these;  and  if  thou  canst  count  the  number  of  sands,  so  shall  be  the 
number  of  thy  seeds.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  me:  Abraham,  I  show 
these  things  unto  thee  before  ye  go  into  Egypt,  that  ye  may  declare 
all  these  words.  If  two  things  exist,  and  there  be  one  above 
the  other,  there  shall  be  greater  things  above  them;  therefore  Kolob 
is  the  greatest  of  all  the  Kokaubeam  [stars]  that  thou  hast  seen,  be- 
cause it  is  nearest  unto  me.  Now,  if  there  be  two  things,  one  above 
the  other,  and  the  moon  be  above  the  earth,  then  it  may  be  that  a 
planet  or  star  may  exist  above  it;  *  *  *  as,  also,  if  there  be 
two  spirits,  and  one  shall  be  more  intelligent  than  the  other,  yet 
these  two  spirits,  notwithstanding  one   is  more  intelligent  than  the 


220  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

other,  have  no  beginning;  they  existed  before,  they  shall  have  no 
end,  they  shall  exist  after,  for  they  are  gnolaum,  or  eternal.  And 
the  Lord  said  unto  me:  These  two  facts  do  exist,  that  there  are  two 
spirits,  one  being  more  intelligent  than  the  other;  there  shall  be  an- 
other more  intelligent  than  they;  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  I  am  more 
intelligent  than  them  all.  ***** 

I  dwell  in  the  midst  of  them  all;  I  now,  therefore,  have  come 
down  unto  thee  to  deliver  unto  thee  the  works  which  my  hands  have 
made,  wherein  my  wisdom  excelleth  them  all,  for  I  rule  in  the 
heavens  above,  and  in  the  earth  beneath,  in  all  wisdom  and  prudence, 
over  all  the  intelligences  thine  eyes  have  seen  from  the  beginning;  I 
came  down  in  the  beginning  in  the  midst  of  all  the  intelligences  thou 
hast  seen. 

Now  the  Lord  had  shown  unto  me,  Abraham,  the  intelligences 
that  were  organized  before  the  world  was;  and  among  all  these  there 
were  many  of  the  noble  and  great  ones;  and  God  saw  these  souls  that 
they  were  good,  and  he  stood  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  he  said: 
These  I  will  make  my  rulers;  for  he  stood  among  those  that  were 
spirits,  and  he  saw  that  they  were  good;  and  he  said  unto  me:  Abra- 
ham, thou  art  one  of  them;  thou  wast  chosen  before  thou  wast  born. 
And  there  stood  one  among  them  that  was  like  unto  God,  and  he  said 
unto  those  who  were  with  him:  We  will  go  down,  for  there  is  space 
there,  and  we  will  take  of  these  materials,  and  we  will  make  an 
earth  whereupon  these  may  dwell;  and  we  will  prove  them  herewith, 
to  see  if  they  will  do  all  things  whatsoever  the  Lord  their  God  shall 
command  them;  and  they  who  keep  their  first  estate  shall  be  added 
upon;  and  they  who  keep  not  their  first  estate  shall  not  have  glory 
in  the  same  kingdom  with  those  who  keep  their  first  estate;  and 
they  who  keep  their  second  estate  shall  have  glory  added  upon  their 
heads  for  ever  and  ever.  And  the  Lord  said:  Whom  shall  I  send? 
And  one  answered  like  unto  the  Son  of  Man:  Here  am  I,  send  me. 
And  another  answered  and  said:  Here  am  I,  send  me.  And  the  Lord 
said:  I  will  send  the  first.  And  the  second  was  angry,  and  kept 
not  his  first  estate;  and,  at  that  day,  many  followed  after  him. 
And  then  the  Lord  said:  Let  us  go  down.  And  they  went  down  at 
the  beginning,  and  they,  that  is,  the  Gods,  organized  and  formed  the 


THE  "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  221 

heavens  and  the  earth.  And  the  earth,  after  it  was  formed,  was 
empty  and  desolate,  because  they  had  not  formed  anything  but  the 
earth;  and  darkness  reigned  upon  the  face  of  the  deep,  and  the 
Spirit  of  the  Gods  was  brooding  upon  the  face  of  the  waters.  And 
they  (the  Gods)  said:  Let  there  be  light;  and  there  was  light.  And 
they  (the  Gods)  comprehended  the  light,  for  it  was  bright;  and  they 
divided  the  light,  or  caused  it  to  be  divided,  from  the  darkness.  And 
the  Gods  called  the  light  Day,  and  the  darkness  they  called  Night, 
And  it  came  to  pass  that  from  the  evening  until  morning  they  called 
night;  and  from  the  morning  until  the  evening  they  called  day;  and 
this  was  the  first,  or  the  beginning,  of  that  which  they  called  day 
and  night.  And  the  Gods  also  said:  Let  there  be  an  expanse  in  the 
midst  of  the  waters,  and  it  shall  divide  the  waters  from  the  waters. 
And  the  Gods  ordained  the  expanse,  so  that  it  divided  the  waters 
which  were  under  the  expanse  from  the  waters  which  were  above 
the  expanse;  and  it  was  so,  even  as  they  ordained.  (Pearl  of  Great 
Price,  pp.  60-67.) 

And  thus  the  account  of  creation  proceeds  throughout  the 
seven  periods  thereof,  and  it  is  always  the  Gods  did  this  or  that 
until  the  whole  work  of  creation  was  prepared  for  man. 

THE  GODHEAD   ACCORDING  TO    THE  DOCTRINE    AND   COVENANTS. 

The  book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants  in  the  main  is  a 
collection  of  revelations  given  through  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith. 
It  is  not  a  formal  treatise  upon  theology.  This  collection  of 
revelations  assumes  the  existence  of  God,  and  only  incidentally 
treats  of  His  being  and  attributes.  And  since  the  revelations 
pertain  to  our  earth,  and  its  heavens,  and  our  God,  the  singular 
number  is  used  in  speaking  of  God;  and  yet  in  these  revela- 
tions the  persons  of  the  Godhead  are  spoken  of  as  being 
distinct  from  one  another  in  the  sense  of  being  separate 
and  distinct  individuals,  as  the  following  passages  illustrate: 

There  is  a  God  in  heaven,  who  is  infinite  and  eternal,  from  ever- 


222  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

lasting  to  everlasting,  the  'same  unchangable  God,  the  framer  of 
heaven  and  earth,  and  all  things  which  are  in  them;  and  that  he 
created  man,  male  and  female,  after  his  own  image  and  his  own  like- 
ness, created  he  them  and  gave  unto  them  commandments  that  they 
should  love  and  serve  him,  the  only  living  and  true  God,  and  that  he 
should  be  the  only  being  whom  they  should  worship.  But  by  the 
transgression  of  these  holy  laws,  man  became  sensual  and  develish, 
and  became  fallen  man.  Wherefore  the  Almighty  God  gave  his  Only 
Begotten  Son,  as  it  is  written  in  those  scriptures  which  have  been 
given  of  him.  He  suffered  temptations  but  gave  no  heed  unto  them; 
he  was  crucified,  died,  and  rose  again  the  third  day;  and  ascended 
into  heaven,  to  sit  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  to  reign 
with  almighty  power  according  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  that  as 
many  as  would  believe  and  be  baptized  in  his  holy  name,  and  endure 
in  faith  to  the  end,  should  be  saved;  not  only  those  who  believed  after 
he  came  in  the  meridian  of  time,  in  the  flesh,  but  all  those  from 
the  beginning,  even  as  many  as  were  before  he  came,  who  believed 
in  the  words  of  the  holy  prophets,  who  spake  as  they  were  inspired 
by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  truly  testified  of  him  in  all  things, 
should  have  eternal  life,  as  well  as  those  who  should  come  after, 
who  should  believe  in  the  gifts  and  callings  of  God  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  beareth  record  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son;  which  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  one  God,  infinite  and  eternal,  without 
end.     Amen.* 

So  also  in  section  ninety-three  the  distinction  between 
Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  is  clearly  made;  and  man  declared 
to  be  of  the  same  race  with  God.  Indeed  one  may  say  that  the 
supposed  gulf  of  seperation  is  swept  away;  that  on  the  one  hand 
the  divinity  of  man  is  proclaimed,  and  on  the  other,  the  hu- 
manity of  God.  That  is,  there  is  identity  of  race  between  Gods 
and  men;  though  man  is  now  in  a  fallen  state,  working  upward 
towards  God,  through  the  plan  of  redemption  in  Christ  Jesus: 


*  Doc.  and  Gov.  Sec.  20:  17-28. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  223 

Every  soul  who  forsaketh  his  sins  and  cometh  unto  me,  and 
calleth  on  my  name,  and  obeyeth  my  voice,  and  keepeth  my  command- 
ments, shall  see  my  face  and  know  that  I  am,  and  that  I  am  the  true 
light  that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world;  and  that  I 
am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me,  and  the  Father  and  I  are  one: 
the  Father  because  he  gave  me  of  his  fullness,  and  the  Son  because  I 
was  in  the  world  and  made  flesh  my  tabernacle,  and  dwelt  among  the 
sons  of  men.  I  was  in  the  world  and  received  of  my  Father,  and  the 
works  of  him  were  plainly  manifest;  and  John  saw  and  bore  record  of 
the  fullness  of  my  glory,  and  the  fullness  of  John's  record  is  hereafter 
to  be  revealed:  and  he  bore  record,  saying,  I  saw  his  glory  that  he 
was  in  the  beginning  before  the  world  was;  therefore  in  the  beginning 
the  Word  was,  for  he  was  the  Word,  even  the  messenger  of  salvation 
the  light  and  the  Redeemer  of  the  world;  the  Spirit  of  truth,  who 
came  into  the  world,  because  the  world  was  made  by  him,  and  in  him 
was  the  life  of  men  and  the  light  of  men.  The  worlds  were  made  by 
him;  men  were  made  by  him:  all  things  were  made  by  him,  and  through 
him,  and  of  him.  And  I,  John,  bear  record  that  I  beheld  his  glory, 
as  the  glory  of  the  Only  Begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and 
truth,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which  came  and  dwelt  in  the  flesh,  and 
dwelt  among  us.  And  I,  John,  saw  that  he  received  not  of  the  full- 
ness at  the  first,  but  received  grace  for  grace:  and  he  received  not  of 
the  fullness  at  first,  but  continued  from  grace  to  grace,  mitil  he 
received  a  fullness;  and  thus  he  was  called  the  Son  of  God,  because 
he  received  not  of  the  fullness  at  the  first.  And  I,  John,  bear  record, 
and  lo,  the  heavens  were  opened,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon 
him  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  and  sat  upsn  him,  and  there  came  a  voice 
out  of  heaven  saying.  This  is  my  beloved  Son.  And  I,  John,  bear 
record  that  he  received  a  fullness  of  the  glory  of  the  Father;  and  he 
received  all  power,  both  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  and  the  glory  of 
the  Father  was  with  him,  for  he  dwelt  in  him.  *  *  *  ^nd  I  give 
unto  you  these  sayings  that  ye  may  understand  and  know  how  to 
worship,  and  know  what  you  worship,  that  you  may  come  unto  the 
Father  in  my  name,  and  in  due  time  receive  of  his  fullness.  *  *  * 
And  now,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  was  in  the  beginning  with  the 
Father,  and  am  the  first- torn,    *    *    *     Ye  were  also  in  the  be- 


224  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

ginning  with  the  Father;  that  which  is  Spirit,  even  the  Spirit  of 
truth.  *  *  *  Man  was  also  in  the  beginning  with  God.  In- 
telligence, or  the  light  of  truth,  was  not  created  or  made,  neither 
indeed  can  be.  All  truth  is  independent  in  that  sphere  in  which  God 
has  placed  it,  to  act  for  itself,  as  all  intelligence  also,  otherwise  there 
is  no  existence.  Behold,  here,  is  the  agency  of  man,  and  here  is 
the  condemnation  of  man,-  because  that  which  was  from  the  beginning 
is  plainly  manifest  unto  them,  and  they  receive  not  the  light. 
And  every  man  whose  spirit  receiveth  not  the  light  is  under  con- 
demnation, for  man  is  spirit.  The  elements  are  eternal,  and  spirit 
and  element,  inseparably  connected,  receive  a  fullness  of  joy;  and 
when  seperated,  man  cannot  receive  a  fullness  of  joy.  The  elements 
are  the  tabernacle  of  God;  yea  man  is  the  tabernacle  of  God,  even 
temples;  and  whatsoever  temple  is  defiled,  God  shall  destroy  that 
temple.* 

Again : 

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.f 

Since  then  there  is  in  these  revelations  a  recognition  of 
the  distinction  between  the  persons  of  the  Godhead,  it  is  clear 
that  the  doctrine  of  a  plurality  of  Gods  is  recognized.  It  is 
also  incidentally  recognized  in  other  passages  of  the  Doctrine 
and  Covenants.  In  section  seventy-six,  where  a  description  is 
given  of  the  blessedness  of  those  who  believe  and  obey  the 
gospel,  it  is  said: 

They  are  they  who  are  the  church  of  the  first  born.  They  are 
they  into  whose  hands  the  Father  has  given  all  things.  They  are  they 
who  are  Priests  and  Kings,  who  have  received  of  his  fullnesss,  and  of 


*  Doc.  and  Gov.  Sec.  93:  1-35. 
t  Ibid.  Sec.  130:  22. 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  225 

his  glory,  and  are  Priests  of  the  Most  High,  after  the  order  of 
Melchisedek,  which  was  after  the  order  of  Enoch,  which  was  after  the 
order  of  the  Only  Begotten  Son;  wherefore,  as  it  is  writien,  they 
are  Gods,  even  the  sons  of  God — wherefore  all  things  are  theirs; 
whether  life  or  death,  or  things  present,  or  things  to  come,  all  are 
theirs  and  they  are  Christ's  and  Christ  is  God's.* 

The  revelation  in  which  the  above  passage  appears  was  first 
published  in  the  Evening  and  Morning  Star,  July,  1832,  Again, 
in  a  prayer  and  prophecy  written  by  Joseph  Smith  while  in 
Liberty  prison,  March,  1839,  in  the  course  of  describing  the 
power  and  glory  and  blessedness  to  be  revealed  in  the  dispensa- 
tion of  the  Fullness  of  Times,  the  prophet  declares  that  all 
things  shall  be  made  known — 

According  to  that  which  was  ordained  in  the  midst  of  the 
Council  of  the  Eternal  God  of  all  other  Gods,  before  this  world  was.  f 

Again,  in  speaking  of  those  who  fall  short  of  complete 
obedience  to  the  fullness  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
describing  their  limitations  the  Prophet  says: 

From  henceforth  they  are  not  Gods,  but  are  angels  of  God,  for- 
ever and  ever.J 

On  the  other  hand  he  declares  that  all  those  who  obey  the 
fullness  of  the  gospel — 

Shall  pass  by  the  angels,  and  the  Gods,  *  *  *  to  their 
exaltation  and  glory  in  all  things.  *  *  *  Then  shall  they  be 
Gods,  because  they  have  no  end;  therefore  shall  they  be  from  ever- 
lasting to  everlasting,  because  they  continue;  then  shall  they  be 
above  all,  because  all  things   are   subject  unto  them.     Then  shall 


*  Doc.  and  Gov.  Sec.  76:  54-59. 
t  Ibid.  Sec.  121:32. 
t  Ibid.  Sec.  132:  17. 


226  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

(hey  he  Gods,  because  they  have  all  power,  and  the  angels  are  subject 
unto  them.* 

Thus  the  revelations  of  God  to  the  Church  from  the  earliest 
times,  and  now  collected  in  the  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  teach 
that  men  and  Gods  are  identical  in  race,  and  that  there  is  a  plu- 
rality of  Gods. 

the  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity  as  set  forth  in  the  dis- 
courses OF  THE  PROPHET  JOSEPH  SMITH  AND  EARLY 
church   PUBLICATIONS. 

From  the  King  Follett  Sermon,  April  1,  1844.t 

It  is  necessary  for  us  to  have  an  understanding  of  God  himself 

in  the  beginning. 

*  *  *  * 

There  are  but  a  very  few  beings  in  the  world  who  understand 
rightly  the  character  of  God.  The  great  majority  of  mankind  do  not 
comprehend  anything,  either  that  which  is  past,  or  that  which  is  to 

come,  as  respects  their  relationship  to  God. 

*  *  *  * 

If  men  do   not  comprehend  the  character  of  God,  they  do  not 

comprehend  themselves. 

*  *  *  * 

What  sort  of  a  being  was  God  in  the  beginning?  Open  your  ears 
and  hear,  all  ye  ends  of  the  earth.  *  *  *  God  himself  was  once 
as  we  are  now,  and  is  an  exalted  Man,  and  sits  enthroned  in  yonder 
heavens!  That  is  the  great  secret.  If  the  vail  was  rent  today,  and 
the  great  God  who  holds  this  world  in  its  orbit;  and  who  upholds  all 
worlds  and  all  things  by  his  power,  was  to  make  himself  visible — I 
say,  if  you  were  to  see  him  today,  you  would  see  him  like  a  man  in 
form — like  yourselves,  in  all  the  person,  image,  and  very  form  as  a 
man;  for  Adam  was  created  in  the  very  fashion,  image,  and  likeness 


*  Doc.  and  Gov.  Sec.  132:  19,  20. 

t  Millennial  Star,  vol.  xxiii,  p.  245  et  seq. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  227 

of  God,  and   received  instructions  from,  and  walked,  talked,  and  con- 
versed with  him,  as  one  man  talks  and  communes  with  another. 

*  *  *  * 

It  is  necessary  we  should  understand  the  character  and  being  of 
God,  and  how  he  came  to  be  so;  for  I  am  going  to  tell  you  how  God 
came  to  be  God  We  have  imagined  and  supposed  that  God  was 
God  from  all  eternity.  I  will  refute  that  idea,  and  will  take  away 
the  vail,  so  that  you  may  see.  *  *  *  It  is  the  first  principle  of 
the  gospel  to  know  for  a  certainty  the  character  of  God,  and  to  know 
that  we  may  converse  with  him  as  one  man  converses  with  another, 
and  that  he  was  once  a  man  like  us;  yea,  that  God  himself,  the 
Father  of  us  all,  dwelt  on  an  earth,  the  same  as  Jesus  Christ  himself 
did. 

■X-  *  *  * 

The  scriptures  inform  us  that  Jesus  said,  "As  the  Father  hath 
power  in  himself,  even  so  hath  the  Son  power" — to  do  what?  Why, 
what  the  Father  did.  The  answer  is  obvious — in  a  manner  to  lay 
down  his  body  and  take  it  up  again.  Jesus,  what  are  you  going  to 
do?  To  lay  down  my  life,  as  my  Father  did,  and  take  it  up  again. 
Do  you  believe  it?    If  you  do  not  believe  it,  you  do  not  believe  the 

Bible.* 

*  *  *  * 

Here,  then,  is  eternal  life:  to  know  the  only  wise  and  true  God; 
and  you  have  got  to  learn  how  to  be  Gods  yourselves,  and  to  be 
kings  and  priests  to  God,  the  same  as  all  Gods  have  done  before  you — 
namely,  by  going  from  one  small  degree  to  another,  and  from  a  small 
capacity  to  a  great  one;  from  grace  to  grace,  from  exaltation  to  ex- 
altation, until  you  attain  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  are 
able  to  dwell  in  everlasting  burnings,  and  to  sit  in  glory,  as  do  those 
who  sit  enthroned  in  everlasting  power. 


*  The  argument  here  made  by  the  Prophet  is  very  much 
strengthened  by  the  following  passage:  "The  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do;  for  what  things  soever 
he  [the  Father]  doeth,  these  also  the  Son  doeth  likewise''  (St.  John 
5:  19). 


228  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

How  consoling  to  the  mourners  when  they  are  called  to  part 
with  a  husband,  wife,  father,  mother,  child  or  dear  relative,  to  know 
that  although  the  earthly  tabernacle  is  laid  down  and  dissolved,  they 
shall  rise  again  to  dwell  in  everlasting  burnings,  in  immortal  glory, 
not  to  sorrow,  suffer,  or  die  any  more;  but  they  shall  be  heirs  of 
God  and  joint  heirs  with  Jesus  Christ.  What  is  it?  [i.  e.,  to  be 
joint  heirs  with  Jesus  Christ].  To  inherit  the  same  power,  the  same 
glory,  and  the  same  exaltation,  until  you  arrive  at  the  station  of  a 
God  and  ascend  the  throne  of  eternal  power,  the  same  as  those  who 
have  gone  before.  What  did  Jesus  do?  Why,  I  do  the  things  I  saw 
my  Father  do  when  worlds  came  rolling  into  existence.  My  Father 
worked  out  his  kingdom  with  fear  and  trembling,  and  I  must  do  the 
same;  and  when  I  get  my  kingdom,!  shall  present  it  to  my  Father,  so 
that  he  may  obtain  kingdom  upon  kingdom,  and  it  will  exalt  him  in 
glory.  He  will  then  take  a  higher  exaltation,  and  I  will  take  his  place, 
and  thereby  become  exalted  myself.  So  that  Jesus  treads  in  the 
tracks  of  his  Father,  and  inherits  what  God  did  before;  and  God  is  thus 
glorified  and  exalted  in  the  salvation  and  exaltation  of  all  his  children. 
It  is  plain  beyond  disputation,  and  you  thus  learn  some  of  the  first 
principles  of  the  gospel,  about  which  so  much  has  been  said. 

vf  *  *  * 

When  you  climb  up  a  ladder,  you  must  begin  at  the  bottom,  and 

ascend  step  by  step,  until  you  arrive  at  the  top;  and  so  it  is  with  the 

principles  of  the  gospel — you  must   begin  with  the  first,  and  go  on 

until  you  learn  all  the  principles  of  exaltation.     But  it  will  be  a  great 

while  after  you   have  passed   through   the    vail   before  you  will   have 

learned  them.     It  is  not  all  to  be  comprehended  in  this  world:  it  will 

be  a  great  work  to  learn  our    salvation    and  exaltation,  even  beyond 

the  grave. 

*  *  *  * 

I  shall  comment  on  the  very  first  Hebrew  word  in  the  Bible;  I 
v.ill  make  a  comment  on  the  very  first  sentence  of  the  history  of 
the  creation  in  the  Bible.  Beroshelt:  I  want  to  analyze  the  word. 
Baith—ir\,  by,  through,  etc.  Rosh— the  head.  S'Aefi— grammatical 
termination.  When  the  inspired  man  wrote  it,  he  did  not  put  the 
baith  there.    A  Jew,   without  any  authority,  added   the  word:  he 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  229 

thought  it  too  bad  to  begin  to  talk  about  the  head  !   It  read  at  first, 

"The  head  one  of  the  Gods  brought  forth  the  Gods."  That  is  the  true 

meaning  of  the  words.     Baurau  signifies  to  bring  forth.     If  you  do 

not  believe  it,  you  do  not  believe  the  learned  man  of  God.     *     *     * 

Thus  the  head   God   brought   forth   the  Gods  in  the  grand  council. 

*    *    *    The  head   God  called  together  the  Gods,  and  sat  in  grand 

council  to  bring  forth  the  world.     The  grand   Councilors  sat  at  the 

head  in  yonder  heavens,  and  contemplated  the  creation  of  the  worlds 

which  were  created   at  that  time.     *     *     *     In   the  beginning,  the 

head  of  the  Gods  called  a  council  of  the  Gods,  and  they  came  together 

and  concocted  a  plan  to  create  the  world  and  people  it. 
*  *  *  * 

Ii rom  the  Discourse  of  June  16,  1844.* 

The  Prophet's  text  was:  "And  hath  made  us  kings  and 
priests  unto  God  and  his  Father:  to  him  be  glory  and  dominion 
forever  and  ever.     Amen."     (Revelation  of  St.  John  1:  6.) 

It  is  altogether  correct  in  the  translation.  Now,  you  know  that 
of  late  some  malicious  and  corrupt  men  have  sprung  up  and  aposta- 
tized from  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints,  and  they 
declare  that  the  Prophet  believes  in  a  plurality  of  Gods;  and,  lo  and 
behold !  we  have  discovered  a  very  great  secret,  they  cry — "The 
Prophet  says  there  are  many   Gods,   and  this  proves  that  he  has 

fallen." 

*  *  *  * 

I  will  preach  on  the  plurality  of  Gods.  I  have  selected  this  text 
for  the  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.  It  has  been  preached  by  the  Elders 
fifteen  years.  I  have  always  declared  God  to  be  a  distinct  person- 
age, Jesus  Christ  a  separate  and  distinct  personage  from  God  the 
Father,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  a  distinct  personage  and  a 
spirit;  and  these  three  constitute  three  distinct  personages  and  three 


*  Mill.  Star  Vol.  24,  p.  108,  et  seq. 


230  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

Gods.  If  this  is  in  accordance  with  the  New  Testament,  lo  and  be- 
hold! we  have  three  Gods  anyhow,  and  they  are  plural;  and  who  can 
contradict  it?  The  text  says — "And  hath  made  us  Icings  and  priests 
unto  God  and  his  Father."  The  Apostles  have  discovered  that  there 
were  Gods  above,  for  Paul  says  God  was  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  My  object  was  to  preach  the  Scripture?,  and  preach 
the  doctrine  they  contain,  there  being  a  God  above  the  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  I  am  bold  to  declare.  I  have  taught  all  the  strong 
doctrines  publicly,  and  always  teach  stronger  doctrines  in  public  than 
in  private.  John  was  one  of  the  men,  and  the  Apostles  declare  they 
were  made  kings  and  priests  unto  God  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  It  reads  just  so  in  the  Revelations.  Hence,  the  doctrine  of 
a  plurality  of  Gods  is  as  prominent  in  the  Bible  as  any  other  doc- 
trine. It  is  all  over  the  face  of  the  Bible.  It  stands  beyond  the 
power  of  controversy.     "A  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  need  not 

err  therein." 

*  *  *  * 

Paul  says  there  are  Gods  many,  and  Lords  many,  *  * 
but  to  us  there  is  but  one  God — that  is,  pertaining  to  us;  and  he  is  in 
all  and  through  all.  But  if  Joseph  Smith  says  there  are  Gods  many, 
and  Lords  many,  they  cry: — "Away  with  him  !  Crucify  him,  crucify 
him!"  *  *  *  Paul,  if  Joseph  Smith  is  a  blasphemer,  you 
are.  I  say  there  are  Gods  many,  and  Lords  many,  but  to  us  only 
one;  and  we  are  to  be  in  subjection  to  that  one.        *  *  * 

Some  say  I  do  not  interpret  the  Scriptures  the  same  as  they  do. 
They  say  it  means  the  heathen's  gods.  Paul  says  there  are  Gods 
many,  and  Lords  many;  and  that  makes  a  plurality  of  Gods,  in  spite 
of  the  whims  of  all  men.  You  know,  and  I  testify,  that  Paul  had 
no  allusion  to  the  heathen  gods.  I  have  it  from  God.  *  *  * 
I  have  a  witness  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  a  testimony  that  Paul  had 
no  allusion  to  the  heathen  gods  in  the  text. 

I  will  show  from  the  Hebrew  Bible  that  I  am  correct,  and  the 
first  word  shows  [the  existence  of]  a  plurality  of  Gods.  *  *  * 
Berosheit  baurau  Eloheim  ait  aushamayeen  vehau  auraits,  rendered  by 
King  James'  translators,  "In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens 
and  the  earth."     I  want  to  analyze  the  [word  Berosheit:    Rosh,  the 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  231 

head;  Sheit,  a  grammatical  tei-mination.  The  Baith  was  not  origin- 
ally put  there  when  the  inspired  man  wrote  it,  but  it  has  been  since 
added  by  a  Jaw.  Baurau  signifies  to  bring  forth;  Eloheim  is  from 
the  word,  Eloi,  God,  in  the  singular  number;  and  by  adding  the  word 
heim,  it  renders  it  Gods.  It  read  first — "In  the  beginning  the  head 
of  the  Gods  brought  forth  the   Gods,"  or,  as  others  have  translated 

it — "The  head  of  the  Gods  called  the  Gods  together." 

*  *  *  * 

The  head  God  organized  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  *  *  * 
In  the  beginning  the  heads  of  the  Gods  organized  the  heavens  and 
the  earth.  *  *  *  *  If  we   pursue   the 

Hebrew  text  further  it  reads  Berosheit  baurau  Eloheim  ait  aushama- 
yeen  vehau  auraits. — "The  head  one  of  the  Gods  said.  Let  us  make 
man  in  our  own  image."  I  once  asked  a  learned  Jew  if  the  Hebrew 
language  compels  us  to  render  all  words  ending  in  heim  in  the  plural, 
why  not  render  the  first,  Eloheim,  plural?  He  replied,  That  is  the  rule 
with  few  exceptions;  but  in  this  case  it   would  ruin  the  Bible.     He 

acknowledged  I  was  right. 

*  *  *  * 

In  the  very  beginning  the  Bible  shows  there  is  a  plurality  of 
Gods  beyond  the  power  of  refutation.  *  *  * 

The  word  Eloheim  ought  to  be  in  the  plural  all  the  way  through — 
Gods.  The  head  of  the  Gods  appointed  one  God  for  us;  and  when 
you  take  a  [this]  view  of  the  subject,  it  sets  one  free  to  see  all  the 
beauty,  holiness,  and  perfection  of  all  the  Gods. 

Many  men  say  there  is  one  God;  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  are  only  one  God!  I  say  that  is  a  strange  God,  three  in 
one,  and  one  in  three !  It  is  a  curious  organization.  "Father,  I  pray 
not  for  the  world;  but  I  pray  for  them  which  thou  hast  given  me. 
*  *  *  *  I  want  to  read  the  text  to  you  myself — 

"Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name  those  whom  thou  hast 
given  me,  that  they  may  be  one,  as  we  are."  I  am  agreed  with  the 
Father  and  the  Father  is  agreed  with  me,  and  we  are  agreed  as  one. 
The  Greek  shows  that  it  should  be  agreed. 

"Father,  I  pray  for  them  which  thou  hast  given  me  out  of  the 
world,  and  not  for  these  alone,  but  for   them  also  which  shall  believe 


232  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  op  deity. 

on  me  through  their  word,  that  they  may  all  be  agreed,  as  thou, 
Father,  art  agreed  with  me,  and  I  with  thee,  that  they  also  may  be 
agreed  with  us,"  and  all  come  to  dwell  in  unity,  and  in  all  the  glory 
and  everlasting  burnings  of  the  Gods;  and  then  we  shall  see  as  we 
are  seen,  and  be  as  our  God,  and  he  is  as  his  Father. 

•K-  *  *  * 

I  want  to  reason  a  little  on  this  subject.  I  learned  it  by  trans- 
lating the  [Egyptian]  papyrus  which  is  now  in  my  house.  I  learned 
a  testimony  concerning  Abraham,  and  heireasened  concerning  the 
God  of  heaven.  "In  order  to  do  that,"  said  he,  "  suppose  we  have 
two  facts:  that  supposes  another  fact  may  exist — two  men  on  the 
earth,  one  wiser  than  the  other,  would  logically  show  that  another 
who  is  wiser  than  the  wisest  may  exist.  Intelligences  exist  one 
above  another,  so  that  there  is  no  end  to  them."  If  Abraham  rea- 
soned thus — If  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  John  discovered 
that  God,  the  Father  of  Jesi.s  Christ,  had  a  Father,  you  may  suppose 
that  he  had  a  Father  also.  Where  was  there  ever  a  son  without  a 
father?  And  where  was  there  ever  a  father  without  first  being  a 
son?  Whenever  did  a  tree  or  anything  spring  into  existence  without 
a  progenitor?  And  everything  comes  in  this  way:  Paul  says  that 
which  is  earthly  is  in  the  likeness  of  that  which  is  heavenly.  Hence, 
if  Jesus  had  a  Father,  can  we  not  believe  that  he  [that  Father]  had 
a  Father  also?  I  despise  the  idea  of  being  scared  to  death  at  such 
doctrine,  for  the  Bible  is  full  of  it.  *  *  *  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  [him]. 

*  *  *  * 

They  found  fault  with  Jesus  Christ  because  he  said  he  was  the 
Son  of  God,  and  made   himself  equal  with  God.  *  *  * 

What  did  Jesus  say,  "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  Scriptures  cannot  be  broken,  say  ye  of  him  whom  the  Father 
has  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world,  Thou  blasphemest,  because  I 
said  I  am  the  Son  of  God?"  It  was  through  him  that  they  drank  of 
the  spiritual   rock.  *  *  *  *  jesus,   if 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF  DEITY.  233 

they  were  called  Gods  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  why  should 

it  be  thought  blasphemy  that  I  should  say  I  am  the  Son  of  God? 
*  *  *  * 

They  who  obtain  a  glorious  resurrection  from  the  dead  are  ex- 
alted far  above  principalities,  powers,  thrones,  dominions,  and  angels, 
and  are  expressly  declared  to  be  heirs  of  God  and  joint  heirs  with 
Jesus  Christ,  all  having  eternal  power.  The  Scriptures  are  a  mix- 
ture of  very  strange  doctrines  to  the  Christian  world,  who  are 
blindly  led  by  the  blind.  I  will  refer  to  another  Scripture.  "Now," 
says  God,  when  he  visited  Moses  in  the  bush,  -x-  *  -x- 

"Thou  shalt  be  a  God  unto  the  children  of  Israek"  God  said:  "Thou 
shalt  be  a  God  unto  Aaron,  and  he  shall  be  thy  spokesman."  I  be- 
lieve those  Gods  that  God  reveals  as  Gods,  to  be  sons  of  God,  and  all 
can  cry  Abba,  Father!  Sons  of  God  who  exalt  themselves  to  be 
Gods,  even  from  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  are  the  only 
Gods  I  have  a  reverence  for.  John  said  he  was  a  king.  "And  from 
Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  faithful  witness,  and  the  first  begotten  of 
the  dead,  and  the  Prince  of  the  kings  of  the  earth.  Unto  him  that 
loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  hath 
made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God  and  his  Father;  to  him  be  glory 
and  dominion  forever  and  ever.  Amen."  0  thou  God  who  art  King 
of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords,  the  sectarian  world,  by  their  actions,  de- 
clare— "We  cannot  believe  thee." 


234  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 


USE  OF  THE   WORD   ELOHIM.* 

BY  PROFESSOR  W.    H.  CHAMBERLIN,  OF  THE  BRIGHAM  YOUNG 
COLLEGE,  LOGAN,  UTAH. 

Two  words.  El,  of  which  Elim  was  the  plural  form,  and 
Eloah,  of  which  Elohim  was  the  plural,  were  applied  generally 
to  Deity  by  the  Hebrew  people.  All  these  forms  are  found  in 
the  other  Semitic  languages,  and  are,  therefore,  very  ancient 
in  origin. 

Under  severest  discipline  the  people  of  Israel  were  educated 
in  the  school  of  monotheism,  in  order  that  God's  nature  might 
be  revealed  to  man,  and  in  order  that  unity  might  be  introduced 
into  the  moral  life  of  man.  Under  this  discipline,  the  people 
of  Israel  must  have  learned  to  apply  the  plural  form  Elohim, 
which  their  fathers  had  used  of  Deit)-,  in  speaking  of  the  one 
God  whom  they  had  been  taught  to  serve. 

The  Hebrew  language  would  allow  them  to  do  this,  for  a 
few  nouns,  when  used  by  them  in  the  plural,  seemed  to  magnify 
the  original  idea.  In  such  cases  the  plural  form  was  treated 
grammatically  as  singular.  An  example  may  be  found  in  Job 
40:  15,  where  the  plural  form  behemoth  is  used  to  intensify 
the  image  of  the  animal  there  being  described,  as  is  shown  by 


*  During  the  progress  of  the  discussion  between  the  Rev.  C.  Van 
Der  Donckt  and  myself,  as  published  in  the  Improvement  Era,  Pro- 
fessor William  H.  Chamberlin  of  the  Brigham  Young  College, 
Logan,  Utah,  contributed  the  following  brief  though  valuable  paper 
on  the  use  of  the  word  "Elohim"  in  the  Bible,  which  by  his  kind 
consent  I  am  permitted  to  publish  here. 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  235 

context.  In  the  same  verse,  the  behemoth  is  referred  to  by 
the  singular  pronoun  he. 

Bat  tbe  use  of  Elohim,  in  this  sen^e,  by  the  later  writers 
of  Israel,  is  not  necessarily  opposed  to  the  view  that  in  the 
earliest  documents  or  writing-^  which  the  Hebrews  possessed, 
it  was  applied  to  a  plurality  of  Gods. 

The  objection  to  this  view  has  been  made  that,  with  the 
plural  foru  /  lohim,  in  Gen,  1,  the  singular  verb  is  used.  Such 
a  use  of  a  singular  predicate  with  a  plaral  subject  is,  however, 
common  in  Hebrew.  On  page  111  of  Harper's  Hebrew  Syntax 
we  find  the  following  rule  covering  the  case,  viz  :  "When  the 
predicate  precedes  the  subject  it  may  agree  with  th3  subject 
in  number  or  it  may  assume  the  primary  form,  viz.:  third  raas- 
culinn  singular,  whatever  be  the  number  of  the  following  sub- 
ject." So  the  plural  form  Elohim  after  a  singular  verb,  the 
construction  found  in  Gen.  i,  and  elsewhere,  is  no  proof  that  it 
is  singular  in  any  sense.  Similar  constructions  are  found  with 
other  words  in  Gen.  i:  14,  where  the  singular  of  the  verb  haya, 
be,  is  followed  by  the  plural  noun  meoroth,  lights;  in  Gen.  41: 
50,  where  the  singular  verb  yullodh,  was  born,  is  followed  by 
the  plural  noun  sheney  banim,  two  sons;  in  Job  42:  15,  where 
the  singular  verb  nimtsa,  was  found,  is  followed  by  the  plural 
noun  nashim,  women.  Many  similar  examples  might  be  given 
to  illustrate  the  rule. 

That  Elohim.  was  used  in  the  plural  sense  in  Gen.  1,  is  shown 
in  the  26th  verse,  where  the  Elohim  in  referring  to  themselves 
use  the  plural  suffix,  nu,  our,  twice;  and  they  also  use  the 
plural  form  of  the  verb  naaseh,  let  us  make.  Also  in  Gen.  11: 
7,  where  nerdhah,  let  us  descend,  and  nabhlah,  let  us  confuse, 
two  verbs  in  the  plural  form,  proceed  from  the  mouth  of  God. 
In  Gen  3:  5,  the  plural  construct  participle,  yodhe,  knowers  of, 
modifies  the  noun,  Elohim,  which  therefore  is  also  plural.  It  is 
just   possible   that   this   participle  is  predicated  of  the  subject 


236  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

you,  but  the  participle  would  then  follow  the  finite  verb,  giving 
a  very  unusual  construction  for  the  earlv  Hebrew  writers. 
One  such  construction  is,  however,  found  in  Gen.  4:  17,  "he 
became  (one)  building  a  city." 

The  thought  of  the  possibility  of  God's  having  with  him 
great  associates  was  alive  even  to  the  time  of  Isaiah,  as  is 
shown  in  Isaiah  6:  8.  where  Jehovah  said,  "Whom  shall  I  send, 
and  who  will  go  for  us?"  Jehovah  was  a  personal  name  applied 
to  the  Being  who  guided  Israel,  and  afterwards  lived  on  the 
earth  as  Jesus  Christ.  (Ill  Nephi,  15:  5,  Doc.  and  Gov.  sec. 
110.)  Probably  few  of  the  Jews  were  ever  able  to  distinguish 
Jehovah  from  Elohim,  as  it  was  latterly  used,  i.  e.,  in  the  sin- 
gular sense,  and  so  when  late  writers  wrote  down  the  portion 
of  Genesis  where  the  name  of  Jehovah  began  to  be  used,  they 
placed  next  to  it,  for  the  same  purpose  for  which  we  now  place 
the  marginal  reading,  the  word  Elohim.  So  we  have  in  Gen. 
2:  4;  3:  24,  and  in  some  other  places,  the  exoression  Jehovah 
Elohim,  translated  the  Lord  God.  The  words  were  put  together 
late  in  Israel's  history  when  Elohim  had  come  to  be  used  in  the 
singular;  Jehovah  Elohim  meant  Jehovah,  i.  e.,  God,  Later  the 
explanatory  use  of  the  word  Elohim  was  forgotten,  and  the  two 
words  combined  to  apply  to  God.  (See  page  219  of  Brown's 
Hebrew  Lexicon,  the  most  authoritative  lexicon  in  English,  for 
the  above  explanation.) 

The  use  of  the  singular  noun  floah  is  almost  confined  to 
poetry.  It  is  used  in  Psalm  18  and  in  Deut.  32.  There  is 
ground  for  saying  that  the  Savior  on  the  cross  in  crying  out 
to  his  Father,  used  the  singular  form  Eloah.  In  combining 
Eloah  with  the  suffix  i,  meaning  my,  and  expressing  the  result 
in  Greek  the  h  would  be  dropped,  for  there  is  no  letter  h  in  the 
Greek  alphabet.  A,  which  was  merely  introduced  to  assist  the 
Hebrew  to  pronounce  the  h,  would  also  be  dropped.     The  result 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OP  DEITY.  237 

would  give  us  Eloi,  the  form  given  in  the  basic  gospel,  in  Mark 
15:  34.     (See  also  Judges  5:  5,  of  the  Septuagint). 

Jn  the  year  1830,  we  find  Joseph  Smith,  in  the  face  of  the 
tradition  of  the  whole  world,  daring  to  render  the  word  hlohim 
in  Gen  i,  et  seq.,  in  the  plural.  It  is  one  great  evidence  of  the 
divinity  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  restored  in  these  last 
days  that  its  prophet  said  many  things,  in  the  day  in  which  he 
lived,  that  a  progressive  people  are  beginning  to  appreciate  as 
true;  and  so  we  find  learned  men  sympathizing  with  the  daring 
position  taken  above.  With  reference  to  Gen.  1 :  26,  and  simi- 
lar passages,  we  find  as  one  explanation  in  the  lexicon  men- 
tioned above,  a  lexicon  based  on  the  work  of  Gesenius,  the 
great  German  Hebrew  scholar,  that  God  was  in  consultation 
with  angels.  Now,  since  the  term  "angel,"  a  term  used  loosely 
by  the  scholars,  is  made  there  to  mean  and  refer  to  superhuman 
beings  sufficiently  advanced  in  intelligence  to  be  included  in  a 
consultation  with  God,  we  have  our  prophet's  explanation  ex- 
actly. In  conclusion  I  shall  quote  the  words  of  the  great 
Biblical  scholar,  the  Rev.  A.  B.  Davidson  of  Edinburgh,  in  ex- 
planation of  the  same:  "The  use  of  'us'  by  the  divine  speaker 
(Gen.  1:  26,  3:  22,  11:  17)  is  strange,  but  is  perhaps  due  to 
his  conscioQsness  of  being  surrounded  by  other  beings  of  a 
loftier  order  than  men  (Is.  5:  8).  {See  Easting's  Dictionary 
oj  the  Bible,  page  205.) 


238  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 


OMNIPRESENCE   OF  GOD.* 

BY   elder    WILLIAM    HENRY    WHITTALL. 

In  comparing  the  ideas  of  others  with  our  own  upon  any 
subject,  with  a  view  of  coming  to  a  clear  understanding  and 
just  conclusion  on  the  points  discussed,  it  is  both  important  and 
necessary  that  a  clear  definition  of  terms  be  given  and  received. 
Most  of  the  disputes  which  arise  in  all  classes  of  society,  relig- 
ious and  secular,  would  be  avoided  to  a  great  extent,  if  the  dis- 
putants clearly  understood  and  attended  to  each  other's  terms, 
and  clearrly  defined  their  own. 

Words  are  frequently  used  in  such  different  sense — some- 
times primary,  and  sometimes  secondary^ — sometimes  literal,  and 
sometimes  figurative,  that  a  misconception  is  often  likely  to 
arise,  which  might  be  easily  prevented,  were  a  plain  definition 
of  terms  given  at  the  outset.  Opposite  parties  are  too  apt  to 
place  their  own  constructions  on  each  other's  expressions. 

"Omnipresence"  as  all  will  admit  meanSi presence  everywhere. 

Now,  strictly  speaking,  matter,  in  its  most  extensive  and 
comprehensive  sense,  is  the  only  thing  that  can  be  said  to  be 
literally  everywhere.  There  are  various  kinds  and  degrees  of 
matter;  but  matter  as  a  whole,  and  in  a  general  sense,  is  the 
only  thing  that  we  can  conceive  of  as  being  everywhere  pres- 
ent, and  nowhere  absent. 

One  reservation,  however,  must  here  be  made,  for  the 
sake  of  scientific  accuracy, — namely,  that  wherever  matter  ex- 


Millennial  Star  Vol.  xxiii  No.  19,  p.  292. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  239 

ists  and  moves,  there  is  of  necessity  a  corresponding  or  pro- 
portionate extent  of  space  wherein  to  move. 

There  is  no  such  thing,  however,  in  all  the  creations  of 
God,  as  what  is  called  empty  space. 

But  this  fact  does  not  in  the  least  affect  our  argument; 
for  the  motion  of  matter  is  merely  the  displacement  of  one 
thing  by  another — one  particle  occupying  the  space  which  had 
been  previously  occupied  by  another.  Thus,  if  I  thrust  my 
hand  into  a  mass  of  sand,  I  do  not  penetrate  the  grains  of  sand, 
(although  I  do  penetrate  the  sand  as  a  mass,)  the  hand  merely 
going  between,  or  making  its  way  by  displacing  the  grains  with 
which  it  comes  in  contact.  No  particle  of  matter  can  occupy 
the  same  identical  space  as  another  at  the  same  time;  conse- 
quently, no  portion  of  matter  can  in  an  exclusive  and  strictly 
literal  sense  be  omnipresent. 

The  nearest  approach  to  a  literal  omnipresence,  that  we 
can  conceive  of,  is  that  of  the  particles  of  one  kind  and  degree 
of  matter  commingling  with  those  of  another. 

The  following  may  serve  as  a  simple  illustration:  In  a 
homely  cup  of  tea,  we  find  the  particles  of  the  tea  itself  inti- 
mately mingling  with  those  of  the  water;  those  of  the  sugar 
mingling  with  those  of  the  other  two  elements;  and  then,  again, 
there  are  the  particles  of  caloric  or  heat  everywhere  present 
throughout  the  whole.  Yet  no  one  particle  of  either  water, 
(itself  a  compound  of  gases),  or  tea,  or  sugar,  or  cream, 
can  occupy  the  same  space  as  any  other  particle.  This 
simple  illustration,  however  homely  and  commonplace,  may 
serve  as  an  example,  on  a  small  scale,  of  the  nearest  idea  that 
can  be  formed  of  a  literal  omnipresence,  or  presence  everywhere. 
The  plainer  the  simile,  the  better  for  ease  and  clearness  of 
thought. 

We  have  now  to  define  what  we  mean  by  the  term  "God." 

This  word,  like  many  others,  is  frequently  used  to  repre- 


240  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

sent  different  ideas.  We  sometimes  employ  it  in  reference  to 
Deity  as  a  person.  One  of  the  old  prophets  saw  God  sitting  on 
a  throne.  Of  course,  then,  according  to  this  personal  sense  of 
the  word,  God  could  not  have  been  everywhere  present;  for  he 
was  on  a  throne.  We  often  read  of  God  as  sitting  down,  stand- 
ing up,  walking  about,  &c.  Now,  a  person,  when  sitting  down, 
dose  not  occupy  the  same  space  as  when  standing  up.  He  al- 
ways occupies  the  same  amount  of  space,  but  no  more,  what- 
ever posture  he  may  place  himself  in,  or  however  much  he  may 
change  his  relative  positions  by  moving  hither  and  thither. 

Hence  it  is  utterly  impossible  for  God  to  be  personally  om- 
nipresent. 

But  we  sometimes  speak  of  God  in  reference  to  his  attri- 
butes of  love,  wisdom,  goodness,  influence,  power,  authority,  &c. 

The  next  question,  then,  is,  Can  he  be  said  to  be  omnipres- 
ent in  these  respects? 

Yes,  undoubtedly  so;  but  not  literally. 

As  these  are  all  abstact  terms,  it  is  evident  that  they  can- 
not be  used  in  a  strictly  literal  sense.  Love,  power,  goodness, 
wisdom,  &c.,  are  not  things  which  occupy  space.  We  cannot 
measure  knowledge  by  the  yard,  wisdom  by  the  pint,  influence 
by  the  inch,  or  power  by  the  gallon.  We  cannot  speak  of  auth- 
ority as  occupying  so  many  square  or  cubic  feet  of  space,  or 
desbribe  the  height,  depth,  length,  or  width  of  intelligence  or 
faith.  These  are  all  abstract  terms;  and  in  describing  the  ex- 
tent of  any  attribute  of  God  or  man,  we  are  bound  to  speak  fig- 
uratively. We  thus  speak  of  "infinite  power,"  of  "boundless 
love."  of  "illimitable  wisdom,"  of  "unbounded  influence,"  of  "un- 
limited authority,"  of  "infinite  goodness,"  &c.  If  we  examine 
such  expressions  closely,  we  cannot  but  see  that  they  are  used 
in  a  relative  and  figurative  sense,  and  not  in  a  strictly  literal 
one.  We  cannot  find  room  for  all  these  things  everywhere.  If 
one  thing  occupied  all  space  literally,  we  certainly  could  not  lo- 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  241 

cate  half  a  dozen  everywhere!  The  absurdity  of  the  thing  only 
proves  the  fallacy  of  the  idea  of  literal  ubiquity  in  reference  to 
any  attribute,  the  terms,  expressive  of  which  cannot  be  literal- 
ized. 

But  again:  We  often  speak  of  God  in  reference  to  his 
agents.  For  example,  the  Apostle  Paul  says,  '  'No  man  taketh 
this  honor  unto  himself,  but  he  that  is  called  of  God,  as  was 
Aaron."  Moses,  who  called  and  ordained  Aaron,  was  God's  agent. 
All  the  servants  of  the  Lord  are  called  by  his  agents  acting  in 
his  name  and  by  his  authority.  When  a  man  is  called  and  or- 
dained to  certain  functions  of  the  Priesthood,  we  say  that  God 
called  him,  and  that  he  is  a  servant  of  God.  Thus,  in  a  relative 
sense,  God  may  be  and  is  said  to  be  present  where  he  is  person- 
ally absent,  just  as  her  Majesty  the  Queen  may  be  said  to  be 
present  throughout  all  her  dominions  by  her  official  and  repre- 
sentative agents.  She  is  not  literally,  but  virtually  or  officially, 
representatively  or  vicariously  present  wherever  her  regal  auth- 
ority is  swayed.  It  is  not  actually  she  who  is  present,  but  her 
agents  or  authorities,  who  act  in  her  name  in  her  various  prin- 
cipalities and  colonies. 

Again:  We  often  use  the  term  "God"  in  reference  to  his 
Spirit,  whereby  he  is  said  to  be  omnipresent. 

But  we  also  frequently  use  the  term  "Spirit"  in  more  sense 
than  one.  Sometimes  we  speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit  or  Holy 
Ghost  as  a  person.  The  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Spirit  are 
three  distinct  persons,  —the  first  two  being  personages  of  tab- 
ernacle, and  the  last  a  personage  of  spirit.  In  this  sense  the 
Spirit  can  be  no  more  spatially  extended,  and  no  more  omnipres- 
ent, than  the  Father  or  the  Son.  If,  indeed,  either  of  the 
three  could  be  personally  and  substantially  present  everywhere 
— that  is,  filling  all  space,  it  would  puzzle  the  astutest  intellect 
to  conceive  where  the  other  two  could  be  located! 

The  spirit  of  God,  then,  or  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  a  personage, 


242  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  "deity. 

cannot  be  literally  omnipresent,  although  we  may  (as  we  often 
do)  speak  of  him  as  being  present  here  and  there  by  his  in- 
fluence, authority,  and  power. 

But  we  also  frequently  speak  of  the  Spirit  of  God  as  a  di- 
vine substance  or  influence,  of  power  diffused  throughout  the 
spiritual  and  physical  universe,  giving  vitality,  activity,  and 
force  to  the  various  things  around  us,  according  to  certain 
spiritual  and  natural  laws. 

It  is,  indeed,  the  inherent  life  and  soul  of  all  things — the 
inner  and  eternal  principle  of  life  and  being.  Whether  we 
speak  of  "Nature"  or  of  the  "God  of  nature,"  we  mean  the 
same  thing,  unless,  by  way  of  distinction,  we  connect  with  the 
latter  expression  the  idea  of  personality.  In  the  former  sense, 
God  is  everywhere. 

President  Young,  upon  this  subject,  says — "It  is  the  Deit} 
within  us  that  causes  increase.  *  *  *  He  is  in  every 
person  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  elements  that  every 
individual  is  made  of  and  lives  in  possess  the  Godhead  *  * 
The  Deity  within  us  is  the  great  principle  that  causes  us  to  in- 
crease and  to  grow  in  grace  and  truth." 

It  will  thus  be  evident  that  God  is,  by  his  Spirit,  in  this 
sense,  omnipresent.  Indeed,  we  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that 
God  (although  local  in  personality)  may  be  said,  in  various  ways 
and  in  different  senses  of  the  word,  to  be  everywhere  present. 
President  Young  says— "He  is  omnipotent,  and  fills  immensity  by 
his  agents,  by  his  influence,  by  his  Spirit,  and  by  his  ministers." 
So  that,  go  wheresoever  we  may,  God  is  there,  in  some  way  or 
other.  If  we  ascend  to  the  heavens  above,  he  is  there;  if  we 
make  the  grave  our  bed,  he  is  there;  if  we  fly  to  any  part  of  the 
earth  or  sea,  he  is  there,  and  his  providence  will  protect  the 
just. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE     PROPHET    JOSEPH     SMITH'S    VIEWS     IN    RELATION     TO   MAN 
AND   THE    PRIESTHOOD, 

As  in  the  "Mormon"  doctrine  of  Deity  discussed  in  these 
pages,  man  is  an  important  factor,  and  as  his  relations  to  God, 
and  the  possibilities  that  are  open  to  him  in  the  never-ending 
future  are  a  part  of  the  discussion  between  the  Reverend  Mr. 
Van  Der  Donckt  and  myself,  the  following  remarks  of  the 
Prophet  respecting  man  and  his  relations  to  God,  and  the  rela- 
tionship of  certain  leading  men  to  each  other,  in  the  several 
dispensations  of  the  Gospel  which  have  been  given,  cannot  fail 
to  be  an  interesting  and  instructive  contribution  to  this  chapter. 
The  remarks  under  division  I  are  taken  from  a  discourse  by  the 
Prophet  delivered  in  June,  1839,  in  answer  to  some  inquiries 
concerning  Priesthood.  The  Prophet's  remarks  under  division 
I  appear  in  the  Millennial  Star,  vol.  xvii,  pages  310,  311. 
Those  in  division  II  are  from  an  article  on  Priesthood  prepared 
by  the  Prophet,  and  read  by  Robert  B.  Thompson  at  the  general 
conference  of  the  Church  held  at  Nauvoo,  October  5,  1«40,  and 
are  to  be  found  in  the  Millennial  Star,  vol.  xviii,  pages  164, 165: 

I. 

The  Priesthood  was  first  given  to  Adam;  he  obtained  the  First 
Presidency,  and  held  the  keys  of  it  from  generation  to  generation. 
He  obtained  it  in  the  creation,  before  the  worlds  were  formed,  as  in 
Genesis.  1:20,  26,  28.     He  had  dominion  given  him  over  every  living 


244  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

creature.  He  is  Michael,  the  Archangel,  spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures. 
Then  to  Noah,  who  is  Gabriel;  he  stands  next  in  authority  to  Adam 
in  the  Priesthood;  he  was  called  of  God  to  this  office,  and  was  the 
Father  of  all  living  in  his  day,  and  to  him  was  given  the  dominion. 
These  men  held  keys  first  on  earth,  and  then  in  heaven. 

The  Priesthood  is  an  everlasting  principle,  and  existed  with  God 
from  eternity,  and  will  to  eternity,  without  beginning  of  days  or  end 
of  years.  The  keys  have  to  be  brought  from  heaven  whenever  the 
Gospel  is  sent.  When  they  are  revealed  from  heaven  it  is  by  Adam's 
authority.  Daniel  7,  speaks  of  the  Ancient  of  Days;  he  means  the 
oldest  man,  our  Father  Adam,  Michael;  he  will  call  his  children  to- 
gether and  hold  a  council  with  them  to  prepare  them  for  the  coming 
of  the  Son  of  Man.  He  (Adam)  is  the  father  of  the  human  family 
and  presides  over  the  spirits  of  all  men,  and  all  that  have  had  the 
keys  must  stand  before  him  in  this  grand  council.  This  may  take 
place  before  some  of  us  leave  this  stage  of  action.  The  Son  of  Man 
stands  before  him,  and  there  is  given  Him  glory  and  dominion.  Adam 
delivers  up  his  stewardship  to  Christ,  that  which  was  delivered  to  him 
as  holding  the  keys  of  the  universe,  but  retains  his  standing  as  head 
of  the  human  family. 

The  spirit  of  man  is  not  a  created  being;  it  existed  from  eternity, 
and  will  exist  to  eternity.  Anything  created  cannot  be  eternal;  and 
earth,  water,  etc.,  had  their  existence  in  an  elementary  state,  from 
eternity.  Our  Savior  speaks  of  children  and  says,  their  angels  always 
stand  before  my  Father.  The  Father  called  all  spirits  before  him  at 
the  creation  of  man,  and  organized  them.  He  (Adam)  is  the  head, 
and  was  told  to  multiply.  The  keys  were  first  given  to  him,  and  by 
him  to  others.  He  will  have  to  give  an  account  of  his  steward.ihip 
and  they  to  him. 

The  Priesthood  is  everlasting.  The  Savior,  Moses,  and  Elias,' 
gave  the  keys  to  Peter,  James,  and  John,  on  the  mount,  when  He  was 
transfigured  before  them.  The  Priesthood  is  everlasting — without 
beginning  of  days  or  end  of  years;  without  father,  mother,  etc.  If 
there  is  no  change  of  ordinance,  there  is  no  change  of  Priesthood. 
Wherever  the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel  are  administered,  there  is  the 
Priesthood. 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  245 

How  have  we  come  at  the  Priesthood  in  the  last  days?  It  came 
down,  in  regular  r,  Jame^^,  and   John  had  it  given 

to  them,  and  they  gave  it  to  others.  Christ  is  the  great  High  Priest: 
Adam  next.  Paul  speaks  of  the  Church  coming  to  an  innumerable 
company  of  angels — to  God,  the  Judge  of  all — the  spirits  of  just 
men  made  perfect;  to  Jesus,  the  Mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  etc. 
(Heb.  3:  23). 

I  saw  Adam  in  the  valley  of  Adam-ondi-Ahman.  He  called  to- 
gether his  children  and  blessed  them  with  a  patriarchal  blessing. 
The  Lord  appeared  in  their  midst,  and  he  (Adam)  blessed  them  all, 
and  foretold  what  should  befall  them  to  the  latest  generation.  (See 
Doc.  and  Cov.,  sec.  cvii:  53,  56  ) 

This  is  why  Abraham  blessed  his  posterity;  he  wanted  to  bring 
them  into  the  presence  of  God.  They  looked  for  a  city,  etc.  Moses 
sought  to  bring  the  children  of  Israel  into  the  presence  of  God, 
through  the  power  of  the  PriesChood,  but  he  could  not.  In  the  first 
ages  of  the  world  they  tried  to  establish  the  same  thing;  and  there 
were  Eliases  raised  up  who  tried  to  restore  these  very  glories,  but  did 
not  obtain  them,  but  they  prophesied  of  a  day  when  this  glory  would 
be  revealed.  Paul  spoke  of  the  Dispensation  of  the  Fullness  of  Times* 
when  God  would  gather  together  all  things  in  one,  etc,;  and  those  men 
to  whom  these  keys  have  been  given,  will  have  to  be  there,  and  they 
without  us  cannot  be  made  perfect. 

These  men  are  in  heaven,  but  their  children  are  on  earth.  Their 
bowels  yearn  over  us.  God  sends  down  men  for  this  reason  (Matt. 
13:  41).  And  the  Son  of  Man  shall  send  forth  his  angels,  etc.  All 
these  authoritative  characters  will  come  down  and  join  hand  in  hand 
in  bringing  about  this  work. 

n. 

In  order  to  investigate  the  subject  of  the  Priesthood,  so  impor- 
tant to  this  as  well  as  every  succeeding  generation,  I  shall  proceed  to 
trace  the  subject,  as  far  as  I  possibly  can,  from  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments. 

There  are  two  Priesthoods  spoken  of  in  the  Scripture,  viz.,  the 
Melchisedek  and  the  Aaronic  or  Levitical.     Although  there  are  two 


246  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

Priesthoods,  yet  the  Melchisedek  Priesthood  comprehends  the  Aaronic 
or  Levitical  Priesthood,  and  is  the  grand  head,  and  holds  the  hii^hest 
authority  which  pertains  to  the  Priesthood,  and  the  keys  of  the  King- 
dom of  God  in  all  ages  of  the  world  to  the  latest  posterity  on  the 
earth,  and  is  the  channel  through  which  all  knowledge,  doctrine,  the 
plan  of  salvation,  and  every  important  matter  is  revealed  from 
heaven. 

Its  institution  was  prior  to  the  "foundations  of  this  earth,  or  the 
morning  stars  sang  together,  or  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy,"  and 
is  the  highe-t  and  holiest  Priesthood,  and  is  after  the  order  of  the 
Son  of  God,  and  all  other  Priesthoods  are  only  parts,  ramifications, 
powers,  and  blessings  belonging  to  the  same,  and  are  held,  controlled, 
and  directed  by  it.  It  is  the  channel  through  which  the  Almighty 
commenced  revealing  his  glory  at  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of 
this  earth,  and  through  which  he  has  continued  to  reveal  himself  to 
the  children  of  men  to  the  present  time,  and  through  which  he  will 
make  known  his  purjioses  to  the  end  of  time. 

Commencing  with  Adam,  who  was  the  first  man,  who  is  spoken 
of  in  Daniel  as  being  the  "Ancient  of  Days,''  or,  in  other  words,  the 
first  and  oldest  of  all,  the  great  grand  progenitor,  of  whom  it  is  said 
in  another  place  he  is  Michael,  because  he  was  the  first  and  father  of 
all,  not  only  by  progeny,  but  the  first  to  hold  the  spiritual  blessings, 
to  whom  was  made  known  the  plan  of  ordinances  for  the  salvation 
of  his  posterity  unto  the  end,  and  to  whom  Christ  was  first  revealed, 
and  through  whom  Christ  has  been  revealed  from  heaven,  and  will 
continue  to  be  revealed  from  henceforth.  Adam  holds  the  keys  of 
the  Dispensation  of  the  Fullness  of  Times,  i.  e„  the  dispensation  of  all 
the  times,  have  been  and  will  be  revealed  through  him  from  the  be- 
ginning to  Christ,  and  from  Christ  to  the  end  of  all  the  dispensations 
that  are  to  be  revealed:  Ephesians,  1st  chap.,  9th  and  10th  verses — 
"Having  made  known  unto  us  the  mystery  of  his  will,  according  to 
his  good  pleasure  which  he  hath  purposed  in  himself:  that  in  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  fullness  of  times  he  might  gather  together  in  one 
all  things  in  Christ,  both  which  are  in  heaven  and  which  are  on  earth, 
even  in  him.'" 

Now  the  purpose  in  himself   in  the  winding-up  scene  of  the  last 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  247 

dispensation  is  that  all  things  pertaining  to  that  dispensation  should 
be  conducted  precisely  in  accordance  with  the  preceding  dispensa^ 
tions. 

And  again:  God  purposed  in  himself,  that  there  should  not  be 
eternal  fullness  until  every  dispensation  should  be  fulfilled  and  gath- 
ered together  in  one,  and  that  all  things  whatsover  that  should  be 
gathered  together  in  one  in  those  dispensations  unto  the  same  fullness 
and  eternal  glory,  should  be  in  Christ  Jesus;  therefore  he  set  the  or- 
dinances to  be  the  same  for  ever,  and  set  Adam  to  watch  over  them, 
to  reveal  them  from  heaven  to  man,  or  to  send  angels  to  reveal  them: 
Hebrews  1:  14 — "Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits,  sent  forth  to 
minsiter  to  those  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation?" 

These  angels  are  under  the  direction  of  Michael  or  Adam,  who 
acts  under  the  direction  of  the  Lord.  From  the  above  quotation  we 
learn  that  Paul  perfectly  understood  the  purposes  of  God  in  relation 
to  his  connection  with  man,  and  that  glorious  and  perfect  order  which 
he  established  in  himself,  whereby  he  sent  forth  power,  revelations, 
and  glory. 

God  will  not  acknowledge  that  which  he  has  not  called,  ordained, 
and  chosen.  In  the  beginning  God  called  Adam  by  his  own  voice. 
See  Genesis  3rd  chap.,  9th  and  10th  verses — "And  the  Lord  called  unto 
Adam,  and  said  unto  him,  Where  art  thou?  And  he  said,  I  heard  thy 
voice  in  the  garden,  and  I  was  afraid  because  I  was  naked,  and  hid 
myself."  Adam  received  commandments  and  instruction  from  God; 
this  was  the  order  from  the  beginning. 

That  he  received  revelations,  commandments  and  ordinances  at 
the  beginning  is  beyond  the  power  of  controversy;  else,  how  did  they 
begin  to  offer  sacrifices  to  God  in  an  acceptable  manner?  And  if  they 
offered  sacrifices  they  must  be  authorized  by  ordination.  We  read  in 
Gen.  4th  chap.,  4th  v.,  that  Abel  brought  of  the  firstlings  of  the  flock 
and  the  fat  thereof,  and  the  Lord  had  respect  to  Abel  and  to  his  of- 
fering. And  again:  Hebrews  11:4 — "By  faith  Abel  offered  unto 
God  a  more  excellent  sacrifice  than  Cain,  by  which  he  obtained  wit- 
ness that  he  was  righteous,  God  testifying  of  his  gifts;  and  by  it  he 
being  dead,  yet  speaketh."  How  doth  he  yet  speak?  Why,  he  mag- 
nified the  Priesthood  which  was  conferred  upon  him,  and  died  a  right- 


248  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

eous  man,  and  therefore  has  become  an  angel  of  God  by  receiving  his 
body  from  the  dead,  holding  still  the  keys  of  his  dispensation;  and 
was  sent  down  from  heaven  unto  Paul  to  minister  consoling  words, 
and  to  commit  unto  him  a  knowledge  of  the  mysteries  of  Godli- 
ness. 

And  if  this  was  not  the  case,  I  would  ask,  how  did  Paul  know  so 
much  about  Abel,  and  why  should  he  talk  about  his  speaking  after  he 
was  dead?  Hence,  that  he  spoke  after  he  was  dead  must  be  by  being 
sent  down  out  of  heaven  to  administer. 

This,  then,  is  the  nature  of  the  Priesthood;  every  man  holding 
the  presidency  of  his  dispensation,  and  one  man  holding  the  presi- 
dency of  them  all,  even  Adam;  and  Adam  receiving  his  presidency  and 
authority  from  the  Lord,  but  cannot  receive  a  fullness  until  Christ 
shall  present  the  Kingdom  to  the  Father,  which  shall  be  at  the  end  of 
the  last  dispensation. 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OP   DEITY.  249 


OF  ADAM   AND   HIS    RELATION  TO  THE   INHABITANTS 
OF   THE   EARTH. 

(From  the  Doctrine  and  Covenants.) 

In  March,  1832,  the  Lord  gave  a  revelation  to  the  Church 
commanding  them  to  effect  an  organization  for  the  betterment 
of  their  material  condition,  that  the  poor  might  be  better  cared 
for,  and  all  the  Saints  be  more  equal  in  the  possession  of  earthly 
things,  and  then  adds: 

That  you  may  come  up  to  the  crown  prepared  for  you,  and  be 
made  rulers  over  many  kingdoms,  saith  the  Lord  God,  the  Holy  One 
of  Zion,  who  hath  established  the  foundations  of  Adam-ondi-Ahman; 
who  hath  appointed  Michael  your  prince,  and  established  his  feet,  and 
set  him  upon  high,  and  given  unto  him  the  keys  of  salvation  under 
the  counsel  and  direction  of  the  Holy  One,  who  is  without  beginning 
of  days  or  end  of  life.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  ye  are  little 
children,  and  ye  have  not  as  yet  understood  how  great  blessings  the 
Father  hath  in  his  own  hands  and  prepared  for  you;  and  ye  cannot 
bear  all  things  now;  nevertheless,  be  of  good  cheer,  for  I  will  lead 
you  along;  the  kingdom  is  yours,  and  the  blessings  thereof  are  yours, 
and  the  riches  of  eternity  are  yours  (Doc.  and  Gov.,  sec.  78:  15-18). 

Who  the  "Michael"  here  spoken  of  is,  who  is  "appointed" 
our  "prince,"  and  unto  whom  the  "keys  of  salvation  are  given 
under  the  counsel  and  direction  of  the  Holy  One,"  is  made  very 
plain  afterwards  in  a  revelation  given  March  28,  1835,  from 
which  I  quote  the  following: 

Three  years  previous  to  the  death  of  Adam,  he  called  Seth,  Enos, 
Cainan,  Mahalaleel,  Jared,  Enoch,  and  Methusaleh,  who  were  all  high 
16 


250  ■  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

priests,  with  the  residue  of  his  posterity  who  were  righteous,  unto  the 
valley  of  Adam-ondi-Ahman,  and  there  bestowed  upon  them  his  last 
blessing.  And  the  Lord  appeared  unto  them,  and  they  rose  up  and 
blessed  Adam,  and  called  him  Michael,  the  Prince,  the  Archangel, 
And  the  Lord  administered  comfort  unto  Adam,and  said  unto  him,  I 
have  set  thee  to  be  at  the  head — a  multitude  of  nations  shall  come  of 
thee,  and  thou  art  a  prince  over  them  for  ever.  And  Adam  stood  up  in 
the  midst  of  the  congregation,  and  notwithstanding  he  was  bowed 
down  with  age,  being  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  predicted  whatsoever 
should  befall  his  posterity  unto  the  latest  generation.  These  things 
were  all  written  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  and  are  to  be  testified  of  in 
due  time  (Doc.  and  Gov.,  sec.  107:  53-57). 

From  this  it  will  appear  that  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith 
understood  that  Adam  would  stand  at  the  head  of  his  posterity 
in  this  earth;  that  he  would  be  their  Prince  and  hold  the  keys 
of  salvation  "under  the  counsel  and  direction  of  the  Holy  One, 
who  is  without  beginning  of  days  or  end  of  life."  Doubtless  it 
was  this  which  led  the  Prophet  to  say — after  referring  to  the 
fact  that  the  Lord  said  to  Moses,  "Thou  shalt  be  a  god  unto 
the  children  of  Israel,"  and  again,  "Thou  shalt  be  a  god  unto 
Aaron,  and  he  shall  be  thy  spokesman" — it  was  these  consider- 
ations, I  repeat,  which  led  the  Prophet  to  say,  "I  believe  those 
Gods  that  God  reveals  as  Gods  to  be  sons  of  God,  and  all  can 
cry,  'Abba,  Father!'  sons  of  God,  who  exalted  themselves  to  be 
Gods  even  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  are  the  only 
Gods  I  have  a  reverence  for"  (Discourse  of  June  16,  1844,  Mil- 
lennial Star,  vol.  xxiv,  p.  140). 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine  OF   DEITY.  251 


THE  LIVING  GOD.  * 

(From  the  Times  and  Seasons.) 

There  is  no  subject  among  men,  that  engrosses  so  much  time  and 
attention,  and,  at  the  same  time,  is  so  little  understood,  as  the  being, 
knowledge,  substance,  attributes,  and  disposition  of  the  living  God. 
In  the  first  place,  Christians  and  believers  in  Christianity,  with  a  few 
exceptions,  believe  in  one  God;  or,  perhaps  we  should  say,  in  their 
own  language,  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  one  God. 
But  to  be  obedient  unto  the  truth,  we  will  not  thus  transgress  upon 
reason,  sense  and  revelation.  It  will  then  be  necessary  to  treat  the 
subject  of  the  "Living  God,"  in  contradiction  to  a  dead  Cod,  or,  one 
that  has  "no  body,  parts  or  passions,"  and,  perhaps  it  may  be  well 
enough  to  say  at  the  outset,  that  "Mormonism"  embraces  a  plurality 
of  Gods,  as  the  apostle  said,  there  were  "Gods  many  and  Lords 
many."'  In  doing  which,  we  shall  not  deny  the  scripture  that  has 
been  set  apart  for  this  world,  and  allow  one  God,  even  Jesus  Christ, 
the  very  eternal  Father  of  this  earth;  and,  if  Paul  tells  the  truth — 
"by  him  the  worlds  were  made." 

It  was  probably  alluded  to  by  Moses,  when  the  children  of  Israel 
were  working  out  their  salvation,  with  fear  and  trembling,  in  the 
wilderness,  at  the  time  that  he  spake  these  words:  (Deut.  5:  23-26.) 
"And  it  came  to  pass  when  ye  heard  the  voice  out  of  the  midst  of 
the  darkness  (for  the  mountain  did  burn  with  fire,)  that  ye  came  near 
unto  me,  even  all  the  heads  of  your  tribes,  and  your  elders.  And  ye 
said:  Behold,  the  Lord  our  God  hath  showed  us  his  glory,  and  great- 
ness, and  we  have  heard  his  voice  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire;  we 


*  The  article  under  this  title,  is  an  editorial  in  the  "Times  and 
Seasons,"  published  at  Nauvoo,  Feb.  15,  1845,  presumably  written  by 
the  late  President  John  Taylor,  who,  at  the  time  it  was  written,  was 
both  editor  and  proprietor  of  the  "Times  and  Seasons." 


252  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

have  seen  this  day  that  God  doth  talk  with  man,  and  he  liveth.  Now, 
therefore,  why  should  we  die?  For  this  great  Sre  will  consume  us. 
If  we  hear  the  voice  of  the  Lord  our  God  any  more,  then  we  shall  die. 
For  who  is  there  of  all  flesh,  that  had  heard  the  voice  of  the  living 

God  speaking  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  as  we  have,  and  lived?" 

*  *  #  * 

The  first  line  of  Genesis,  purely  translated  from  the  orig- 
inal, excluding  the  first  Baith  (which  was  added  by  the  Jews,) 
would  read: —  Rosheit  (the  head)  baurau,  (brought  forth,)  Eloheim 
(the  Gods)  ate  (with)  hah-shau-mahyiem  (the  heavens)  veh-ate,  (and 
with)  hauaurates,  (the  earth.)  In  simple  English,  the  Head  brought 
forth  the  Gods,  with  the  heavens  and  with  the  earth.  The  "Head" 
must  have  meant  the  "living  God,"or  Head  God;  Christ  is  our  head. 
The  term  "Eloheim."  plural  of  Elohah.  or  ale,  is  used  alike  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis,  for  the  creation,  and  the  quotation  of  Satan.  In 
the  second  chapter,  and  fourth  verse,  we  have  this  remarkable  his- 
tory: "Ihese  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  of  the  earth,  when 
they  were  brought  forth;  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  of  the  Gods  made  earth 
and  heavens."     The  Hebrew  reads  so. 

Truly  Jesus  Christ  created  the  worlds,  and  is  Lord  of  Lords,  and, 
as  the  Psalmist  said:  "Judges  among  the  Gods."  Then  Moses  might 
have  said  with  propriety,  he  is  the  "living  God,"  and,  Christ,  speak- 
ing of  the  flesh  could  say:  I  am  the  Son  of  man;  and,  Peter,  enlight- 
ened by  the  Holy  Ghost:  Thou  art  the  Son  of  the  Living  God,  mean- 
ing our  Father  in  heaven,  who  is  the  Father  of  all  spirits,  and  who, 
with  Jtsus  Christ,  his  first  begotten  son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  one 
in  power,  one  in  dominion,  and  one  in  glory,  constituting  the  first 
presidency  of  this  system,  and  this  eternity.  But  they  are  as  much 
three  distinct  persons  as  the  sun,  moon,  and  earth  are  three  different 
bodies. 

Again,  the  "twelve  kingdoms,"  which  are  under  the  above  men- 
tioned presidency  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  governed 
by  the  same  rules,  and  destined  to  the  same  honor;  (Book  Doc.  &  Cov. 
p.  135,  sec  13.)  For  "Behold,  I  will  liken  these  kingdoms  unto  a 
man  having  a  field,  and  he  sent  forth  his  servants  into  the  field,  to 
dig  in  the  field;  and  he  said  unto  the  first,  go  ye  and  labor  in  the  field, 


THE  "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  253 

and  in  the  first  hour  I  will  come  unto  you,  and  ye  shall  behold  the  joy 
of  ray  countenance;  and  he  said  unto  the  second,  go  ye  also  into  the 
field,  and  in  the  second  hour  I  will  visit  you  with  the  joy  of  my  coun- 
tenance; and  also  unto  the  third,  saying,  I  will  visit  you:  and  unto 
the  fourth,  and  so  on  unto  the  twelfth." 

Without  going  into  the  full  investigation  of  the  history  and  excel- 
lency of  God,  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  this  article,  let 
us  reflect  that  Jesus  Christ,  as  Lord  of  Lords,  and  King  of  Kings, 
must  have  a  noble  race  in  the  heavens,  or  upon  the  earth,  or  else  he 
can  never  be  as  great  in  power,  dominion,  might  and  authority,  as 
the  scriptures  declare.  But  hear;  the  mystery  is  solved.  John 
says  (Rev.  14:  1,)  "And  1  looked,  and  lo,  a  Lamb  stood  on  the 
mount  Zion,  and  with  him  an  hundred  forty  and  four  thousand,  hav- 
ing his  Father's  name  written  in  their  foreheads." 

Their  Fathers  name,  bless  me!  that  is  GOD!  Well  done  for 
Mormonism;  one  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand  Gods,  among  the 
tribes  of  Israel,  and,  two  living  Gods  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  for 
this  world!  Such  knowledge  is  too  wonderful  for  men,  unless  they 
possess  the  spirit  of  Gods.  It  unravels  the  little  mysteries,  which, 
like  a  fog.  hides  the  serene  atmosphere  of  heaven,  and  looks  from 
world  to  world;  from  system  to  system;  from  universe  to  universe, 
and  from  eternity  to  eternity,  where,  in  each  and  all,  there  is  a  pres- 
idency of  Gods,  and  Gods  many,  and  Lords  many;  and,  from  time  to 
time,  or  from  eternity  to  eternity,  Jesus  Christ  shall  bring  in  another 
world,  regulated  and  saved  as  this  will  be,  when  he  delivers  it  up  to 
the  Father;  and  God  becomes  all  in  all.  "And,"  as  John  the  Revelator 
says  (22:  3,  4):  "there  shall  be  no  more  curse:  but  the  throne  of  God 
and  of  the  Lamb  shall  be  in  it;  and  his  servants  shall  serve  him,  and 
they  shall  see  his  face;  and  his  name  shall  be  in  their  foreheads." 

"His  name  in  their  foreheads,"  undoubtedly  means  ''God"  on  the 
front  of  their  crowns;  for,  when  all  things  are  created  new,  in  the 
celestial  kingdom,  the  servants  of  God,  the  innumerable  multitude 
are  crowned,  and,  are  perfect  men  and  women  in  the  Lord,  one  in 
glory,  one  in  knowledge,  and  one  in  image;  they  are  like  Christ,  and 
he  is  like  God;  then,  0,  then,  they  are  all  "Living  Gods,"  having 
passed  from  death  unto  life,  and  possess  the  power  of  eternal  lives! 


254  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 


MATERIALITY.* 
{From  the  "Prophet") 

God,  the  Father,  is  material. 

Jesus  Christ  is  material. 

Angels  are  material. 

Spirits  are  material. 

Men  are  material. 

The  universe  is  material. 

Space  is  full  of  materiality. 

Nothing  exists  which  is  not  material. 

The  elementary  principles  of  the  material  universe  are  eternal; 
they  never  originated  from  nonentity,  and  they  never  can  be 
annihilated. 

Immateriality  is  but  another  name  for  nonentity — it  is  the  neg- 
ative of  all  things,  and  beings — of  all  existence. 

There  is  not  one  particle  of  proof  to  be  advanced  to  establish 
its  existence.  It  has  no  vi^ay  to  manifest  itself  to  any  intelligence 
in  heaven  or  on  earth.  Neither  God,  angels  nor  men,  could  positively 
conceive  of  such  a  substance,  being  or  thing.  It  possseses  no  prop- 
erty or  power  by  which  to  make  itself  manifest,  to  any  intelligent 
being  in  the  universe,  reason  and  analogy  never  scan  it,  or  even 
conceive  of  it.  Revelation  never  reveals  it,  nor  do  any  of  our  senses 
witness  its  existence.  It  cannot  be  seen,  heard,  tasted,  or  smelled, 
even    by    the   strongest  organs,  or  of  the  most  acute  sensibilities. 


*  This  article  on  the  nature  of  God,  man,  and  angels  appears  in 
the  editorial  columns  of  the  "Prophet"  for  May  2  i,  1845.  The  "Prophet" 
was  published  in  New  York  and  Boston,  and  at  the  time  of  the  appear- 
ance of  this  article  Elder  Parley  P.  Pratt  was  the  editor,  and  hence 
it  was  doubtless  written  by  him. 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  255 

It  is  neither  liquid  or  solid,  soft  or  hard, — it  can  neither  extend 
nor  contract.  In  short,  it  can  exert  no  influence  whatever — it  can 
neither  act,  nor  be  acted  upon.  And  even  if  it  does  exist,  it  is  of 
.no  possible  use.  It  possesses  no  one  desirable  property,  faculty  or 
use,  yet,  strange  to  say,  "Immateriality"  is  the  modern  Christian's 
God,  his  anti-cipated  heaven,  his  immortal  self — his  all. 

0  sectarianism!  0  atheism! !  0  annihilation!  ! !  Who  can  per- 
ceive the  nice  shades  of  difference  between  the  one  and  the  other? 
They  seem  alike  all  but  in  name.     The  atheist  has  no  God. 

The  sectarian  has  a  God  without  body  or  parts.  Who  can  define 
the  difference?  for  our  part  we  do  not  perceive  a  difference  of  a  single 
hair;  they  both  claim  to  be  the  negative  of  all  things  which  exist — 
and  both  are  equally  powerless  and  unknown. 

The  atheist  has  no  after  life,  or  conscious  existence  beyond  the 
grave. 

The  sectarian  has  one,  but  it  is  immaterial  like  his  God;  and 
without  body  or  parts.  Here  again  both  are  negative,  and  both  are 
at  the  same  point.  Their  faith  and  hope  amount  to  the  same,  only 
they  are  expressed  by  different  terms. 

Again,  the  atheist  has  no  heaven  in  eternity. 

The  sectarian  has  one,  but  it  is  immaterial  in  all  its  proprieties, 
and  is  therefore  the  negative  of  all  riches  in  substance.  Here  again 
they  are  equal,  and  arrive  at  the  same  point. 

As  we  do  not  envy  them  the  possession  of  all  they  claim,  we  will 
now  leave  them  in  the  quiet  and  undisturbed  enjoyment  of  the  same 
and  proceed  to  examine  the  portion  still  left  for  the  "poor  Mormons" 
to  enjoy. 

What  is  God?  He  is  a  material  intelligence,  possessing 
both  body  and  parts.  He  is  in  the  form  of  man,  and  is  in  fact  of  the 
same  species;  and  is  a  model,  or  standard  of  perfection  to  which 
man  is  destined  to  attain:  he  being  the  great  Father,  and  head  of  the 
whole  family. 

He  can  go,  come,  converse,  reason,  eat,  drink,  love,  hate,  rejoice 
possesss  and  enjoy.  He  can  also  travel  space  with  all  the  ease  and 
intelligence  necessary,  for  moving  from  planet  to  planet,  and  from 
system  to  system. 


256  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

This  being  cannot  occupy  two  distinct  places  at  once.  There- 
fore, he  cannot  be  (in  person)  everywhere  present.  For  evidence  and 
illustration  of  this  God,  and  his  personal  powers,  and  attributes, 
we  refer  to  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  which 
speak  substantially  of  his  body,  parts,  passions,  powers,  and  of 
his  conversing,  walking,  eating,  drinking,  etc.;  for  instance,  his  taking 
dinner  with  Abraham. 

What  is  Jesus  Christ?  He  is  the  son  of  God,  and  is  every  way 
like  his  father,  being  "the  brightness  of  his  father's  glory,  and  the 
express  immage  of  his  person."  He  is  material  intelligence,  with  body, 
parts  and  passions;  possessing  immortal  flesh  and  immortal  bones.  He 
can  and  does  eat,  drink,  converse,  reason,  love,  move,  go,  come,  and 
in  short,  perform  all  things  even  as  the  Father — possessing  the  same 
power  and  attributes.  And  he,  too,  can  travel  space,  and  go  from 
world  to  world,  and  from  system  to  system,  precisely  like  the  Father; 
but  cannot  occupy  two  places  at  once. 

What  are  angels?  They  are  intelligences  of  the  human  species. 
Many  of  them  are  offsprings  of  Adam  and  Eve.  That  is  they  are 
men,  who  have,  like  Enoch  or  Elijah,  been  translated;  or,  like  Jesus 
Christ,  been  raised  from  the  dead;  consequently  they  possess  a 
material  body  of  flesh  and  bones,  can  eat,  drink,  walk,  converse, 
reason,  love,  fight,  wrestle,  sing,  or  play  on  musical  instruments. 
They  can  go  or  come  on  foreign  missions,  in  heaven,  earth,  or  hell; 
and  they  can  travel  space,  and  visit  the  different  worlds,  with  all 
the  ease  and  alacrity  with  which  God  and  Christ  do  the  same, 
being  possessed  of  similar  organizations,  powers  and  attributes  in 
a  degree. 

What  are  spirits?  They  are  material  intelligences,  possessing 
body  and  parts  in  the  likeness  of  the  temporal  body;  but  not 
composed  of  flesh  and  bones,  but  of  some  substance  less  tangible  to' 
our  gross  senses  in  our  present  life;  but  tangible  to  those  in  the 
same  element  as  themselves.  In  short  they  are  men  in  embrio — 
intelligences  waiting  to  come  into  the  natural  world  and  take  upon 
them  flesh  and  bones,  that  through  birth,  death,  and  the  resurrection 
they  may  also  be  perfected  in  the  material  organization.  Such  was 
Jesus  Christ,  and  such  were  we  before  we  came  into  this  world,  and 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine  OP  DEITY.  257 

such  we  will  be  again,  in  the  intervening  space  between  death  and 
the  resurrection. 

What  are  men?  They  are  offspring  of  God,  the  Father,  and 
brothers  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  were  once  intelligent  spirits  in 
the  presence  of  God,  and  were  with  him  before  the  earth  was  formed. 
They  are  now  in  disguise  as  it  were,  in  order  to  pass  through  the 
several  changes,  and  the  experience  necessary  to  constitute  them 
perfect  beings. 

They  are  capable  of  receiving  intelligence  and  exaltation  to 
such  a  degree,  as  to  be  raised  from  the  dead  with  a  body  like  that 
of  Jesus  Christ's,  and  to  possess  immortal  flesh  and  bones,  in  which 
they  will  eat,  drink,  converse,  reason,  love,  walk,  sing,  play  on 
musical  instruments,  go  on  missions  from  planet  to  planet,  or  from 
system  to  system:  being  Gods,  or  sons  of  God,  endowed  with  the  same 
powers,  attributes,  and  capacities  that  their  heavenly  Father  and 
Jesus  Christ  possess. 

What  are  all  these  beings  taken  together,  or  summed  up  under 
one  head?  They  are  one  great  family,  all  of  the  same  species,  all 
related  to  each  other,  all  bound  together  by  kindred  ties,  interests 
sympathies,  and  affections.  In  short  they  are  all  Gods;  or  rather, 
men  are  the  offspring  or  children  of  the  Gods,  and  destined  to  advance 
by  degrees,  and  to  make  their  way  by  a  progressive  series  of  changes, 
till  they  become  like  their  Father  in  heaven,  and  like  Jesus  Christ 
their  elder  brother. 

Thus  perfected,  the  whole  family  will  possess  the  material  uni- 
verse, that  is,  the  earth,  and  all  other  planets,  and  worlds,  as 
"an  inheritance  incorruptible  undefiled  and  that  fadeth  not  away." 
They  will  also  continue  to  organize,  people,  redeem,  and  perfect 
other  systems  which  are  now  in  the  womb  of  Chaos,  and  thus  go  on 
increasing  their  several  dominions,  till  the  weakest  child  of  God 
which  now  exists  upon  the  earth  will  possess  more  dominion,  more 
property,  more  subjects,  and  more  power  and  glory  than  is  possessed 
by  Jesus  Christ  or  by  his  Father;  while  at  the  same  time  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  Father,  will  have  their  dominion,  kingdoms,  and  subjects  in- 
creased in  proportion. 

Such   are  the  riches,   glories,   blessings,   honors,   thrones,   do- 


258  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

minions,  principalities,  and  powers,  held  out  by  the  system  of 
materialism. 

Such  the  wealth,  the  dignity,  the  nobility,  the  titles  and  honors 
to  which  "Mormons"  aspire.  Such  the  promises  of  him  whose  word 
can  never  fail. 

With  these  hopes  and  prospects  before  us,  we  say  to  the  Christian 
world,  who  hold  to  immateriality,  that  they  are  welcome  to  their  God — 
their  life — their  heaven,  and  their  all. 

They  claim  nothing  but  that  which  we  throw  away,  and  we  claim 
nothing  but  that  which  they  throw  away.  Therefore,  there  is  no 
ground  for  quarrel,  or  contention  between  us. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

DISCOURSES   ON   DEITY   AND   MAN.* 

I. 
PRESIDENT  BRIGHAM  YOUNG.f 

To  Know  God  is  Eternal  Life. 

It  is  one  of  the  first  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation 
to  become  acquainted  with  our  Father  and  our  God.  The 
Scriptures  teach  that  this  is  eternal  life,  to  "know  thee,  the 


*  In  these  discourses  it  will  be  observed  that  in  speaking  of  man 
reference  is  made  only  to  the  pre-existence  of  his  spirit,  and  his  being 
"begotten"  a  spirit  by  the  heavenly  Father;  no  reference  is  made  to  the 
eternal  intelligence  of  man,  the  "ego''  that  was  not  created  or  made, 
"neither  indeed  can  be,"  as  set  forth  at  pages  99  to  102.  The  breth- 
ren in  these  discourses  are  not  dealing  with  that  phase  of  the  sub- 
ject; their  purpose  is  met  by  referring  merely  to  the  pre-existence  of 
the  spirits  of  men. 

This  remark  also  opens  a  way  for  a  word  which  really  should 
have  been  spoken  when  explaining  our  views  in  relation  to  the  im- 
mortality of  man,  at  pages  99  to  102.  I  mean  the  distinction  that 
exists  between  "generation"  and  "creation;"  between  a  being  "begot- 
ten," and  a  thing  "created,"  or  "made."  And  here,  somewhat  to  my 
surprise,  I  may  quote  with  approval  one  of  the  very  eminent  "Christ- 
ian Fathers."     "Let  it    be  repeated,"  he  remarks,   "that  a  created 


t  This  discourse  was  delivered  in  the  Tabernacle,  Salt  Lake  City, 
February  8,  1857.    Journal  of  Discourses,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  215  etlseg. 


260  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent;"  this  is 
as  much  as  to  say  that  no  man  can  enjoy  or  be  prepared  for 
eternal  life  without  that  knowledge. 

Yon  hear  a  great  deal  of  preaching  upon  this  subject;  and 
when  people  repent  of  their  sins,  they  will  get  together,  and 
pray  and  exhort  each  other,  and  try  to  get  the  spirit  of  revela- 
tion, try  to  have  God  their  Father  revealed  to  them,  that  they 
may  know  him  and  become  acquainted  with  him. 

There  are  some  plain,  simple  facts  that  I  wish  to  tell  youi 
and  I  have  but  one  desire  in  this,  which  is,  that  you  should  have 
understanding  to  receive  them,  to  treasure  them  up  in  your 
hearts,  to  contemplate  upon  these  facts,  for  they  are  simple 
facts,  based  upon  natural  principles;  there  is  no  mystery  about 
them  when  once  understood. 

I  want  to  tell  you,  each  and  every  one  of  you,  that  you 
are  well  acquainted  with  God  our  heavenly  Father,  or  the  great 


thinoj  is  external  to  the  nature  of  the  being  who  creates;  but  a  gen- 
eration is  the  proper  offspring  of  the  nature"  [of  him  who  begets  it]. 
And  this  Athanasius,  the  "Christian  Father"  referred  to,  puts  forth 
in  explaining  how  the  Son  of  God  'n  consubstantial,  i.  e.,  of  the  same 
substance,  or  essence,  with  the  Father.  And  he  remarks  further,  by 
way  of  illustration:  "It  were  madness  to  say  that  a  house  is  co-es- 
sential or  con-substantial  with  the  builder:  or  a  ship  with  the  ship- 
wright; but  it  is  proper  to  say,  that  every  son  is  co-essential  or  con- 
substantial  with  his  father."  (The  foregoing  extracts  from  Athana- 
sioua  are  quoted  by  Shedd,  History  Christian  Doctrine,  Vol.  I,  p. 
322). 

I  call  attention  to  this  distinction  that  when  in  our  literature  we 
say  "God  created  the  spirits  of  men,"  it  is  understood  that  they  were 
"begotten,'  We  mean  "generation,"  not  "creation."  Intelligences, 
which  are  eternal,  uncreated,  self-existing  beings,  are  begotten 
spirits,  and  these  afterwards  begotten  men.  When  intelligences  are 
"begotten"  spirits  they  are  of  the  nature  of  him  who  begets  them — 
sons  of  God,  and  con-substantial  with  their  Father. 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine  OF  DEITY.  261 

Eloheim.  You  are  all  well  acquainted  with  him,  for  there  is 
not  a  soul  of  you  but  what  has  lived  in  his  house  and  dwelt 
with  him  year  after  y^ar;  and  yet  you  are  seeking  to  become 
acquainted  with  him,  when  the  fact  is,  you  have  merely  for- 
gotten what  you  did  know.  I  told  you  a  little  last  Sabbath 
about  forgetting  things. 

There  is  not  a  person  here  today  but  what  is  a  son  or  a 
daughter  of  that  Being.  In  the  spirit  world  their  spirits  were 
first  begotten  and  brought  forth,  and  they  lived  there  with 
their  parents  for  ages  before  they  came  here.  This,  perhaps, 
is  hard  for  many  to  believe,  but  it  is  the  greatest  nonsense  in 
the  world  not  to  believe  it.  If  you  do  not  believe  it,  cease  to 
call  him  "Father;"  and  when  you  pray,  pray  to  some  other 
character. 

It  would  be  inconsistent  in  you  to  disbelieve  what  I  think  you 
know,  and  then  to  go  home  and  ask  the  Father  to  do  so  and  so 
for  you.  The  Scriptures  which  we  believe  have  taught  us  from 
the  b?ginning  to  call  him  our  Father,  and  we  have  been 
taught  to  pray  to  him  as  our  Father,  in  the  name  of  our 
eldest  brother  whom  we  call  Jesus  Christ,  the  Savior  of  the 
world;  and  that  Savior,  while  here  on  earth,  was  so  explicit 
on  this  point,  that  he  taught  his  disciples  to  call  no  man  on 
earth  father,  for  we  have  one  which  is  in  heaven.  He  is  the 
Savior,  because  it  is  his  right  to  redeem  the  remainder  of  the 
family  pertaining  to  the  flesh  on  this  earth;  if  any  of  you  do 
not  believe  this,  tell  us  how  and  what  we  should  believe.  If  I 
am  not  telling  you  the  truth,  please  to  tell  me  the  truth  on  this 
subject,  and  let  me  know  more  than  I  do  know.  If  it  is  hard 
for  you  to  believe,  if  you  wish  tc  be  Latter-day  Saints,  admit  the 
fact  as  I  state  it,  and  do  not  contend  against  it.  Try  to  believe 
it,  because  you  will  never  become  acquainted  with  our  Father, 
never  enjoy  the  blessings  of  his  Spirit,  never  be  prepared  to 
enter  into  his  presence,  until  you  most  assuredly  believe  it; 


262  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  op  deity. 

therefore  you  had  better  try  to  believe  this  great  mystery  about 
God. 

I  do  not  marvel  that  the  world  is  clad  in  mystery,  to  them 
he  is  an  unknown  God;  they  cannot  tell  where  he  dwells  nor 
how  he  lives,  nor  what  kind  of  a  being  he  is  in  appearance  or 
character.  They  want  to  become  acquainted  with  his  char- 
acter and  attributes,  but  they  know  nothing  of  them.  This 
is  in  consequence  of  the  apostasy  that  is  now  in  the  world. 
They  have  departed  from  the  knowledge  of  God,  transgressed 
his  laws,  changed  his  ordinances,  and  broken  the  everlasting 
covenant,  so  that  the  whole  earth  is  defiled  under  the  inhab- 
itants thereof.  Consequently  it  is  no  mystery  to  us  that  the 
world  knoweth  not  God,  but  it  would  be  a  mystery  to  me,  with 
what  I  now  know,  to  say  that  we  cannot  know  anything  of  him. 
We  are  his  children. 

To  bring  the  truth  of  this  matter  close  before  you,  I  will 
instance  your  fathers  who  made  the  first  permanent  settlement 
in  New  England.  There  are  a  good  many  in  this  congregation 
whose  fathers  landed  upon  Plymouth  Rock  in  the  year  1620. 
Those  fathers  began  to  spread  abroad;  they  had  children, 
those  children  had  children,  and  their  children  had  children, 
and  here  are  we  their  childran.  I  am  one  of  them,  and  many 
of  this  congregation  belong  to  that  class.  Now  ask  yourselves 
this  simple  question  upon  natural  principles,  has  the  species 
altered?  Were  not  the  people  who  landed  at  Plymouth  Rock 
the  same  species  with  us?  Were  they  not  organized  as  we 
are?  Were  not  their  countenances  similar  to  ours?  Did  they 
not  converse,  have  knowledge,  read  books?  Were  there  not 
mechanics  among  them,  and  did  they  not  understand  agri- 
culture, etc.,  as  we  do?     Yes,  every  person  admits  this. 

Now  follow  our  fathers  further  back  and  take  those  who 
first  came  to  the  island  of  Great  Britain,  were  they  the  same 
species  of  beings  as  those  who  came  to  America?    Yes,  all 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  263 

acknowledge  this;  this  is  upon  natural  principles.  Thus  you 
may  continue  and  trace  the  human  family  back  to  Adam  and 
Eve,  and  ask,  "are  we  of  the  same  species  with  Adam  and 
Eve?"  Yes,  every  person  acknowledges  this;  this  comes 
within  the  scope  of  our  understanding. 

But  when  we  arrive  at  that  point,  a  vail  is  dropt,  and  our 
knowledge  is  cut  off.  Were  it  not  so,  you  could  trace  back 
your  history  to  the  Father  of  our  spirits  in  the  eternal  world. 
He  is  a  being  of  the  same  species  as  ourselves:  he  lives  as  we 
do,  except  the  difference  that  we  are  earthly,  and  he  is 
heavenly.  He  has  been  earthly,  and  is  of  precisely  the  same 
species  of  being  that  we  are.  Whether  Adam  is  the  personage 
that  we  should  consider  our  heavenly  Father,  or  not,  is  con- 
siderable of  a  mystery  to  a  good  many.  I  do  not  care  for  one 
moment  how  that  is;  it  is  no  matter  whether  we  are  to  con- 
sider him  our  God,  or  whether  his  Father,  or  his  Grandfather, 
for  in  either  case  we  are  of  one  species — of  one  family — and 
Jesus  Christ  is  also  of  our  species. 

You  may  hear  the  divines  of  the  day  extol  tiie  character 
of  the  Savior,  undertake  to  exhibit  his  true  character  before 
the  people,  and  give  an  account  of  his  origin. 

Now  to  the  facts  in  the  case;  all  the  difference  between 
Jesus  Christ  and  any  other  man  that  ever  lived  on  the  earth, 
from  the  days  of  Adam  until  now,  is  simply  this,  the  Father, 
after  he  had  once  been  in  the  flesh,  and  lived  as  we  live, 
obtained  his  exaltation,  attained  to  thrones,  gained  the  ascend- 
ancy over  principalities  and  powers,  and  had  the  knowledge  and 
power  to  create — to  bring  forth  and  organize  the  elements 
upon  natural  principles.  This  he  did  after  his  ascension,  or 
his  glory,  or  his  eternity,  and  was  actually  classed  with  the 
Gods,  with  the  beings  who  create,  with  those  who  have  kept 
the  celestial  law  while  in  the  flesh,  and  again  obtained  their 
bodies.     Then  he  was   prepared   to   commence   the   work  of 


264  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

creation,  as  the  Scriptures  teach.  It  is  all  here  in  the  Bible;  I 
am  not  telling  you  a  word  but  what  is  contained  in  that  book. 

Things  were  first  created  spiritually;  the  Father  actually 
begat  the  spirits,  and  they  were  brought  forth  and  lived  with 
him.  Then  he  commenced  the  work  of  creating  earthly 
tabernacles,  precisely  as  he  had  been  created  in  this  flesh 
himself,  by  partaking  of  the  coarse  material  that  was  organized 
and  composed  this  earth,  until  his  system  was  charged  with 
it,  consequently  the  tabernacles  of  his  children  were  organized 
from  the  coarse  materials  of  this  earth. 

When  the  time  came  that  his  first-born,  the  Savior,  should 
come  into  the  world  and  take  a  tabernacle,  the  Father  came 
himself  and  favored  that  spirit  with  a  tabernacle  instead  of 
letting  any  other  man  do  it.  The  Savior  was  begotten  by  the 
Father  of  his  spirit,  by  the  same  Being  who  is  the  Father  of 
our  spirits,  and  that  is  all  the  organic  difference  between 
Jesus  Christ  and  you  and  me.  And  the  difference  there  is 
between  our  Father  and  us  consists  in  that  he  has  gained  his 
exaltation,  and  has  obtained  eternal  lives.  The  principle  of 
eternal  lives  is  an  eternal  existence,  eternal  duration,  eternal 
exaltation.  Endless  are  his  kingdoms,  endless  h's  thrones 
and  his  dominions,  and  endless  are  His  posterity;  they  never 
will  cease  to  multiply  from  this  time  henceforth  and  forever. 

To  you  who  are  prepared  to  enter  into  the  presence  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  what  I  am  now  telling  will  eventually 
be  no  more  strange  than  are  the  feelings  of  a  person  who 
returns  to  his  father's  house,  brethren,  and  sisters,  and  enjoys 
the  society  of  his  old  associates,  after  an  absence  of  several 
years  upon  some  distant  island.  Upon  returning  he  would 
be  happy  to  see  his  father,  his  relatives  and  friends.  So  also 
if  we  keep  the  celestial  law  when  our  spirits  go  to  God  who 
gave  them,  we  shall  find  that  we  are  acquainted  there  and 
distinctly  realize  that  we  know  all  about  that  world. 


THE   "MORxMON"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  265 

Tell  me  that  you  do  not  know  anything  about  God!  I  will 
tell  you  one  thing,  it  would  better  become  you  to  lay  your 
hands  upon  your  mouths  and  them  in  the  dust,  and  cry,  "un- 
clean, unclean." 

Whether  you  receive  these  things  or  not,  I  tell  you  them 
in  simplicity.  I  lay  them  before  you  like  a  child,  because  they 
are  perfectly  simple.  If  you  see  and  understand  these  things, 
it  will  be  by  the  Spirit  of  God;  you  will  receive  them  by  no 
other  spirit.  No  matter  whether  they  are  told  to  you  like  the 
thunderings  of  the  Almighty,  or  by  simple  conversation;  if  you 
enjoy  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  it  will  tell  you  whether  they  are 
right  or  not. 

I  am  acquainted  with  ray  Father.  I  am  as  confident  that 
I  understand  in  part,  see  in  part,  and  know  and  am  acquainted 
with  him  in  part,  as  I  am  that  I  was  acquainted  with  my  earthly 
father  who  died  in  Quincy,  Illinois,  after  we  were  driven  from 
Missouri.  My  recollection  is  better  with  regard  to  my  earthly 
father  than  it  is  in  regard  to  my  heavenly  Father;  but  as  to 
knowing  of  what  species  he  is,  and  how  he  is  organized,  and 
with  regard  to  his  existence,  I  understand  it  in  part  as  well  as 
I  understand  the  organization  and  existence  of  my  earthly 
father.  That  is  my  opinion  about  it,  and  my  opinion  to  me  is 
just  as  good  as  yours  is  to  you;  and  if  you  are  of  the  same 
opinion  you  will  be  satisfied  as  I  am. 

I  know  my  heavenly  Father  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  he  has 
sent,  and  this  is  eternal  life.  And  if  we  will  do  as  we  have 
been  told  this  morning,  if  you  will  enter  into  the  spirit  of  your 
calling,  into  the  principle  of  securing  to  yourselves  eternal 
lives,  eternal  existence,  eternal  exaltation,  it  will  be  well 
with  you. 


17 


266  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 


II. 

ELDER  ORSON  PRATT.* 

Salvation  Tangible — Personality  and  Character  of  God — Jesus 
our  Elder  Brother — Transjormation  oj  the  Earth— Its 
Einal  Destiny. 

As  a  people  the  Latter-day  Saints  have  passed  through 
many  scenes  trying  and  afflicting  to  their  natures,  and  they  have 
endured  them  because  of  the  anxiety  of  their  hearts  to  obtain  sal- 
vation. People  who  are  sincere  will  manifest  their  sincerity  in 
undergoing  great  tribulation,  if  necessary,  for  the  sake  of  being 
saved.  This  mortal  life  is  of  small  consideration,  compared 
with  eternal  salvation  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Father.  There  is 
nothing  pertaining  to  the  things  of  this  present  life  that  is 
worthy  of  being  named,  in  contrast  with  the  riches  of  eternal 
life.  Jesus,  in  speaking  upon  this  subject  when  he  was  on  the 
earth,  asks  this  question:  "For  what  is  man  profited,  if  he 
gain  the  whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul?  Or  what  shall  a 
man  give  in  exchange  for  his  soul?"  There  is  nothing  so  pre- 
cious, nothing  of  so'great  importance,  as  that  of  securing  in  this 
life,  the  salvation  of  our  souls  in  the  world  to  come.  Far  better 
is  it  if  we  can  gain  salvation  by  passing  through  various  scenes 
of  affliction  and  persecution  in  this  world,  than  to  give  way  to 
its  pleasures  and  vanities,  which  can  only  be  enjoyed  for  a  sea- 


*  This  discourse  was  delivered  in  the  Tabernacle,  Salt  Lake  City, 
Nov.  12,  1876 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  267 

son,  and  afterwards  lose  that  eternal  reward  which  God  has  in 
store  for  the  righteous. 

It  is  true  we  look  upon  our  future  reward  in  quite  a  differ- 
ent light  from  the  religious  world  generally.  We  look  for  some- 
thing tangible,  something  we  can  form  some  degree  of  rational 
conception  of,  having  a  resemblance  in  some  measure  to  the 
present  life.  But  how  very  imaginary  are  the  ideas  of  the  re- 
ligious world!  I  do  not  now  refer  to  the  heathen  world,  but  to 
the  enlightened  Christian  nations,  the  two  hundred  million  of 
Christians  now  existing  on  the  earth.  If  you  ask  these  people 
about  the  future  state  of  man,  some  will  give  you  one  idea  and 
some  another,  all  more  or  less,  perhaps,  differing  from  each 
other,  but  in  the  main  they  all  agree,  namely,  that  it  is  a  state 
entirely  spiritual,  that  is,  unconnected  with  anything  tangible 
like  this  present  life,  an  existence  which  cannot  be  conceived  of 
by  mortals. 

You  may  think  I  am  misrepresenting  our  Christian  friends. 
I  will  therefore  say  thai;  for  many  years  now  I  have  been  en- 
gaged, more  or  less,  in  the  study  of  religion,  and  have  there- 
fore read  quite  extensively  the  ideas  of  the  religious  world.  I 
have  not  accepted  the  ideas  of  a  few  individuals  belonging  to 
the  various  sects,  but  I  have  appealed  to  their  standard  writ- 
ings, their  articles  of  faith,  which  are  adopted  by  the  various 
religious  bodies  and  known  as  their  creeds.  For  instance,  in 
the  articles  of  faith  of  a  great  many  of  the  religious  sects,  an 
idea  like  this  is  set  forth — that  there  is  a  Being  who  is  entirely 
spiritual,  called  God,  and  that  Being  is  described  as  consisting 
of  three  persons,  and  these  three  persons  are  without  body, 
without  parts,  without  passions.  Such  is  the  God  that  is  wor- 
shiped by  the  Methodists — a  people  whom  I  highly  respect,  and 
whose  meetings  I  attended  in  my  early  youtn  more  than  those 
of  any  other  religious  denomination.  The  three  persons  that 
compose  this  one  God  are  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 


268  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

Ghost,  all  of  whom  are  said  to  be  without  bodies  or  passions; 
and  in  connection  with  this,  one  of  the  cardinal  doctrines  of 
their  faith,  they  tell  us  that  one  of  this  holy  Trinity,  namely 
Jesus,  was  crucified,  dead  and  buried,  and  that  on  the  third  day 
he  arose  again  from  the  dead  and  ascended  into  heaven. 

When  I  was  a  boy,  attending  the  Methodist  meetings,  as  many 
now  do  who  are  of  maturer  years,  I  accepted  sincerity  for  truth. 
But  when  I  grew  to  manhood  my  attention  was  called  to  this  article 
of  faith;  I  tried  in  all  earnestness  to  comprehend  it,  but  could 
not  and  cannot  to  this  day.  It  is  one  of  those  incomprehensible 
things  which  cannot  be  grasped  by  the  human  mind.  You,  my 
hearers,  try  now  with  me  for  a  few  moments  to  comprehend,  if 
you  can,  a  being  consisting  of  three  persons,  and  these  three 
persons  without  any  body,  parts  or  passions.  I  had  been  taught, 
when  studying  the  exact  sciences,  that  everything  that  existed 
was  composed  of  parts,  that  there  could  not  exist  anything  as 
a  whole  unless  it  existed  as  parts.  I  could  not,  therefore,  un- 
derstand how  it  was  that  one  of  these  three  persons  could  be 
crucified  if  he  had  no  body;  how  it  was  possible,  and  be  consist- 
ent with  reason,  for  him  to  lay  down  his  body — something  he 
never  possessed — and  arise  again  from  the  tomb,  taking  up  that 
same  body.     This  is  indeed  a  mystery. 

Now  it  so  happens  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  teach  any- 
thing so  absurd,  so  irreconcilable  and  so  contrary  to  our  senses. 
This  is  a  man-made  doctrine,  the  creation  of  uninspired  men. 
The  Methodists  did  not  originate  this  doctrine — it  existed  and 
was  widely  believed  in  before  the  days  of  the  good  man,  John 
Wesley. 

The  Latter-day  Saints  believe  that  there  is  a  true  and  living 
God,  that  this  true  and  living  God  consists  of  three  separate, 
distinct  persons,  which  have  bodies,  parts  and  passions,  which 
belief  is  in  direct  opposition  to  this  man-made  doctrine-  We 
believe  that  God,  the  Eternal  Father,  who  reigns   in  yonder 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  269 

heavens,  is  a  distinct  personage  from  Jesus  Christ,  as  much  so 
as  an  earthly  father  is  distinct  in  his  existence  from  his  son. 
That  is  something  I  can  comprehend,  which  I  conceive  to  be  the 
doctrine  of  revelation.  We  read  about  Jesus  having  been  seen 
after  he  arose  from  the  dead.  Stephen  the  Martyr,  just  before 
he  was  stoned  to  death,  testified  to  the  Jewish  people  that 
were  standing  before  him  at  the  time,  saying,  "Behold,  I  see  the 
heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of  Man  standing  on  the  right  hand 
of  God."  Here,  then,  the  'Father  and  Jesus,  two  distinct  per- 
sonages, were  seen,  and  both  had  bodies.  We  find  numerous 
other  authorities  bearing  out  this  same  idea.  I  do  not  intend 
to  dwell  upon  this  subject,  because  the  greater  portion  of  this 
congregation  understand  the  scriptural  view  of  this  subject; 
hence  it  is  not  necessary  to  speak  lengthily  on  it.  We  may, 
however,  say  a  few  things  with  regard  to  the  passions  of  these 
personages. 

It  is  declared,  as  part  of  the  belief  of  the  Methcdists.  that 
God  is  without  passions.  Love  is  one  of  the  great  passions  of 
God.  Love  is  everywhere  declared  a  passion,  one  of  the  noblest 
'passions  of  the  human  heart.  This  principle  of  love  is  one  of 
the  attributes  of  God.  "God  is  love,"  says  the  Apostle  John, 
"and  he  that  dwelleth  in  love  dwelleth  in  God,  and  God  in  him." 
If,  then,  this  is  one  of  the  great  attributes  of  Jehovah,  if  he  is 
filled  with  love  and  compassion  towards  the  children  of  men,  if 
his  son  Jesus  Christ,  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  life  to 
redeem  mankind  from  the  effects  of  the  fall,  then,  certainly, 
God  the  Eternal  Father  must  be  in  possession  of  this  passion. 
Again,  he  possesses  the  attribute  of  justice,  which  is  sometimes 
called  anger,  but  the  real  name  of  this  attribute  is  justice. 
"He  executeth  justice,"  says  the  Psalmist;  also,  "Justice  and 
judgment  are  the  habitation  of  thy  throne."  Justice  is  one  of 
the  noble  characteristics  of  our  heavenly  Father;  hence  another 
of  his  passions  [attributes]. 


270  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

We  have  it  recorded  too  in  this  sacred  Bible,  that  God  was 
seen  by  ancient  men  of  God.  Jacob  testifies  as  follows:  "For 
I  have  seen  God  face  to  face."  I  know  that  there  are  other 
passages  of  Scripture,  which  would  seem  to  militate  against  this 
declaration.  For  instance  there  is  one  passage  which  reads, 
"No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time."  This  is  in  direct  contra- 
diction to  the  testimony  of  Jacob.  The  way  I  reconcile  this  is 
that  no  natural  man  can  see  the  face  of  God  the  Father  and 
live,  it  would  overpower  him;  but  one  quickened  by  the  Spirit, 
as  old  father  Jacob  was,  could  lock  upon  God  and  converse  with 
him  face  to  face,  as  he  says  he  did,  he  must  have  seen  a  person- 
age, a  being,  in  his  general  outlines  like  unto  himself;  man,  as 
Moses  informs  us,  having  been  created  in  the  image  of  God. 

We  might  refer  to  many  other  passages  of  Scripture,  bear- 
ing on  this  subject.  The  Prophet  Isaiah  saw  God;  he  saw  not 
only  the  Lord,  but  a  great  congregation  in  connection  with 
him,  so  that  his  train  filled  the  Temple.  He  is  always  repre- 
sented by  those  who  have  seen  him  as  a  personage  in  the  form 
of  man. 

Having  cited  a  very  few  evidences,  let  us  inquire  into  the 
character  and  being  of  God,  the  Eternal  Father.  We  are  the 
offspring  of  the  Lord,  but  the  rest  of  animated  nature  is  not; 
we  are  just  as  much  the  sons  and  daughters  of  God  as  the  chil- 
dren in  this  congregation  are  the  sons  and  daughters  of  their 
parents.  We  are  begotten  by  him.  When?  Before  we  were 
born  in  the  flesh;  this  limited  state  of  existence  is  not  our  ori- 
gin, it  is  merely  the  origin  of  the  tabernacle  in  which  we  dwell. 
The  mind  we  are  possessed  of,  the  being  that  is  capable  of 
thinking  and  reflecting,  that  is  capable  of  acting  according  to 
the  motives  presented  to  it,  that  being  which  is  immortal, 
which  dwells  within  us,  which  is  capable  of  reasoning  from 
cause  to  effect,  and  which  can  comprehend,  in  some  measure, 
the  laws  of  its  Creator,  as  well  as  trace  them  out  as  exhibited 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  27 i 

in  universal  nature,  that  being,  whic  h  we  call  the  Mind,  existed 
before  the  tabernacle. 

But  says  one,  "that  does  not  look  reasonable."    Why  not? 
Do  you  not  believe  that  the  spirit  will  endure  forever?     0,  yes. 
You  may  ask,  what  becomes  of  the  spirit,  separated  from  the 
body  of  flesh  and  bones,  when  this  body  lies  in  the  grave?    Has 
it  life  and  intelligence  and  power  to  think  and  reflect?    Let  us 
hear  what  was  said  by  those  who  sat  under  the  altar,  who  were 
slain  for  the  word  of  God,  and  for  the  testimony  which  they 
held,  as  seen  and  heard  by  John  while  on  Patmos:     "And  they 
c:ied  with  a  loud  voice,  saying,   How  long,  0  Lord,  holy  and 
true,  dost  thou  not  judge  and  avenge  our  blood  on  them  that 
dwell  on  the  earth?"    The  Lord  tells  them  that  they  should 
"rest  yet  for  a  little  season."    These  faithful  servants  of  God 
are  anxiously  awaiting  the  time  when  the  Lord  will  avenge  their 
blood.     Why?     Because  that  will  be  the  time  when  their  bodies 
will  be  redeemed,  they  look  forward  with  great  anxiety  to  the 
time  when   they  shall    be    again    identified    with  the  fleshly- 
tabernacle  with  which  they  were  known  and  distinguished  while 
on  the  earth — hence  this  prayer. 

Here  we  find  another  and  further  existence  for  the  spirits 
of  men  who  exist  in  heaven,  who  are  capable  of  thinking,  of 
using  language,  of  understanding  the  future,  and  of  anticipat- 
ing that  which  was  to  come.  Now,  if  they  could  exist  after 
they  leave  this  tabernacle,  while  the  tabernacle  lies  mouldering 
in  the  dust,  why  not  exist  before  the  tabernacle  had  any  exist- 
ence? Was  it  not  just  as  easy  for  an  existence  to  be  given  to 
spiritual  personages  before  they  took  possession  of  bodies  as  it 
is  for  them  to  exist  after  the  body  decays?  Yes,  and  these  are 
our  views,  founded  upon  new  revelation;  not  the  views  of  unin- 
spired men,  but  founded  upon  direct  revelation  from  God. 

Where  did  we  exist  before  we  came  here?  With  God. 
Where  does  he  exist?    In  the  place  John  denominated  heaven. 


272  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

What  do  we  understand  heaven  to  be?  Not  the  place  described 
by  our  Christian  friends,  beyond  the  bounds  of  time  and  space, 
for  there  is  no  such  place,  there  never  was,  nor  ever  will  be;  but 
I  mean  a  tangible  world,  a  heaven  that  is  perfect,  a  heaven 
with  materials  that  have  been  organized  and  put  together,  sanc- 
tified and  glorifieJ  as  the  residence  and  world  where  God  re- 
sides. Born  there?  Yes,  we  were  born  there.  Even  our  great 
Redeemer  whose  death  and  sufferings  we  are  this  afternoon  cele- 
brating, was  born  up  in  yonder  world  before  he  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.  Have  you  not  read,  in  the  New  Testament,  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  the  first-born  of  every  creature?  From  this 
reading  it  would  seem  that  he  was  the  oldest  of  the  whole 
human  family,  that  is,  so  far  as  his  birth  in  the  spirit  world  is 
concerned.  How  long  ago  since  that  birth  took  place  is  not 
revealed;  it  might  have  been  unnumbered  millions  of  years  for 
aught  we  know.  But  we  do  know  that  he  was  born  and  was 
the  oldest  of  the  family  of  spirits.  Have  you  not  also  read  in 
the  New  Testament  that  he  is  called  our  elder  brother?  Does 
this  refer  to  the  birth  of  the  body  of  flesh  and  bones?  By  no 
means,  for  there  were  hundred  ;  of  millions  who  were  born  upon 
oar  earth  before  the  body  of  flesh  and  bones  was  born  whom  we 
call  Jesus.  How  is  it,  then,  that  he  in  our  elder  brother?  We 
must  go  back  to  the  previous  birth,  before  the  foundation  of 
this  earth;  we  have  to  go  back  to  past  ages,  to  the  period  when 
he  was  begotten  of  the  Father  among  the  great  family  of  spirits. 
He  became,  by  his  birthright,  the  great  Creator.  God,  through 
him,  created  not  only  this  little  world,  this  speck  of  creation, 
but  by  him  the  worlds  were  made  and  created.  How  many  we 
know  not,  for  it  has  not  been  revealed.  Suffice  it  to  say,  a 
great  many  worlds  were  created  by  him.  Why  by  him?  Because 
he  had  the  birth  right,  he  being  the  oldest  of  his  father's 
family,  and  this  birthright  entitles  him,  not  only  to  create 
worlds,  but  to  become  the  Redeemer  of  those  worlds,  not  only 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF  DEITY.  273 

the  Redeemer  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  our  earth,  but  of  all  the 
others  whom  he  created  by  the  will  and  power  of  his  Father. 

But  says  one,  "By  that  expression  one  would  infer  that 
other  worlds  had  fallen  as  well  as  our  own,  having  doubtless 
been  placed  in  a  state  of  temptation,  and  if  so  it  would  be  fair 
to  presume  that  there  was  a  Garden  of  Eden  to  each  of  these 
worlds,  containing  all  kinds  of  fruit,  among  which  was  the  Tree 
of  Knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  and  that  they  became  fallen  pre- 
cisely in  the  same  manner  as  ours  did,  and  consequently  they 
would  need  a  Redeemer;  and,  therefore,  the  people  of  these 
worlds  would  be  redeemed  and  saved  according  to  their  dili- 
gence and  faithfulness  in  keeping  the  commandments  of  God?" 
Have  you  not  read  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  of  two  persons 
appearing  on  this  earth  before  man  was  made,  when  one  who 
was  God,  said  to  the  other,  "Let  us  make  man  in  our  image, 
after  our  likeness?"  Does  not  that  bespeak  a  pre-existence  of 
another  personage  besides  the  Almighty?  And  have  you  not 
read  too  in  the  same  chapter  that  "God  created  man  in  bis  own 
image;  male  and  female  created  he  them?"  When?  It  is  said 
to  have  been  on  the  sixth  period,  or,  according  to  King  James' 
translation,  "on  the  sixth  day."  Do  you  mean  to  say  we  were 
all  in  existence  on  the  sixth  day?  Yes.  But  on  the  seventh 
day,  we  are  told  in  the  following  chapter,  "there  was  not  a  man 
to  till  the  ground."  Is  it  not  very  singular  that  all  should  have 
an  existence  on  the  sixth  day,  and  on  the  following  day  there 
was  not  a  man  in  existence  to  till  the  ground?  Why  not?  Be- 
cause man  was  not  yet  placed  in  this  temporal  creation,  but  he 
had  an  existence  then  in  heaven,  where  we  were  begotten.  You 
and  I  were  present  when  this  world  was  created  and  made — you 
and  I  then  understood  the  nature  of  its  creation,  and  I  have  no 
doubt  that  we  rejoiced  and  sang  about  it.  Indeed,  the  Lord 
put  a  very  curious  question  to  the  Patriarch  Job,  apropos  of 
this.      He  said   to  him,    "Where  wast  thou  when  I    laid   the 


274  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

foundation  of  the  earth?  Where  wast  thou  when  the  morning 
stars  sang  together,  and  all  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy?" 

Supposing  Job  to  be  living  now,  and  this  same  question  put 
to  him,  and  supposing,  too,  that,  instead  of  answering  it  him- 
self, he  were  to  seek  to  the  learned  Christian  world  for  enlight- 
enment on  the  subject,  what  do  you  think  would  be  the  nature 
of  the  answer  he  would  receive?  It  would  be,  in  effect,  ''Why 
Job,  when  the  Lord  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  you  had 
no  existence,  for  you  were  not  born."  Why  did  not  Job  so  an- 
swer the  Lord?  It  was  because  he  understood  something  about 
man's  previous  estate.  He  was  wise  in  making  no  reply  to  the 
Lord,  for  doubtless  he  felt  himself  unable  to  do  so.  But  we 
find  that  Moses  understood  the  subject,  for  at  the  time  the 
children  of  Israel  transgressed  he  and  his  brother  Aaron  fell 
upon  their  faces  before  the  Lord,  and  Moses  pleading  with 
great  power  and  faith  in  behalf  of  the  children  of  Israel,  used 
these  words,  "0  God,  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,"  etc. 
He  understood  that  God  was  the  Father  of  our  spirits,  and  he 
addiessed  him  as  such.  I  think  too  that  the  apostles  in  ancient 
days  must  have  had  an  idea  of  the  pre-existence  of  man,  judg- 
ing from  a  certain  question  which  they  put  to  the  Savior.  It  is 
said  that  "as  Jesus  passed  by,  he  saw  a  man  which  was  blind  from 
his  birth.  And  his  disciples  asked  him,  saying,  Master,  who  did 
sin,  this  man,  or  his  parents,  that  he  was  born  blind?" 

Let  us  now  consider  this  question  in  connection  with  pres- 
ent modern  ideas,  and  we  shall  at  once  perceive  how  utterly 
foolish  it  will  appear.  To  state  the  question  fairly  in  other 
words  we  might  say,  Master,  was  this  man  born  blind  because 
he  had  sinned?  The  very  nature  of  this  question  would  indicate 
to  those  even  who  do  not  believe  in  the  principle,  that  this  blind 
man  had  an  existence  before  he  was  born  into  this  world,  and 
that  he  was  capable,  too,  of  committing  sin.  To  show  yet  more 
clearly  that  the  principle  of  man's  pre-existence  is  founded  on 


THE  "mormon"   DOCTRINE   OF   DEITY.  275 

Bibical  authority,  I  will  quote  you  part  of  the  Savior's  prayer  to 
the  Father,  just  prior  to  his  crucifixion — "And  now,  0  Father 
glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  which  I  had 
with  thee  before  the  world  was."  Here  we  find  Jesus  actu- 
ally referring  to  the  time  he  dwelt  with  his  Father  before  he 
took  upon  himself  a  body  of  flesh  and  bones.  He  also  says, 
"For  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the 
will  of  him  that  sent  me."  He  came  down  from  the  presence 
and  abode  of  his  Father.  On  another  occasion  while  addressing 
the  Jews,  he  says,  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  before  Abra- 
ham was,  I  am."  He  was,  in  fine,  the  first-born  of  every  crea- 
ture, and  consequently  the  eldest  of  our  Father's  family. 

If,  therefore,  it  be  now  admitted  that  our  Elder  Brother 
had  a  previous  existence  with  the  Father,  why  should  it  be 
thought  unreasonable  that  the  rest  of  the  family  should  have  a 
pre-existence  as  well  as  the  First  Born?  He  was  born  accord- 
ing to  man  in  the  flesb,  and  why  not  his  younger  brethren  have 
a  similar  birth  with  him  in  the  spirit? 

But  now  this  carries  us  back  still  further,  and  invites  us 
to  ascertain  a  little  in  relation  to  his  Father.  A  great  many  have 
supposed  that  God  the  Eternal  Father,  whom  we  worship  in  con- 
nection with  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  was  always  a  self-existing, 
eternal  being  from  all  eternity,  that  he  had  no  beginning  as  a 
personage.  But  in  order  to  illustrate  this,  let  us  inquire,  What 
is  our  destiny?  If  we  are  now  the  sons  and  daughters  of  God, 
what  will  be  our  future  destiny?  The  Apostle  Paul,  in  speak- 
ing of  man  as  a  resurrected  baing,  says:  "Who  (Jesus)  shall 
change  our  vile  body,  that  it  might  be  fashioned  like  unto 
his  glorious  body"  (Phil.  3:21),  which  harmonizes  with  what 
John  says,  "It  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be,  but 
we  know  that  when  he  shall  appear  we  shall  be  like  him" 
(I  John  3:  2).  Our  bodies  will  be  glorified  in  the  same 
manner  as  his  body  is;  then  we  shall   be  truly  in  his  image 


276  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

and  likeness,  for  as  he  is  immortal,  having  a  body  of  flesh 
and  bone,  so  we  will  be  immortal,  possessing  bodies  of  flesh 
and  bones.  Will  we  ever  become  gods?  Let  me  refer  you 
to  the  answer  of  the  Savior  to  the  Jews  when  accused  of  blas- 
phemy because  he  called  himself  the  Son  of  God.  Says  he,  "Is 
it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said.  Ye  are  Gods?  If  ye  called 
them  gods,  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and  the  Scrip- 
tures cannot  be  broken."  This  clearly  proves  to  all  Bible  be- 
lievers that  in  this  world,  in  our  imperfect  state,  being  the  chil- 
dren of  God,  we  are  destined,  if  we  keep  his  commandments,  to 
grow  in  intelligence  until  we  finally  become  like  God  our  Father. 
Bv  living  according  to  every  word  which  proceeds  from  the 
mouth  of  God,  we  shall  attain  to  his  likeness,  the  same  as  our 
children  grow  up  and  become  like  their  parents;  and,  as  chil- 
dren through  diligence  attain  to  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of 
their  parents,  so  may  we  attain  to  the  knowledge  of  our  Heav- 
enly parents'  and  if  they  be  obedient  to  this  cammandment  they 
will  not  only  be  called  the  sons  of  God,  but  be  gods. 

In  the  first  verse  of  the  14th  chapter  of  Revelation,  we 
are  told  that  .John  saw  one  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand  per- 
sons standing  with  the  Lamb  upon  Mount  Zion,  and  they  had  a 
peculiar  name  written  in  their  foreheads — even  their  Father's 
name,  him  whom  we  call,  in  our  language,  God.  Then  there  will 
be  written  upon  the  foreheads  of  these  hundred  and  forty-four 
thousand  this  insignia,  the  Father's  name,  and  they  will  be  gods; 
and  they  will  associate  with  him  as  do  tho  Father  and  his  Only 
Begotten,  that  is,  his  only  son  begotten  in  the  flesh. 

From  this  we  can  draw  the  conclusion  that  God  our  Eter- 
nal Father,  who  is  a  spiritual  being,  has  a  body  of  flesh  and 
bones,  the  same  as  his  children  will  have  after  the  resurrection. 

Says  one,  to  carry  it  out  still  further,  "if  we  become  gods 
and  are  glorified  like  unto  him,  our  bodies  fashioned  like  unto 
his  most  glorious  body,  may  not  he  have  passed  through  a  mor- 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  21 1 

tal  ordeal  as  we  mortals  are  now  doing?  Why  not?  If  it  is 
necesssary  for  us  to  gain  experience  through  the  things  that  are 
presented  before  us  in  this  life,  why  not  those  beings  who  are 
already  exalted  and  become  gods,  obtain  their  experience  in  the 
same  way?  We  would  find,  were  we  to  carry  this  subject  from 
world  to  world,  from  our  world  to  another,  even  to  the  endless 
ages  of  eternity,  that  there  never  was  a  time  but  what  there 
was  a  Father  and  Son.  In  other  words  when  you  entertain  that 
which  is  endless,  you  exclude  the  idea  of  first  being,  a  first 
world;  the  moment  you  admit  of  a  first,  you  limit  the  idea  of 
endless,     *    *     * 

Says  one,  "this  is  incomprehensible."  It  may  be  so  in  some 
respects.  We  can  admit,  though,  that  duration  is  endless,  for 
it  i3  impossible  for  man  to  conceive  of  a  limit  to  it.  If  dura- 
tion is  endless  there  can  never  be  a  first  minute,  a  first  hour,  or 
first  period;  endless  duration  in  the  past  is  made  up  of  a  contin- 
uation of  endless  successive  moments — it  had  no  beginning. 
Precisely  so  with  regard  to  this  endless  succession  of  person- 
ages; there  never  will  be  a  time  when  fathers,  and  sons,  and 
worlds  will  not  exist;  neither  was  there  ever  a  period  through 
all  the  past  ages  of  duration,  but  what  there  was  a  world,  and 
a  Father  and  Son,  a  redemption  and  exaltation  to  the  fullness 
and  power  of  the  Godhead.  This  is  what  Jesus  prayed  for,  and 
he  did  not  limit  bis  prayer  to  his  Apostles,  but  he  said,  "Neither 
pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on 
me  through  their  word;  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as  thou, 
Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in 
us. 

But,  says  one,  "Does  not  that  oneness  mean  one  person?" 
No;  Jesus  meant  that  those  who  believed  in  him  through  his 
servants,  might  be  able  to  come  up  to  that  fullness  and  glory 
and  power  and  exaltation  which  he  inherited,  even  to  the  full- 
ness of  the  celestial  glory,  to  be  crowned  with  God  the  Eternal 


278  TLE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

Father,  and  with  his  Only  Begotten,  to  be  made  equal,  as  it 
were,  with  them,  in  power  and  dominion;  agreeing  with  some 
modern  revelations  God  has  given  through  the  Prophet  Joseph 
Smith.  He  said  all  they  that  receive  this  Priesthood,  that  is, 
those  who  receive  the  testimony  of  the  servants  of  God,  they 
receive  me;  and  whosoever  receives  my  Father,  receives  my 
Father's  kingdom;  whereupon  all  that  my  Father  hath  shall  be 
given  to  him.  This  is  a  glorious  promise,  to  be  joint  heirs  with 
the  Son  of  God  in  the  inheritance  of  all  things,  even  the  fullness 
and  glory  of  the  celestial  world,  their  bodies  eventually  to  be- 
come glorified,  spiritual  bodies  of  flesh  and  bones,  the  same  as 
God  the  Father. 

Before  the  earth  was  rolled  into  existence  we  were  his  sons 
and  daughters.  Those  of  his  children  who  prove  themselves 
during  this  probation  worthy  of  exaltation  in  his  presence,  will 
beget  other  children,  and,  precisely  according  to  the  same  prin- 
ciple, they  too  will  become  fathers  of  spirits,  as  he  is  the  Father 
of  our  spirits;  and  thus  the  works  of  God  are  one  eternal  round 
• — creation,  glorification,  and  exaltation  in  the  celestial  king- 
dom. 

How  many  transformations  this  earth  had  before  it  received 
its  present  form  of  creation,  I  do  not  know.  Geologists  pre- 
tend to  say  that  this  earth  must  have  existed  many  millions  of 
years,  and  this  assertion  is  generally  made  by  men  who  do  not 
believe  in  God  or  the  Bible,  to  disprove  the  history  of  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  as  given  by  the  Prophet  Moses.  We  will  go 
further  than  geologists  dare  to  go,  and  say  that  the  materials 
of  which  the  earth  is  composed  are  eternal,  they  will  never 
have  an  end. 

What  is  meant  by  creation?  Merely  organization.  In  six 
days  we  are  told,  God  created  this  world,  also  every  living  thing 
that  then  existed.  Did  he  create  any  of  these  things  out  of 
nothing?    Did  the  materials  then  originate?    No;  there  is  no 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  279 

Scripture  to  be  found  within  the  lids  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment, or  Book  of  Mormon,  or  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  or  in  any 
of  the  revelations  of  God,  ancient  or  modern,  that  even  inti- 
mates sach  a  thing,  for  such  was  not  the  case;  but  go  to  the 
creeds  of  men  and  you  will  find  these  things  taught.  I  was 
taught  them  in  my  youth;  they  were  instilled  into  my  young 
mind,  and,  of  course,  I  believed  them.  But  as  I  matured  in  years 
and  thought,  especially  after  1  began  to  study  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage, I  learned  that  the  material  of  which  this  earth  was  made 
always  did  exist,  and  that  it  was  only  an  organization  or  forma- 
tion which  took  place,  during  the  time  spoken  of  by  Moses. 

How  many  transformations  this  earth  passed  through 
before  the  one  spoken  of  by  Moses.  I  do  not  know,  neither  do  I 
particularly  care.  If  it  had  gone  through  millions  on  millions 
of  transformations,  it  is  nothing  to  us.  We  are  willing,  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  to  admit  that  the  materials  themselves  are  as 
old  as  geologists  dare  to  say  they  are;  but  then,  that  does  not 
destroy  the  idea  of  a  God,  that  does  not  destroy  the  idea  of  a 
great  Creator,  who,  according  to  certain  fixed  and  unalterable 
laws,  brought  these  materials,  from  time  to  time,  into  a  certain 
organization,  and  then  by  his  power  completed  the  worlds  that 
were  thus  made,  by  placing  thereon  intelligent  and  animated 
beings,  capable  of  thinking  and  having  an  existence;  and  then 
again,  for  various  reasons,  he  destroys  their  earthly  existence, 
until  finally  he  exalts  them  from  their  former  condition,  and 
makes  them  celestial  in  their  nature. 

This  is  the  destiny  of  this  globe  of  ours;  it  will  eventually 
attain  a  state  of  organization  that  will  no  more  be  destroyed. 
When?  After  God  has  fulfilled  and  accomplished  his  purposes, 
after  it  has  rested  from  wickedness  one  thousand  years,  during 
which  time  Satan  will  not  have  power  to  tempt  the  children  of 
men,  during  which  time  the  faithful  will  reign,  as  kings  and 
priests  on  the  earth  in  their  resurrected  bodies,  when,  too,  the 


280  THE  "murmon"  doctrine  of  deity, 

kingdom  and  the  greatness  of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole 
heaven  will  be  in  possession  of  the  Saints  of  the  Most  High;  not 
only  in  the  possession  of  those  who  are  mortal  Saints,  but  also 
in  the  possession  of  those  who  are  immortal  Saints,  appearing 
as  they  will  in  their  resurrected  bodies,  rising  up  as  rulers,  as 
kings,  and  priests,  upon  the  face  of  our  globe. 

A  government  administered  by  such  men  will  be  one  that 
can  be  depended  on;  in  that  respect  it  will  be  very  different  from 
the  political  nations  of  mortal  man.  Then  there  will  not  be  the 
contention  we  now  have,  for  all  things  pertaining  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  God's  kingdom  will  be  conducted  in  order  and  on  the 
eternal  principles  of  righteousness. 

The  Twelve  Apostles  who  were  called  by  Jesus,  and  who  min- 
istered in  his  name  while  they  tarried  on  the  earth,  will  sit  upon 
twelve  thrones  hereafter,  and  judge  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 
There  will  be  nothing  intangible  or  etherial  about  these  thrones, 
they  will  be  just  as  real  as  any  kingly  throne  of  the  earth.  And 
the  Twelve  Apostles  will  rule  over  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel 
for  the  space  of  a  thousand  years,  having,  as  they  will  have, 
their  celestial  bodies,  and  they  will  eat  and  drink  at  the  table 
of  the  Lord.  He  will  be  here  also,  he  will  be  King  of  kings^ 
before  whom  all  must  bow,  all  must  acknowledge  his  power — 
and  that  will  be  for  the  space  of  a  thousand  years. 

By  and  by,  when  the  time  comes  for  this  earth  to  die — for 
there  has  been  a  great  deal  of  wickedness  here — Satan  will  be 
loosed  to  go  forth  agaia  to  deceive,  for  there  will  still  be  some 
of  the  Saints  mortal,  who  will  be  subject  to  temptation,  and 
even  Satan  will  not  only  try  to  deceive  the  mortal  Saints,  but  he 
will  gather  together  bis  armies  around  the  camp  of  the  Saints. 

Then  another  time  comes,  when  a  great  white  throne  will 
appear,  and  he  who  sits  thereon  will  be  glorious  in  his  majesty 
and  power,  from  before  whose  face  the  earth  will  flee  away  and 
no  place   be  found  for  it.     Will  he  annihilate  it?     No,  not  a 


THE   "mormon"   DOCTRIN'i]   OF   DEITY.  281 

particle  of  the  earth  will  be  annihilated,  not  a  particle 
of  the  earth  was  ever  originated,  consequently  not  a  par- 
ticle of  it  will  go  out  of  existence,  but  it  will  flee  away 
to  its  original  element  in  the  same  manner  as  the  human  body 
would  were  it  burned  at  the  stake.  The  elements  would  be  dif- 
fused among  original  matter,  so  with  the  elements  of  our  earth 
when  it  undergoes  its  change.  John  was  not  satisfied  with  only 
seeing  the  earth  pass  away,  but  he  saw  still  further  even  until 
he  beheld  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth,  for,  said  he,  the  first 
heaven  and  the  first  earth  were  passed  away  and  there  was  no 
more  sea.  Again,  he  testifies  further,  saying,  "And  I,  John, 
saw  the  holy  city,  new  Jerusalem,  coming  down  from  God,  out 
of  heaven,  prepared  as  a  bride  adorned  for  her  husband.  And 
I  heard  a  great  voice  out  of  heaven  saying.  Behold  the  taber- 
nacle of  God  is  with  men,  and  he  will  dwell  with  them,  and  they 
shall  be  his  people,  and  God  himself  shall  be  with  them,  and  be 
their  God.  And  God  shall  wipe  away  all  tears  from  their  eyes; 
and  there  shall  be  no  more  death,  neither  sorrow,  nor  crying, 
neither  shall  there  be  any  more  pain;  for  the  former  things  are 
passed  away.  And  he  that  sat  upon  the  throne  said,  Behold,  I 
make  all  things  new." 

This  creation,  when  made  new,  will  be  inhabited  by  immor- 
tal being«,  who  will  no  more  be  subject  to  death,  conse- 
quently there  will  be  no  more  pain  or  sorrow,  nothing  to  mar 
their  peace  or  to  prevent  them  from  entering  into  the  fullness 
of  happiness  and  joy. 

This,  I  say,  is  the  destiny  of  this  earth,  and  the  Lord  has 
told  us  that  the  time  is  nigh  at  hand.  In  other  words,  this  is 
the  last  dispensation  and  we  are  preparing  for  the  work  of  the 
Millennium.  When  the  thousand  years  are  passed,  the  earth 
will  be  made  new — it  will  then  become  a  heaven,  the  habitation 
of  the  Former  and  Latter-day  Saints,  as  well  as  all  they  who 


18 


282  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

prove  themselves  faithful  who  will  be  born  during  the  Millen- 
nium.    How  long  will  they  inhabit  it?     Forever. 

When  I  was  a  boy,  nineteen  years  old,  I  first  saw  Joseph 
Smith;  I  attended  a  conference  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter-day  Saints,  on  the  2nd  of  January,  1831.  At  that  con- 
ference the  people  desired  him  to  inquire  of  the  Lord  for  them 
— they  were  anxious  to  know  his  mind  and  will.  They  were  at 
that  time  comparatively  few  in  number,  not  being  more  than 
two  hundred.  Joseph  Smith  sat  down  at  a  table,  and  received  a 
great  revelation,  which  is  now  contained  in  this  Book  of  Doc- 
trine and  Covenants.  Part  of  it,  in  relation  to  a  land  of  prom- 
ise, reads  as  follows: 

And  I  will  give  it  unto  you  for  the  land  of  your  inheritance,  if 
you  seek  it  with  all  your  hearts:  and  this  shall  be  my  covenant  with 
you,  ye  shall  have  it  for  the  land  of  your  inheritance,  and  for  the  in- 
heritance of  your  children  for  ever,  while  the  earth  shall  stand,  and 
ye  shall  possess  it  again  in  eternity,  no  more  to  pass  away.* 

When  I  sat  and  heard  that  revelation, — it  was  uttered  by 
the  Prophet  Joseph,  and  written  by  his  scribe, — I  thought 
to  myself,  that  is  a  very  curious  doctrine,  for  I  had  not  then 
learned  that  this  earth  was  to  become  our  future  home  and 
heaven,  and  I  did  not  think  Joseph  Smith  knew  it.  But  it  seemed 
so  curious  to  me  to  bring  myself  to  believe  that  the  Lord  was 
going  to  give  us  part  of  this  earth,  to  possess  it,  and  our  chil- 
dren after  us,  while  time  should  last,  and  to  retain  it  through 
all  eternity,  never  more  to  pass  away.  This  was  so  different 
from  anything  I  had  been  taught — I  was  utterly  confounded — 
to  think  that  my  Father  in  heaven  would  come  and  live  here  on 
this  earth!  But  when  I  came  to  read  the  Bible  on  this  subject 
and  found  how  numerous  the  passages  were  promising  that  the 
Saints  should  inherit  the  earth  forever,  I  was  perfectly  aston- 


*  Doc.  and  Cov.  Sec.  38;  19-20. 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  283 

ished  that  I  had  never  thought  of  it  before.  "Blessed  are  the 
meek,"  says  the  Savior,  "for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth."*  The 
meek  have  been  driven  into  the  dens  and  mountains  of  the 
earth,  having  had  to  hide  themselves  up  from  their  persecutors 
while  the  wicked,  the  proud,  and  the  haughty  have  inherited 
the  earth.  Yet  here  is  a  promise  that  the  meek  shfill  inherit 
this  earth,  which  all  of  course  would  readily  admit  has  never  had 
its  fulfillment.  Then  again  I  was  still  more  confirmed  in  the 
truth  of  this  doctrine,  when  finding  other  corroborative  pas- 
sages. David,  for  instance,  in  the  37th  Psalm,  says,  "The 
wicked  shall  be  cut  off.  The  righteous  shall  inherit  the  land, 
and  dwell  thereon  for  ever."  I  go  back  to  the  Books  of  Moses 
and  there  ascertain  that  the  earth  is  promised  to  the  Saints  for 
ever.  I  came  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  wherein  the  martyr 
Stephen,  in  answering  the  charge  of  blasphemy,  tells  of  Abra- 
ham, how  he  came  to  leave  his  own  country,  and  how  the  Lord 
had  promised  him  a  land  for  an  inheritance,  which  "he  would 
give  to  him  for  a  possession,  and  to  his  seed  after  him,"  and 
yet  he  never  possessed  any  of  it,  "no,  not  so  much  as  to  set  his 
foot  on,"  and  this  same  promise  was  confirmed  to  Isaac  and 
Jacob.  And  when  I  read  in  the  Revelations  of  John  about  the 
new  song  that  he  heard  them  sing  in  heaven  about  their  com- 
ing back  to  the  earth  (Rev.  5:  9,  10),  I  was  fully  confirmed  that 
the  new  revelation  was  from  God.  One  portion  of  the  song 
which  John  heard  the  angels  sing,  was,  "For  thou  wast  slain, 
and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood  out  of  every  kindred, 
and  tongue  and  people,  and  nation;  and  hast  made  us  unto  our 
God  kings  and  priests;  and  we  shall  reign  on  the  earth." 

How  very  plain  it  is  when  we  once  learn  about  our  future 
heaven.  We  do  not  have  to  pray,  according  to  the  Methodists, 
for  the  Lord  to  take  us  to  a  land  beyond  time  and  space,  the 

*  Matt.  5:  5. 


284  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

Saints,  secure  abode.  How  inconsistent  to  look  for  a  heaven 
beyond  space!  The  heaven  of  the  Saints  is  something  we  can 
look  forward  to  in  the  confident  hope  of  realizin;?  our  inherit- 
ances and  enjoying  them  forever,  when  the  earth  becomes  sanc- 
tified and  made  new.  And  there,  as  here,  we  will  spread  forth, 
and  multiply  our  children.  How  long?  For  eternity.  What, 
resurrected  Saints  have  children?  Yes,  the  same  as  our  God, 
who  is  the  Father  of  our  spirits;  so  you,  if  you  are  faithful  to 
the  end,  will  become  fathers  to  your  sons  and  daughters,  who 
will  be  as  innumerable  as  the  sands  upon  the  sea  shore;  they 
will  be  your  children,  and  you  will  be  their  heavenly  fathers,  the 
same  as  our  heavenly  Father  is  Father  to  us,  and  they  will  be- 
long to  your  kingdoms  through  all  the  vast  ages  of  eternity, 
the  same  as  we  will  belong  to  our  father's  kingdom. 

He  that  receiveth  my  father,  says  the  Savior,  receiveth  my 
Father's  kingdom,  wherefore  all  that  my  father  hath  shall  be 
given  to  him.  It  is  a  kind  of  joint  stock  inheritance,  we  are  to 
become  joint  heirs  with  Jesus  Christ  to  all  the  inheritances  and 
to  all  the  worlds  that  are  made.  We  shall  have  the  power  of 
locomotion;  and  like  Jesus,  after  his  resurrection,  we  shall  be 
able  to  mount  up  and  pass  from  one  world  to  another.  We  shall 
not  be  confined  to  our  native  earth.  There  are  many  worlds  in- 
habited by  people  who  are  glorified,  for  heaven  is  not  one 
place,  but  many,  heaven  is  not  one  world  but  many.  "In  my 
Father's  house  are  many  mansions."  In  other  words — In  my 
Father's  house  there  are  many  worlds,  which  in  their  turn  will 
be  made  glorified  heavens,  the  inheritance  of  the  redeemed  from 
all  the  worlds,  who,  having  been  prepared  through  similar  ex- 
perience to  our  own,  will  inhabit  them;  and  each  one  in  its  turn 
will  be  exalted  through  the  revelations  and  laws  of  the  Most 
High  God,  and  they  will  continue  to  multiply  their  offspring 
through  all  eternity,  and  new  worlds  will  be  made  for  their  prog- 
eny.    Amen. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

"l   KNOW   THAT  MY   REDEEMER   LIVES."* 

President  Joseph  F.  Smith  on  the  "Mormon"  Doctrine  of  Deity. 

My  beloved  brethren  and  sisters,  while  listening  to  the  sing- 
ing of  the  last  hymn,  my  mind  reverted  to  a  revelation  con- 
tained in  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  and  I  feel  im- 
pressed to  read  a  portion  of  it,  and  then  make  a  few  remarks 
concerning  it,  if  I  am  led  to  do  so.  This  revelation  was  given 
through  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  at  Kirtland,  in  May, 
1833: 

Verily,  thussaith  the  Lord,  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  every  soul 
who  forsaketh  his  sins  and  cometh  unto  me,  and  calleth  on  my  name, 
and  obeyeth  my  voice,  and  keepeth  my  commandments,  shall  see  my 
face  and  know  that  I  am. 

You  will  remember  that  the  hymn  which  was  sung  by  the 
choir  begins  thus: 

I  know  that  my  Redeemer  lives. 
What  comfort  this  sweet  sentence  gives! 
He  lives,  he  lives,  who  once  was  dead; 
He  lives,  my  ever-living  Head. 

It  occurs  to  me  that  in  the  words  I  have  just  read  from  the 


*  This  discourse  was  delivered  in  the  Tabernacle,  Salt  Lake  City, 
March  16, 1902,  and  by  the  kind  permission  of  President  Smith  I  am 
allowed  to  reproduce  it  here. 


286  THE  ''mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

revelation  there  is  a  kev  given  to  us,  as  the  people  of  God,  by 
which  we  may  know  how  to  obtain  the  knowlege  which  is 
spoken  of  by  the  poet  in  this  hymn — "I  know  that  my  Redeemer 
lives."  The  conditions  are  stated  by  which  we  may  secure  this 
knowledge.  Furthermore,  every  soul  who  observeth  these 
conditions  shall  not  only  know  that  he  is,  but  he  shall  know 
also — 

That  I  am  the  true  light  that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into 
the  world; 

And  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me,  and  the  Father 
and  1  are  one. 

This  is  not  speaking  of  the  greater  light  which  is  especially 
bestowed  upon  those  who  are  born  again;  for  not  every  man 
that  cometh  into  the  world  is  born  again  and  entitled  to  receive 
the  greater  light  by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Perhaps  it 
may  be  well  for  me  to  make  a  few  remarks  in  relation  to  this 
distinction  between  the  light  of  Christ  that  lighteth  every  man 
that  cometh  into  the  world,  and  that  light  which  comes  after 
repentance  and  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins. 

It  is  by  the  power  of  God  that  all  things  are  made  that 
have  been  made.  It  is  by  the  power  of  Christ  that  all  things 
are  governed  and  kept  in  place  that  are  governed  and  kept 
in  place  in  the  universe.  It  is  the  power  which  proceeds 
from  the  presence  of  the  Son  of  God  throughout  all  the 
works  of  his  hands,  that  giveth  light,  energy,  understand- 
ing, knowledge,  and  a  degree  of  intelligence  to  all  the  children 
of  men,  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  words  in  the  Book 
of  Job,  "There  is  a  spirit  in  man;  and  the  inspiration  of 
the  Almighty  giveth  them  understanding."  It  is  this  inspir- 
ation from  God,  proceeding  throughout  all  his  creations  that 
ejilighteneth  the  children  of  men;  and  it  is  nothing  more  nor 
less  than  the  spirit  of  Christ,  that  enlighteneth  the  mind,  that 
quickeneth  the  understanding,  and  that  prompteth  the  children 


THE   "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  287 

of  men  to  do  that  which  is  good  and  to  eschew  that  which  is 
evil;  which  quickens  the  conscience  of  man  and  gives  him  in- 
telligence to  judge  between  good  and  evil,  light  and  darkness, 
right  and  wrong.  We  are  indebted  to  God  for  this  intelligence 
that  we  possess.  It  is  by  the  spirit  which  lighteth  every  man 
that  Cometh  into  the  world  that  our  minds  are  quickened  and 
our  spirits  enlightened  with  understanding  and  intelligence. 
And  all  men  are  entitled  to  this.  It  is  not  reserved  for  the 
obedient  alone;  but  it  is  given  unto  all  the  children  of  men 
that  are  born  into  the  world. 

Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

But  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  bears  record  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  which  takes  of  the  things  of  the  Father 
and  shows  them  unto  men,  which  testifies  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
of  the  ever-living  God,  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  which 
bears  witness  of  the  truth — this  Spirit,  this  intelligence  is  not 
given  unto  all  men  until  they  repent  of  their  sins  and  come  into 
a  state  of  worthiness  before  the  Lord.  Then  they  receive  it 
by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  those  who  are  authorized  of 
God  to  bestow  His  blessings  upon  the  heads  of  the  children  of 
men.  The  Spirit  spoken  of  in  that  which  I  have  read  is  that 
Spirit  which  will  not  cease  to  strive  with  the  children  of  men 
until  they  are  brought  to  the  possession  of  the  greater  light 
and  intelligence.  Though  a  man  may  commit  all  manner  of 
sin  and  blasphemy,  if  he  has  not  received  the  testimony  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  he  may  be  forgiven  by  repenting  of  his  sins,  humb- 
ling himself  before  the  Lord,  and  obeying  in  sincerity  the  com- 
mandments of  God.  As  it  is  stated  here,  "Every  soul  who 
f  orsaketh  his  sins  and  cometh  unto  me,  and  calleth  on  my  name, 
and  obeyeth  my  voice,  and  keepeth  my  commandments,  shall 
see  my  face  and  know  that  I  am."  He  shall  be  forgiven,  and 
receive  of  the  greater  light;  he  will  enter  into  a  solemn  cov- 


288  THE      MORMON"   DOCTRINE   OF   DEITY. 

enant  with  God,  into  a  compact  with  the  Almighty,  through 
the  Only  Begotten  Son,  whereby  he  becomes  a  son  of  God,  and 
heir  of  God,  and  a  joint  heir  with  Jesus  Christ.  Then,  if  he 
shall  sin  against  the  light  and  knowledge  he  has  received,  the 
light  that  was  within  him  shall  become  darkness,  and  oh,  how 
great  will  be  that  darkness!  Then,  and  not  till  then,  will  this 
Spirit  of  Christ  that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world  cease  to  strive  with  him,  and  he  shall  be  left  to  his  own 
destruction. 

This  is  in  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ  as  it  is  re- 
vealed in  the  New  Testament;  it  is  in  accordance  with  the 
word  of  God  as  it  has  been  revealed  in  the  latter-day  through 
the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith.  God  will  not  condemn  any  man  to 
utter  destruction,  neither  shall  any  man  be  thrust  down  to  hell 
irredeemably,  until  he  has  been  brought  to  the  possession  of 
the  greater  light  that  comes  through  repentance  and  obedience 
to  the  laws  and  commandments  of  God;  but  if,  after  he  has 
received  light  and  knowledge,  he  shall  sin  against  that  light 
and  will  not  repent,  then,  indeed,  Ue  becomes  a  lost  soul,  a  son 
of  perdition! 

The  question  is  often  asked,  Is  there  any  difference  between 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  and  the  Holy  Ghost?  The  terms  are 
frequently  used  synonymously.  We  often  say  the  Spirit  of 
God  when  we  mean  the  Holy  Ghost;  we  likewise  say  the  Holy 
Ghost  when  we  mean  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  a 
personage  in  the  Godhead,  and  is  not  that  which  lighteth 
every  man  that  comes  into  the  world.  It  is  the  Spirit  of  God 
which  proceeds  through  Christ  to  the  world,  that  enlightens 
every  man  that  comes  into  the  world,  and  that  strives  with  the 
children  of  men,  and  will  continue  to  strive  with  them,  until  it 
brings  them  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth  and  the  possession  of 
the  greater  light  and  testimony  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  If,  how- 
ever, he  receive  that  greater  light,  and  then  sin  against  it,  the 


THE    "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  289 

Spirit  of  God  will  cease  to  strive  with  him,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
will  wholly  depart  from  him.  Then  will  he  persecute  the  truth; 
then  will  he  seek  the  blood  of  the  innocent;  then  will  he  not 
scruple  at  the  commission  of  any  crime,  except  so  far  as  he 
may  fear  the  penalties  of  the  law,  in  consequence  of  the  crime, 
upon  himself. 

Jesus  the  Father  of  this  World. 
I  will  read  a  little  further: 

And  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me,  and  the 
Father  and  I  are  one. 

I  do  not  apprehend  that  any  intelligent  person  will  con- 
strue these  words  to  mean  that  Jesus  and  his  Father  are  one 
person,  but  merely  that  they  are  one  in  knowledge,  in  truth,  in 
wisdom,  in  understanding,  and  in  purpose;  just  as  the  Lord 
Jesus  himself  admonished  his  disciples  to  be  one  with  him, 
and  to  be  in  him,  that  he  might  be  in  them.  It  is  in  this  sense 
that  I  understand  this  language,  and  not  as  it  is  construed  by 
some  people,  that  Christ  and  his  Father  are  one  person.  I  de- 
clare to  you  that  they  are  not  one  person,  but  that  they  are 
two  persons,  two  bodies,  separate  and  apart,  and  as  distinct  as 
are  any  father  and  son  within  the  sound  of  my  voice.  Yet, 
Jesus  is  the  Father  of  this  world,  because  it  was  by  him  that 
the  world  was  made.     He  says: 

And  the  Father  and  I  are  one: 

The  Father  because  he  gave  me  of  his  fulness,  and  the  Son  because 
I  was  in  the  world  and  made  flesh  my  tabernacle,  and  dwelt  among 
the  sons  of  men. 

I  was  in  the  world  and  received  of  my  Father,  and  the  works 
of  him  were  plainly  manifest; 

And  John  saw  and  bore  record  of  the  fulness  of  my  glory:  and 
the  fulness  of  John's  record  is  hereafter  to  be  revealed: 


290  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

And  he  bore  record,  saying,  I  saw  his  glory  that  ^he  was  in  the 
beginning  before  the  world  was; 

Therefore  in  the  beginning  the  Word  was,  for  he  was  the  Word, 
even  the  messenger  of  salvation. 

The  light  and  redeemer  of  the  world;  the  Spirit  of  truth,  who 
came  into  the  world,  because  the  world  was  made  by  him,  and  in  him 
was  the  life  of  men  and  the  light  of  men. 

The  worlds  were  made  by  him:  men  were  make  by  him:  all 
things  were  made  by  him,  and  through  him,  and  of  him. 

And  I,  John,;bear  record  that  I  beheld  his  glory,  as  the  glory  of 
the  Only  Begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth,  even  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  which  came  and  dwelt  in  the  flesh,  and  dwelt  among 
us. 

And  I,  John,  saw  that  he  received  not  the  fulness  at  first,  but 
received  grace  for  grace; 

And  he  received  not  of  the  fulness  at  first,  but  continued  from 
grace  to  grace,  until  he  received  a  fulness: 

And  thus  he  was  called  the  Son  of  God,  because  He  received  not 
of  the  fulness  at  the  first. 

Glorious  Possibilities  of  Man. 

What  a  glorious  thought  is  inspired  in  the  heart  when  we 
read  sentiments  like  this,  that  even  Christ  himself  was  not 
perfect  at  first;  he  received  not  a  fulness  at  first,  but  he  re- 
ceived grace  for  grace,  and  he  continued  to  receive  more  and 
more  until  he  received  a  fulness.  Is  not  this  to  be  so  with  the 
children  of  men?  Is  any  man  perfect?  Has  any  man  received 
a  fulness  at  once?  Have  we  reached  a  point  wherein  we  may 
receive  the  fulness  of  God,  of  his  glory  and  his  intelligence?  No; 
and  yet  if  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Father  of  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  in  which  we  dwell,  received  not  a  fulness  at  the 
first,  but  increased  in  faith,  knowledge,  understanding  and  grace 
until  he  received  a  fulness,  is  it  not  possible  for  all  men  that  are 
born  of  women  to  receive  little  by  little,  line  upon  line,  pre- 


THE  "mormon"    doctrine   OF   DEITY.  291 

cept.upon  precept,  until  they  shall  receive  a  fulness,  as  he  has 
recaived  a  fulness,  and  be  exalted  with  him  in  the  presence  of 
the  Father? 

The  revelation  continues: 

And  I,  John,  bear  record,  and  lo,  the  heavens  were  opened,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  him  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  and  sat 
upon  him,  and  there  came  a  voice  out  of  heaven  saying,  This  is  my 
beloved  son. 

This  voice  out  of  heaven  came  from  God,  the  Father  of 
our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ. 

And  I,  John,  bear  record  that  he  received  a  fulness  of  the  glory 
of  the  Father; 

And  he  received  all  power  both  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  and  the 
glory  of  the  Father  was  with  him,  for  he  dwelt  in  him. 

And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  if  you  are  faithful  you  shall  re- 
ceive the  fulness  of  the  record  of  John. 

I  give  unto  you  these  sayings  that  ye  may  understand  and 
know  how  to  worship,  and  know  what  you  worship,  that  you  may 
come  unto  the  Father  in  my  name,  and  in  due  time  receive  of  his 
fulness. 

For  if  you  keep  my  commandments  you  shall  receive  of  his  ful- 
ness, and  be  glorified  in  me  as  I  am  in  the  Father;  therefore,  I  say 
unto  you,  you  shall  receive  grace  for  grace. 

And  now,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  was  in  the  beginning  with  the 
Father:  and  am  the  first-born. 

And  all  those  who  are  begotten  through  me  are  partakers  of  the 
glory  of  the  same,  and  are  the  church  of  the  first-born. 

Ye  were  also  in  the  beginning  with  the  Father,  that  which  is 
Spirit,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth, 

And  truth  is  knowledge  of  things  as  they  are,  and  as  they  were, 
and  as  they  are  to  come; 

And  whatsoever  is  more  or  less  than  this,  is  the  spirit  of  that 
wicked  one  who  was  a  liar  from  the  beginning. 

The  spirit  of  truth  is  of  God.    I  am  the  spirit  of  truth,  and  John 


292  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

bore  record  of  me,  saying — He  receiveth  a  fulness  of  truth,,  yea, 
even  of  all  truth. 

And  no  man  receiveth  a  fulness  unless  he  keepeth  his  com- 
mandments. 

He  that  keepeth  his  commandments  receiveth  truth  and  light, 
until  he  is  glorified  in  truth  and  knoweth  all  things. 

Man  was  also  in  the  beginning  with  God.  Intelligence,  or  the 
light  of  truth,  was  not  created  or  made,  neither  indeed  can  it  be. 

All  truth  is  independent  in  that  sphere  in  which  God  has  placed 
it,  to  act  for  itself,  as  all  intelligence  also,  otherwise  there  is  no  ex- 
istence. 

Behold,  here  is  the  agency  of  man,  and  here  is  f'e  condemnation  of 
man;  because  that  which  was  from  the  beginning  is  plainly  manifest 
unto  them  and  they  receive  not  the  light. 

And  every  man  whose  spirit  receiveth  not  the  light  is  under 
condemnation. 

For  man  is  spirit.  The  elements  are  eternal,  and  spirit  and 
element,  inseparably  connected,  receiveth  a  fulness  of  joy: 

And  when  separated,  man  cannot  receive  a  fulness  of  jey. 

Man  to  Become  Like  Christ. 

In  other  words,  the  spirit  without  the  body  is  not  perfect, 
and  the  body  without  the  spirit  is  dead.  Man  was  ordained  in 
the  beginning  to  become  lijje  Jesus  Christ,  to  become  conformed 
unto  his  image.  As  Jesus  was  born  of  woman,  lived  and  grew 
to  manhood,  was  put  to  death  and  raised  from  the  dead  to  im- 
mortality and  eternal  life,  so  it  was  decreed  in  the  beginning 
that  man  should  be,  and  will  be,  through  the  atonement  of 
Jesus,  in  spite  of  himself,  resurrected  from  the  dead.  Death 
came  upon  us  without  the  exercise  of  our  agency;  we  had  no 
hand  in  bringing  it  originally  upon  ourselves;  it  came  because 
of  the  transgression  of  our  first  parents.  Therefore,  man,  who 
had  no  hand  in  bringing  death  upon  himself,  shall  have  no  hand 
in  bringing  again  life  unto  himself;  for  as  he  dies  in  consequence 


THE    "mormon"   doctrine   OF   DEITY.  293 

of  the  sin  of  Adam,  so  shall  he  live  again,  whether  he  will  or 
not,  by  the  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  power  of  his 
resurrection.  Every  man  that  dies  shall  live  again,  and  shall 
stand  before  the  bar  of  God,  to  be  judged  according  to  his 
works,  whether  they  be  good  or  evil.  It  is  then  that  all  will 
have  to  give  an  account  for  their  stewardship  in  this  mortal 
life.  The  word  of  God  is  spoken  to  the  children  of  men.  It  has 
been  revealed  from  the  heavens.  It  is  extant  in  the  world.  It 
is  in  force  upon  the  people.  Those  that  reject  it  will  have  to 
answer  for  it  before  God,  the  judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead; 
while  those  that  receive  and  obey  the  word  of  the  Lord  and 
keep  his  commandments,  as  I  have  read,  shall  not  only  come  to 
a  knowledge  of  the  truth,  but  shall  look  upon  the  face  of  the 
Redeemer  and  shall  see  and  know  him  as  he  is.  Furthermore, 
they  will  acknowledge  that  it  is  through  the  atonement  and 
power  of  the  Savior  that  they  are  brought  again  unto  life  im- 
mortal, to  enjoy  eternal  felicity  in  the  celestial  kingdom  of 
God,  provided  they  have  been  obedient  to  his  commandments. 
The  Lord  continues: 

The  elements  are  the  tabernacle  of  God;  yea,  man  is  the  taber- 
nacle of  God,  even  temples;  and  whatsoever  temple  is  defiled,  God 
shall  destroy  that  temple. 

The  glory  of  God  is  intelligence,  or,  in  other  words,  light  and 
truth. 

Light  and  truth  forsake  that  evil  one. 

Every  spirit  of  man  was  innocent  in  the  beginning,  and  God 
having  redeemed  man  from  the  fall,  men  became  again  in  their  infant 
state,  innocent  before  God. 

And  that  wicked  one  cometh  and  taketh  away  light  and  truth, 
through  disobedience,  from  the  children  of  men,  and  because  of  the 
tradition  of  their  fathers. 

The  word  of  the  Lord  is  truth.  You  ask,  What  is  truth? 
It  is  the  truth  that  God  lives.     What  more  is  truth?     It  is  the 


294  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

truth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  the  Redeemer  of  the 
world;  that  he  atoned  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  that  through 
our  repentance  and  obedience  to  him  we  shall  receieve  a  for- 
giveness of  our  own  sins,  and  shall  be  cleansed  therefrom,  and 
exalted  again  in  the  presence  of  God,  from  whence  we  came.  It 
is  truth  that  God  has  revealed  to  the  world  that  except  a  man 
be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  It  is 
eternal  truth  that  except  a  man  be  born  of  the  water  and  of  the 
Spirit  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  These  are 
the  Almighty's  truths  that  he  has  revealed  to  the  children  of 
men,  and  upon  these  we  will  stand.  We  propose  to  bear  our 
testimony  to  these  truths,  and  to  declare  these  principles  to  the 
children  of  men,  as  long  as  God  will  give  us  his  Spirit,  and  we 
are  entrusted  with  this  mission  to  declare  Jesus  Christ  and  him 
crucified  and  risen  from  the  dead,  and  Joseph  Smith  raised  up 
by  the  power  of  God  to  restore  the  fulness  of  the  everlasting 
Gospel  and  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Priesthood  to  the  earth  in 
the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times.  We  bear  this  testi- 
mony to  the  ^^orld,  and  we  know  that  our  testimony  is  true;  for 
we  have  received  of  that  Spirit  of  truth  which  is  of  God,  and  of 
which  Jesus  speaks  here  through  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith. 
Therefore,  our  testimony  is  in  force  upon  the  world.  Espe- 
cially is  it  in  force  upon  those  who  have  yielded  obedience  to  the 
message  of  salvation  as  it  has  been  restored  to  the  earth  and 
declared  unto  you. 

Personal  Testimony. 

Now,  my  brethren  and  sisters,  I  know  that  my  Redeemer 
lives.  I  feel  it  in  every  fiber  of  my  being.  I  am  just  as  satis- 
fied of  it  as  I  am  of  my  own  existence.  I  cannot  feel  more  sure 
of  my  own  being  than  I  do  that  my  Redeemer  lives,  and  that  my 
God  lives,  the  Father  of  my  Savior.  I  feel  it  in  my  soul;  I  am 
converted  to  it  in  my  whole  being.      I  bear  testimony  to  you 


THE   "mormon"  doctrine   OF   DEITY.  295 

that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  the  Gospel  of  Jesus,  which  is 
the  power  of  God  unto  salvation.  It  is  "Mormonism."  But 
there  is  much  more  that  could  be  said  in  relation  to  these  mat- 
ters. "Mormonism"  has  been  interpreted  by  one  who  was  in- 
spired to  mean  "more  good."  We  have  accepted  the  term 
"Mormon."  It  having  been  applied  to  us  by  our  enemies  simply 
because  we  believed  in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  we  are  not 
ashamed  of  it — we  are  not  ashamed  of  "more  good."  We  be- 
lieve in  every  principle  and  precept  of  the  Gospel,  and  in  all  the 
law  of  God.  We  believe  that  every  principle  is  essential.  We 
believe  that  we  should  do  our  duty  to  God  and  to  our  fellow- 
men.  We  should  do  unto  others  as  we  would  have  them  do  to 
us.  We  should  observe  the  laws  of  chastity,  honesty  and  up- 
rightness, deal  justly  with  our  neighbors,  and  kindly  and  mer- 
cifully with  the  erring.  We  should  seek  to  do  good  at  all 
times  and  under  all  circumstances.  The  feeling  should  pre- 
dominate in  our  hearts  that  we  are  here,  not  to  do  evil,  but  to 
do  good;  not  to  increase  error,  but  to  diminish  it  and  to  in- 
crease the  knowledge  of  the  truth;  to  make  men  happy,  and  to 
spread  happiness  abroad  in  the  world  by  persuading  men  to  do 
that  which  is  right.  There  is  no  real  happiness  in  wickedness. 
There  is  no  real  enjoyment  in  sin  and  transgression.  The  only 
source  of  real  enjoyment  and  perfect  happiness  is  in  the  ob- 
servance of  the  laws  of  truth  and  righteousness. 

The  Lord  bless  you  and  help  us  all  to  live  our  religion  and 
to  keep  the  commandments  of  God,  that  we  may  look  upon 
his  face,  and  that  we  may  see  the  Redeemer  when  he  shall 
come  to  the  earth  again;  for  he  will  come,  and  when  he 
does  come  again  he  will  not  come  as  the  meek  and 
lowly  Nazarene,  without  "where  to  lay  his  head,"  and  without 
respect  and  honor,  but  he  will  come  as  God  out  of  heaven, 
clothed  with  power,  glory,  justice,  judgment  and  truth.  He 
will  come  with  the  hosts  of   heaven,  and  he  will  receive  those 


296  THE  "mormon"  doctrine  of  deity. 

who  have  kept  his  commandments  in  the  earth  as  the  church 
prepared  for  the  Bridegroom,  while  he  will  take  vengeance  upon 
the  ungodly. 

This  is  not  my  doctrine;  it  is  the  declaration  of  the  Bible, 
of  the  ancmet  prophets,  and  also  of  the  modern  prophets,  who 
have  spoken  by  inspiration.  I  am  but  repeating  their  words, 
and  I  tell  you  nothing  new.  God  bless  you  and  keep  you  in  the 
path  of  duty,  and  deliver  us  all  from  evil,  and  help  us  to  be 
steadfast  and  faithful  to  the  covenants  that  we  have  made,  and  to 
the  cause  of  Zion  and  of  redemption  for  the  living  and  the  dead, 
is  my  prayer  in  the  name  of  Jesus.    Amen. 


BRIGHAM  YOUNG  UNIVER^^^^^^^^ 


^^""l  197  22743  2546 


Date  Due 

All  library  items  are  subject  to  recall 


at  any  time. 


Brigham  Young  Univeisity