The Self-Existence of God: A Christian-Mormon Comparison

Paul Derengowski, ThM

 

Both Christians and Mormons¹ believe in the existence of God.  In fact, acknowledgement of God’s existence is one of the central doctrines for both groups.  However, when one begins to explore what is meant by “God” according to Christians and Mormons, two very distinct images appear.  One is that God has always existed as he is and that there is nothing that God could be other than himself, the other being a God who became what he is through a long process, who has the potential at any given time to be something other than he is.  It is with in mind that this paper will examine the existence of God as Christians and Mormons have portrayed him, specifically as it relates to God’s aseity,² or independence as a being.  For, if God is an independent being, solely reliant upon no one or nothing for his existence, then the Mormon view of God is false.  If, on the other hand, God became what he is through a process of reliance upon other beings and things, then the Christian view of God is false.

The method to be employed in seeking an answer will be to first look at key biblical passages which support the Christian view.  For ultimately the Bible is the Christian’s source of authority in matters of belief and practice, and if it cannot be substantiated that God’s aseity is supported from scripture, then the Christian position is tenuous at best from the start.  Secondly, an examination of what the Early Church Fathers had to say about the subject will ensue.  Did they believe that God was a self-existent being, or did they believe that he progressed along a prescribed course until he finally arrived at his current status?  Lastly, a look at what both Pre-Reformation and Post-Reformation Christian scholars have said about God’s aseity will be examined.  Since theology is a dynamic discipline, is there something that has been discovered by them over the course of the centuries which would lead one to believe that God is now dependent upon someone or something for his existence?

The last part of the paper will look at what Mormon authorities have said about the “Eternal Progression”³ of God, particularly in reference to God’s need to be.  In other words, what did God need in order to become God?  We know that according to Joseph Smith no son may exist without a Father,⁴ therefore we know that the Mormon God needed parents.  But, what other needs did God have on his journey to godhood, and how do those needs conflict with traditional orthodox theology?

The reason why such a paper is important is due the growing influence of Mormon spokespersons and their influence upon Christians.  Not only is the Mormon Church growing at a pace that is more rapid than at first predicted,⁵ within the past few years Mormon growth rates have been leading the way among American and Canadian churches.⁶   More importantly is the fact that many of Mormonism’s converts are from Christian churches, therefore it is imperative that Christians at least understand the God they will be worshiping should they choose to make the decision to jump ranks.  So, without further introduction, let us turn to our study, starting with biblical declarations about God’s aseity.

Key Biblical Passages Describing God’s Aseity

The Bible gives us an indication regarding God’s aseity in the opening verse of Genesis.  It states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  From this one may surmise that God was already in existence prior to anything else that was created, and that the creation is contingent upon God to make it what it is. This verse, of course, by no means settles that God is a se.  Other revelation throughout scripture coupled with Genesis 1:1 help to establish that fact.  For instance, John 1:1-3, which uses similar verbiage as that found in Genesis 1:1, describes the relationship between God and his word (which alludes to Jesus in vv. 14, 18), and specifically in verse three a literal rendering makes it evident that prior to the Word bringing all things into existence, nothing existed at all.⁷   In fact, a literal rendering of John 1:3 might be, “All things came to be through him, and without him, not one thing came to be, which became.”⁸   Hence, God could not have relied upon something external to himself to exist, because they did not exist in the first place.  Similarly, Genesis 1:1 points out the fact that everything subsequent to God is not a se, and furthermore is dependent upon God for its existence, who is a se.

A second reference alluding to God’s self-existence and aseity is found in Exodus 3:14.  In a dialogue between God and Moses concerning the freeing of the nation of Israel from the bondage of Egypt, Moses asks God what he should tell Israel if they ask for the name of the one sending him to them to set them free.  God tells Moses to reply “I am who I am.”  Although there has been much discussion over just what God meant by the phrase as it relates to God’s name, or how it ought to be translated, several suggestions point to the concept of aseity as undergirding what God was ultimately telling Moses to convey to Israel.  For instance, Victor Hamilton asserted that, “Most likely the name should be translated something like ‘I am he who is,’ or ‘I am he who exists’ as reflected by the LXX’s⁹ ego eimi ho ōv.  The echo of this is found surely in the NT, Rev. 1:8.  More than anything perhaps, the ‘is-ness’ of God is expressive both of his presence and his existence.  Neither concept can be said to be more important than the other.”¹⁰   K.-H. Bernhardt points out, “The LXX renders it as ‘I am the being one, I am he who is’ (Egō eimi ho ōn).  According to this interpretation, Yahweh characterizes himself more precisely as the only one who is ‘real’ (for Israel), the only one among the gods who ‘exists.’”¹¹   William F. Albright adds, “The absence of any known reflection of this formula elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible suggests that it is a secondary theological adaptation of an original formula in the third persons, ‘It Is He Who Creates What Comes into Existence.’¹²   Therefore, God was not only telling Moses to tell Israel that he would always be with them as their God, now and in the future,¹³ but that the reason why it was possible for him to be able to make such an assurance was because of the self-existent nature of the one who was speaking to Moses initially.

Another scripture which indicates the self-sufficiency and existence of God is found in Isaiah 43:10e.  It states, “Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me.”  The implication in relation to the subject of God’s aseity is that there is no one like God who either existed prior to him or after him.  Although typical Mormon rebuttals are that the word God “was not meant to refer to a specific person,” but “was used to refer to an authority, a position, or an office, of which there is only one,”¹⁴ or that since the God being spoken of in the verse is Yahweh (יהוה) rather than Elohim (אְֶלֹהִים), and that since Yahweh is actually Jesus, but not God the Father, as Mormonism teaches,¹⁵ therefore the meaning is that there were no saviors before or after Christ.¹⁶  However, given that the context of the verse is dealing with idolatry, in which Yahweh informs the Israelites that he is the only, genuine God (lae),¹⁷ such rebuttals are either erroneous or misleading.  Clearly, since יהוה / אֵל is stressing his exclusivity as God, then he exists in and of himself.

Perhaps the most definitive statement concerning God’s aseity is found in the New Testament, in Acts 17:24-25.  In the passage the apostle Paul is discussing the religious fervor of the Greeks at Athens, yet he notes an inscription written on an altar which read, “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.”  It is from this and other observations that he tells the men that, “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things.”  Again, Paul alludes to the creation event as a starting point to try and drive home the fact that the same God who brought everything into existence is the very same God who needs nothing, much less a manmade edifice in which to dwell, since his existence is not predicated upon that which he created in the first place.  His existence is wholly dependent upon himself, and it is from him that all things take their identity.  In fact, if creation did not exist at all, God still would exist, which we have already seen not only in the Genesis 1:1 account, but also in references like Job 38:4 where God rhetorically asks Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”  The point is, Job was nowhere, as God proceeded to bring into existence that which did not exist; the existence that Job would later need to exist himself.

The biblical references clearly speak of God’s self-existence or aseity.  Yet, how did the Early Church Fathers, after the time of Christ and the apostles, view such biblical statements?  Did they see God as some kind of contingent being that could not exist without external assistance?  Was the cosmos seen as some kind of eternally self-existing entity that co-existed alongside God, and God was merely the organizer of eternal matter?  It is to their comments and assertions that we now turn.

The Early Church Fathers on God’s Aseity

To state that commentary on the person of God and his independence or aseity is voluminous among the Early Church Father (ECF) would be to understate the matter.  From the earliest writings onward Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and others, have continuously testified to the position that Almighty God is a being whose existence is completely self-sufficient.  However, in this particular section, rather than merely commenting on their commentary, the Fathers will be allowed to eloquently speak for themselves.  Their conclusions should be unmistakable to the unbiased reader, even though what is quoted is not exhaustive.

Ante-Nicene Fathers

Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus: For while the Gentiles, by offering such things to those that are destitute of sense and hearing, furnish an example of madness; they, on the other hand by thinking to offer these things to God as if He needed them, might justly reckon it rather an act of folly than of divine worship. For He that made heaven and earth, and all that is therein, and gives to us all the things of which we stand in need, certainly requires none of those things which He Himself bestows on such as think of furnishing them to Him. But those who imagine that, by means of blood, and the smoke of sacrifices and burnt-offerings, they offer sacrifices [acceptable] to Him, and that by such honors they show Him respect,—these, by supposing that they can give anything to Him who stands in need of nothing, appear to me in no respect to differ from those who studiously confer the same honour on things destitute of sense, and which therefore are unable to enjoy such honours.¹⁸

Ireneaus Against Heresies: IT is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.¹⁹

Address of Tatian to the Greeks: Our God did not begin to be in time: He alone is without beginning, and He Himself is the beginning of all things. God is a Spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works. I refuse to adore that workmanship which He has made for our sakes. The sun and moon were made for us: how, then, can I adore my own servants? How can I speak of stocks and stones as gods? For the Spirit that pervades matter is inferior to the more divine spirit; and this, even when assimilated to the soul, is not to be honored equally with the perfect God. Nor even ought the ineffable God to be presented with gifts; for He who is in want of nothing is not to be misrepresented by us as though He were indigent.²⁰

Athenagoras A Plea for the Christians:You sovereigns rear and adorn your palaces for yourselves; but the world was not created because God needed it; for God is Himself everything to Himself, — light unapproachable, a perfect world, spirit, power, reason.²¹

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles: O Thou the great Being, O Lord God Almighty, who alone art unbegotten, and ruled over by none; who always art, and wast before the world; who standest in need of nothing, and art above all cause and beginning; who only art true, who only art wise; who alone art the most high; who art by nature invisible; whose knowledge is without beginning; who only art good, and beyond compare; who knowest all things before they are; who art acquainted with the most secret things; who art inaccessible, and without a superior; the God and Father of Thy only begotten Son, of our God and Savior; the Creator of the whole world by Him.²²

Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers

Augustine The City of God: For God, indeed, being the Father of all, is in need of nothing; but for us it is good to adore Him by means of justice, chastity, and other virtues, and thus to make life itself a prayer to Him, by inquiring into and imitating His nature.²³

Chrysostom Concerning the Statues: But this would not seem to be like a deity, to stand in need of the assistance of others, for that which he wishes to do; for it is a special attribute of God to want nothing; He Himself at least did not in this manner bring forth the seeds from the ground; He only commanded, and they all shot forth. And again, that thou mayest learn that it is not the nature of the elements, but His command which effects all things; He both brought into being these very elements which before were not; and without the need of any aid, He brought down the manna for the Jews...For God must be independent, and not stand in need of assistance, be the source of all good things to all, and be hindered by nothing.²⁴

Athanasius Against the Heathen: For if it is an admitted truth about God that He stands in need of nothing, but is self-sufficient and self-contained, and that in Him all things have their being, and that He ministers to all rather than they to Him, how is it right to proclaim as gods the sun and moon and other parts of creation, which are of no such kind, but which even stand in need of one another’s help?²⁵

Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius: For God, when creating all things that have their origin by creation, neither stood in need of any matter on which to operate, nor of instruments to aid Him in His construction: for the power and wisdom of God has no need of any external assistance.²⁶

Gregory Nazianzen The Fourth Theological Oration: I am the Lord Thy God, He says, that is My name; and, The Lord is His name.  But we are enquiring into a Nature Whose Being is absolute and not into Being bound up with something else.  But Being is in its proper sense peculiar to God, and belongs to Him entirely, and is not limited or cut short by any Before or After, for indeed in him there is no past or future.²⁷

The list of quotes from the Early Church Fathers regarding the aseity of God could literally fill a volume itself.  But from the foregoing it should be clear that the Fathers believed that God was wholly independent as a being, relying upon none other than himself for his existence, and that all things aside from himself relied upon him for their existence.  And it is because of such a theological position, as fueled by biblical revelation, that the same tradition of belief has been perpetuated among subsequent Orthodox Christian theologians, to whom we now turn our attention.

Pre- and Post-Reformation Views of God’s Aseity

Consistent with past pronouncements scholars and theologians within the ranks of Orthodox Christianity have equally advocated the same kind of thinking as that found previously.  In short, from the time prior to the Reformation unto the present, God’s existence has been attributed to none other than himself.  Nevertheless, as pointed out before, a brief sampling of voices representative of Orthodox Christian thought will be allowed to speak for themselves, and what they have to say should prove conclusive.

Medieval Witness to God’s Aseity

Thomas Aquinas: God is not only His own essence…but also His own existence.²⁸

But to God alone does it belong to be His own subsistent being.²⁹

Anselm of Canterbury: We have already stated that it is only in a less proper sense that we say God cannot do anything, or that He does it necessarily.  In fact, all necessity and all impossibility are subject to His will, but His will is not subject to any necessity or impossibility.  For nothing is necessary or impossible except for the reason that He wills it so; on the other hand, it is absolutely true that He wills or does not will anything because of necessity or impossibility.  Therefore, since He does whatever He wills, and does nothing but what He wills, then just as no necessity or impossibility comes before His acting or not acting, although He might choose and do many things in an inalterable way.³⁰

Reformation Witness to God’s Aseity

John Calvin: His power leads us to the consideration of his eternity; because he, from whom all things derive their origin, must necessarily be eternal and self-existent.  But if we inquire the reason that induced him first to create all things, and now to preserve them, we shall find the sole cause to be his own goodness.  But though this be the only cause, it should be more than sufficient to attract us to love him; since, according to the Psalmist, (f) there is no creature that does not participate in the effusions of his mercy.³¹

Philip Melanchthon: God is not a physical being, as heaven and earth and other elements are; on the contrary, he is a spiritual being, omnipotent and eternal, unmeasurable in wisdom, goodness, and righteousness, one who is true, pure, independent, and merciful.  This is God, the eternal Father, and the Son, the Father's image, and the Holy Spirit, which three persons created heaven and earth, and all other creatures.³²

James Arminius: As we ought to enunciate negatively the mode by which the Essence of God pre-eminetly [sic] both is and is spiritual, above the excellence of all Essences, even of those which are spiritual; so this may be done first and immediately in a single phrase, “he is, anarcoj kai anaitioj, without beginning and without cause either external or internal.” (Isaiah 43:10; 44:8, 24; 46:9; Revelation 1:8; Romans 11:35, 36; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; Romans 9:5.)  For since there cannot be any advancement in infinitum, (for if there could, there would be no Essence, no Knowledge,) there must be one Essence, above and before which no other can exist: but such an Essence must that of God be; for, to whatsoever this Essence may be attributed, it will by that very act of ascription be God himself.³³

Post-Reformation Witness to God’s Aseity

Stephen Charnock: Natures, which are made by God, may increase, because they began to be; they may decrease, because they were made of nothing, and so tend to nothing; the condition of their original leads them to defect, and the power of their Creator brings them to increase.  But God hath no original; he hath no defect, because he was not made of nothing: he hath no increase, because he had no beginning.  He was before all things, and, therefore, depends upon no other thing which, by its own change, can bring any change upon him.  That which is from itself cannot be changed, because it hath nothing before it, nothing more excellent than itself; but that which is from another as its first cause and chief good, may be changed by that which was its efficient cause and last end.³⁴

Herman Bavinck: The first thing Scripture teaches us concerning God is that he has a distinct, free, and independent existence and life.  He has a distinct being, a distinct "nature, substance, essence," not apart from his virtues, but revealed in all his virtures and perfections.  He has proper names that do not pertain to any creature.  Among all these names the name "Jehovah" stands out pre-eminently, Ex. 3:14.  By means of this name he is designated as the One who is and will be what he was; i.e., who remains eternally the same in relation to his people.  He has the ground of his existence in himself.  He existed before all things, and all things exist through him, Ps. 90:2; I Cor. 8:6; Rev. 4:11.³⁵

William Newton Clark: God simply is, and always has been, with nothing beyond him in duration or in causation.  He is self-existent.  The Christian doctrine affirms that God is uncreated, unoriginated, having no beginning and owing his existence to none.  He is the great Original, with existence all his own.  This has been implied in the doctrine of God as the Source of all.  Of the two units of existence, one originates and sustains the other, but the One is itself originated not at all.  All that exists consists of Creator and creation; the creation is from the Creator, but the Creator simply is.³⁶

Contemporary Witness to God’s Aseity

Karl Barth: We have seen that the essence of the divine being is to be the One who loves us and who loves in Himself, the One who is active in founding and maintaining fellowship.  But He is this as the One who is free, in His freedom, and therefore as the self-existent One, unconditioned by anything else, Himself conditioning everything else.  He is it, therefore, in His majesty, omnipotence and eternity.  He is it in His aseity.³⁷

W. Tozer: Whatever God is, and all that God is, He is in Himself.  All life is in and from God, whether it be the lowest form of unconscious life or the highly self-conscious, intelligent life of a seraph.  No creature has life in itself; all life is a gift from God.³⁸

Louis Berkhof: As the self-existent God, He is not only independent in Himself, but also causes everything to depend on Him.  This self-existence of God finds expression in the name Jehovah.  It is only as the self-existent and independent One that God can give the assurance that He will remain eternally the same in relation to His people.³⁹

Lewis Sperry Chafer: It is in harmony with the independence and infinite excellence of the Godhead to assert that His resources are in Himself, and it is equally true that He is also the answer to every desire of His own Being.  In His relation to creation, He gives but receives nothing.  His is the source of all blessing and He finds in Himself His own felicity.  He is the only sphere in which He may exercise His own infinite nature.  The exercise of His attributes is as essential as their existence.  Thus, if there is no other sphere which corresponds to His infinity, these attributes must be exercised within Himself and within Himself He has found satisfaction throughout eternity.  It is therefore necessary to conclude that the very mode of the divine Being answers all these demands.  The agent and the object are embraced within Himself.  A plurality is thus predicated of the Divine nature.⁴⁰

Millard J. Erickson: While all other beings have their life in God, he does not derive his life from any external source.  He is never depicted as having been brought into being…The adjective eternal is applied to him frequently, implying that there never was a time when he did not exist.  Further, we are told that “in the beginning,” before anything else came to be, God was already in existence (Gen. 1:1).  Thus, he could not have derived his existence from anything else.⁴¹

Donald Bloesch: Biblical faith...does not shrink from viewing God as an existent being (Heb. 11:6), though he exists not in the way the creature exists—as dependent and contingent—but as independent and unconditioned.  He exists by his own power and is the cause of his own being (meaning that the mystery of his being resides in himself, not that he must create his own being).  Having no need of any other power or reality, he is the uncaused ground and source of all finite being...essence and existence are one in God.  God's essence is his existence.⁴²

Thomas Oden: This supreme being has not at some point in time become the Supreme Being, but simply is, and has never been otherwise.  This underived being whose nature is to be, the Hebrews called Yahweh ("I am Who I am," Exod. 3:14) and Teutonic languages have called God.  God has no cause external to God, and this is precisely what makes God God, and not something else.⁴³

From the preceding examples, stemming from biblical revelation, through the Early Church Fathers, and down to the present, it should be quite evident that the Christian position on the aseity of God is that God is totally self-reliant, self-sufficient, and self-existent.  In and of himself God sustains not only himself, but all things that have being.  There is absolutely no contingency on the part of God, for the moment he begins to have a need of something external to himself to exist, then he immediately ceases to be God, or at best a “god” that is contingent upon another for his existence.  It is with such an affirmation of God’s self-existence and reliance that we now turn our attention to the Mormon concept of God and ask the following questions: Does Mormonism espouse the same view of God’s aseity that Christianity historically has?  If not, then just what does Mormonism assert are the needs that God has in order to either become or maintain his deity?  And how does such a view of God affect his relationship with those who need him?

Eternal Progression and the Needs of the Mormon God

Although the aseity, or independence, of God from a Mormon perspective is rarely discussed among the Mormon faithful, what is declared about God has a direct bearing upon the doctrine itself.  For instance, we know from Joseph Smith, and others, that God became what he is through a natural progression of events.  If this is so, then we also know that such a declaration impacts other doctrines such as immutability, revelation, and eternality.  For any being that becomes something other than what it is, is not immutable, but mutable.  And if that being reveals that he does not change, then obviously there is something awry with the revelation, the revelator, or those receiving the revelation.  Also, for something to become something other than what it is means that that same being cannot be eternal in that state, regardless of the verbal gymnastics employed to redefine terms to align it with the true sense of the word, eternal.  Therefore, our focus now turns to ten requirements that the Mormon God needs in order to exist as God.  From this it should be clear to the reader that the LDS God is indeed a very needy individual; one that has absolutely no resemblance to the one previously discussed above, as defined by traditional, biblical standards.  We begin by looking at God’s mutability from a Mormon perspective.

1.  God needed to be Mutable

As noted briefly above, the God of Mormonism did not always exist as God.  Joseph Smith made that clear when he asserted in his famous King Follett discourse,

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, 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 God was God from all eternity.  I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” [emphasis added].⁴⁴

In his refutation, Joseph Smith would go on to tell his followers that God was not only a human being at one time like everyone else, but that they must “learn how to be gods” themselves.⁴⁵   From this we not only learn about the mutable nature of the being who would become God, but the deficient nature of “God’s” intelligence, given that divinity is something that is “learned,” not something that is inherently the part of being.  God apparently did not know, as human beings have to learn themselves, that even he was God.  He learned it from someone and then went on to capitalize on his education by becoming something that he was not previously.  But, if he was a man prior to becoming God, how did he come into being as a man?

2.  God needed Parents

There is no human being that has ever existed since the days of Adam and Eve that ever came into existence without the assistance of a father and mother procreating him.  In Mormonism, the same principle applies to the person of God.  As stated earlier, Mormons believe that God was once a man.  Yet, men require the direct involvement of other men and women preceding them to become involved in a natural relationship which results in the conception and bearing of children before those men and women can exist as humans.  Joseph Smith felt the same way when he discussed not only the sonship of Jesus Christ, but the whole of human existence as well, which included the person of God.  He surmised,

If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus 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.…Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?  I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.⁴⁶

Orson Pratt, who was not only one of the first apostles of Mormonism, but perhaps one of the most brilliant Mormon theologians during the early days of “the restoration,”⁴⁷ concurred with Joseph Smith’s summation concerning the ancestry of God when he wrote,

We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds, and as a last resort, we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first father begotten.⁴⁸

Finally, Joseph Fielding Smith, whose father (Joseph F. Smith) was the nephew of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, would again repeat, in rhetorical fashion, the belief that God the Father had a Father, by stating, “The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on.  Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?”⁴⁹   Clearly, all three distinguished leaders of the Mormon movement believed and taught that God the Father needed parents in order that he may exist as a human being.  The reason for such a naturalistic conception of God’s existence is couched in Joseph Fielding Smith’s closing phrase: “that we may become like him.”  It is a declaration that humans are not supernatural—since all humans are essentially physical beings on the road to godhood—and in order for human beings to become like God, then God’s progression unto godhood cannot be supernatural either.  Such a declaration leads to the third need that God has, and that is the need of a physical environment.

3.  God needed a Physical Environment.

In Mormonism there is no such thing as an essential difference between the spirit world and the physical world.  Both abodes of existence are constituted of the same eternal “elements.”⁵⁰   It is just that in the spiritual realm, the elements are much purer and cannot be seen with the naked eye.  “There is no such thing as immaterial matter,” states Doctrine & Covenants [hereafter D&C] 131:7.  “All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, 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” (v. 8).

When we turn our attention to the person of God and his need of a physical environment, what is meant is that God needs not only a physical abode in which to live, but a physical body in which to perform.⁵¹   Joseph Smith’s “translation” of Abraham 3:9 tells us about God’s physical location being on a planet near a star called Kolob.  It is from star base Kolob that God rules the universe.  Conversely, Smith would also reveal in D&C 130:22 that God has a physical disposition.  It declares that, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.”

The idea that God needs a materialistic world in which to live and identify centers on the testimony of Joseph Smith and the reinterpretation of important biblical texts dealing with the image of God in man and the constitution of a spirit.  In other words, instead of exegeting scripture and then applying the results to the experiences of life, what Joseph Smith did was take a personal experience—his supposed encounter with God and Jesus in the woods, whereby he reportedly saw the physical countenance of them both—and then forced that experience upon his reading of the Bible.  Therefore, when the Bible says that man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), since Joseph Smith allegedly saw God in a physical body, he concluded that the image of God in man must represent something of a physical nature.

A verse of scripture where Smith’s hermeneutic is used when dealing with a spirit’s constitution is the account of Jesus telling his disciples that a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Lk. 24:29).  Mormons have interpreted this to mean that God cannot be essentially spirit, because Joseph Smith saw God’s physical presence,⁵² and since Jesus is an exact replica of God, then God must be a man who has a body of flesh and bones.⁵³   In fact, BYU Professor Stephen Robinson makes this very point in his book, Are Mormons Christians?  He wrote,

After his resurrection, Jesus assured the Apostles that he was not merely a spirit: “Behold my 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” (Luke 24:39).  The logic is not difficult; Jesus is God; Jesus has a body of flesh and bones; therefore, God, in the person of the resurrected Son, has a body of flesh and bones.  Since both LDS Christians and orthodox Christians affirm the doctrines of the incarnation and bodily resurrection of God the Son, then in the person of the Son, God must be understood to have a tangible body.⁵⁴

In summary, God needs a physical body to validate the subjective experience of Joseph Smith and his reinterpretation of the image of God in man, as well as other Mormons who have taken Smith’s hermeneutic to misinterpret other verses dealing with the constitution of spirit and applying it to God.  Yet, by abiding by such conclusions serves only to uncover the next need of the Mormon God, namely, the need to sin.

4.  God Needed to Sin.

The idea that God needed to sin is usually repugnant to most people.  Yet, here we are not speaking about God proper, but the person, as a human being, who would later evolve into God, who sinned, as repugnant as that idea is to most Christians.  Nevertheless, it is at the human stage in God’s development that he needed to sin in order to eventually progress to glory, setting the pattern for his progeny that would follow him.  It is a pattern that supposedly has repeated itself ad infinitum.  Joseph Smith said that God, “…was once a man like us,” with former LDS President Lorenzo Snow stating, “As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may become.”  In fact, Joseph F. Smith was quite explicit in revealing what the human that would become God was like and what he endured, when he wrote, “We are precisely in the same condition and under the same circumstances that God our Heavenly Father was when he was passing through this, or a similar ordeal.”⁵⁵   Notice that Smith does not say that our condition and circumstance is minutely different than what God went through.  He says that the conditions and circumstances are “precisely” the same, meaning that there is nothing that we have done that God did not do as a human himself.  Obviously this would have to include committing an act of sin if Smith’s words as an LDS President have any merit at all,⁵⁶ as well as the word precision.

Brigham Young provided the rationale for such thinking by asserting that God “would not know how to judge men righteously, according to the temptations and sin they have had to contend with,” if God did not have a body and experience the same “temporal things” that humans have been experiencing since day one.⁵⁷   Orson Hyde would share a similar sentiment when he asserted,

Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where His now is.  'Is this really possible?'  Why, my dear friends, how would you like to be governed by a ruler who had not been through all the vicissitudes of like that are common to mortals?  If he had not suffered, how could he sympathise with the distress of others?  If he himself had not endured the same, how could he sympathise and be touched with the feelings of our infirmities?  He could not, unless he himself had passed through the same ordeal, and overcome step by step.⁵⁸

Therefore, God in this respect is not a se, or independent, since he needed to experience sin himself in order to judge the sins of others.  Furthermore, given the Mormon doctrine that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Nephi 2:25), the necessity of sin becomes all the more apparent to the human that would become God, since without it not only could he have not had children, but he could not have experienced joy as well.  In other words, sin in Mormonism does not absolutely produce misery and separation from God.  Instead, it provides the foundation whereby men may have children and becomes gods themselves.  God simply repeated, precisely, what his Father had done before him, and what his first human son, Adam, would do later.  It is all a part of the “testing” process that God’s parents would send him through, and what he would send his children through as well.  Yet, amid the process one cannot go directly to godhood after sinning.  One needs to die first, as a temporary result of sin.  But, what kind of death did the Mormon God die: a sinner’s death or a sacrificial one?

5.  God Needed to Die

Perhaps one of the biggest sticking points with Mormons when discussing the person of God and his days as a human being is why those days managed to end.  From the above we know that Mormonism teaches that humans are going through the same precise conditions as what God went through as a human, and from later LDS leaders we know that includes the event of death.  Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “Let me ask, are we not taught that we as sons of God may become like him? Is not this a glorious thought? Yet we have to pass through mortality and receive the resurrection and then go on to perfection just as our Father did before us”⁵⁹ [emphasis added].  Hence, the human that would become the Mormon’s God passed through mortality, or died.  But why?

Some typical responses to the question that one might receive from the LDS might be that God died as Jesus would later die on the cross.  In other words, the human death of God was as a sacrifice, as he gave his life a ransom for others, and later, Jesus would do the same, since Jesus only did what he saw his father do.  At first glance this seems like a plausible explanation, but upon further inspection, it is not so plausible after all.  For Jesus was not just a human being going through the ordeals that all humans endure in order to scale the ethereal ladder on his way to godhood.  Scripture makes it quite clear that Jesus was not only human, but that he was 100% God as well (Matt. 1:23; Jn. 1:1, 18; Col. 1:15:ff; Tit. 2:23).  Furthermore, if the human that would become God sinned in the manner suggested above, then once again, the sacrifice he might have made would have been nothing like Jesus’.  In fact, “God’s” sacrifice would not have done anyone any good at all, for he would have been suffering under the same, precise “conditions” and “circumstances” as all sinners would have, and in need of a savior himself!  Therefore, God’s death could not have been of a sacrificial nature.

Another seemingly plausible response one might receive for explaining the death of God is like that above made by Robert Millet, or that, no one really knows why God died as a human being.  Yet, when one takes into account all of the statements about God made by the LDS; that the conditions in which he lived were precisely the same as our own; that he is a man with flesh and bone; that there was this Grand Counsel that he conducted whereby he took suggestions on how to make his children gods as well, then such a response immediately loses credibility.  For if the Mormon knows so much about God when discussing other related topics about him, then why the ignorance when it comes to something so important as his life and death as a human being?  Besides, if it is the first principle of the gospel to know the character of God,⁶⁰ and yet if one is ignorant about something as significant as the death of the human that would become God, which is a part of the Law of Eternal Progression⁶¹ for all human beings on the same trek, then would that not have a direct bearing upon one’s knowledge of the gospel as well?  And if that is the case, then one must ask just what kind of “restored gospel” the LDS have discovered, given that they fail to know so little about some of the most important aspects of its character, since they know so little about the character of God.  Once again, the “we just don’t know” explanation is not acceptable when other things are considered.

Since we do know that the Mormon God did not die a sacrificial death, and since we already know much about the character of the Mormon God, just in the fact of dealing with his dependence as a God in this paper, perhaps the simplest explanation for his death as a human is found in one of the “Standard Works”⁶² called the Bible.  For in scripture everyone who died died as a result of sin, with the exception of Jesus Christ, who died as a sacrifice for sin.  The first man, Adam, was told that the penalty for sinning against God was that he would die (Gen. 2:17).  The prophet Ezekiel was told by Jehovah, “Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die” (Eze. 18:4, 20).  In the New Testament we are informed by the apostle Paul, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).  Clearly, then, if the human that would become the Mormon God did not die a sacrificial death, yet went through all the same, precise events that all humans have gone through since the inception of the human race, including mortality itself, and the only cause of death in the world is due to the introduction of sin into it, then the future Mormon God died as a result of him being a sinner.  And if God the human died as a result of sin in his life, then at some point⁶³ he would have needed to be redeemed by a savior, just as all sinners since have needed.  Yet, who was this savior that God would need to redeem him?  The answer is somewhat surprising.

6.  God needed a Savior

If the idea that God sinned, as a human being, is objectionable, denied, or even difficult to explain by most Mormons, the idea that God needed a Savior to forgive and redeem him is equally as conflicting.  It is not that Mormons reject the concept of the need of a Savior which causes hesitation, for Mormonism teaches that the earth is not the only place in creation that is inhabited with sinners in need of a Savior.  In fact, Brigham Young once pled ignorant as to the number of earths that there actually was, but confirmed that sin was present on each earth, and that without its presence, men and women could not go on to their “exaltation”⁶⁴ as gods and goddesses.⁶⁵   Conversely, though, with each earth infected by sin, and sin being the mechanism exalting men to godhood, is the need for multiple saviors.  Young would state, “Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and the people thereof, in their turn and time, receive all that we receive, and pass through all the ordeals that we are passing through.”⁶⁶   Furthermore, those individuals who may have missed out on hearing the Mormon gospel are given a second chance in the afterlife, whereby living Mormons act as “saviors”⁶⁷ themselves to assist the deceased out of their agnostic dilemma by being baptized by proxy on whatever earth they may be living on, while Mormon missionaries deliver the “gospel” to the deceased in Spirit Prison Hell.⁶⁸   So, the concept of a Savior or multiple saviors is not at all foreign in Mormonism.  The idea that it applies to the Mormon God is.  But, who was the Mormon God’s Savior?

In order to determine who the Mormon God’s Savior was as a human being, all one must do is reflect upon the explanations given by Mormon authorities on the subject of salvation and how it applies to contemporary humanity.  For if the Mormon God endured “precisely” the same ordeals, circumstances, and conditions that contemporary humans do, and he is the paradigm that contemporary humans must follow in order to learn how to be gods themselves,⁶⁹ then even though there is the stock denial that such information is unavailable, by reasonable deduction from the facts already provided, an identity is possible.

Therefore, let us begin with the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  In Mormonism Jesus is not simply the Savior.  He is the literal offspring of God the Father and his daughter, Mary.⁷⁰   While on earth he was not at first divine, but had to actually go on to inherit his “fullness.”  In fact, he was imperfect until then.  Mormonism also propagates the idea that Jesus was the elder brother of all humans, again, in the literal sense.  He is also considered the “spirit brother” of all human beings prior to coming to earth to be their savior.⁷¹   One notorious spirit brother of Jesus was Lucifer,⁷² who wanted initially to save everyone from their sins, but Jesus’ proposal before God to allow some to go to Hell of their own volition was deemed more in line with godliness than was Lucifer’s proposal.  Given that this same pattern has been repeated an infinite number of times, the savior of humankind is actually an older sibling, and was not the Father at all!

When speaking of the savior in relation to the person of God the Father, in his human state, his Savior then, was his “elder brother” as well.  His name may have been Jesus, given that the derivation of the name Jesus means “Yahweh is salvation.”⁷³   A major problem exists, however, given that Mormons do not believe that Jesus became God until after his death.  And, if the other “Jesus” was not God prior to offering himself as a sacrifice on the cross, then his sacrifice could not have atoned for the sins of the human yet-to-be God.  Moreover, if “Jesus” set the pattern for subsequent sacrifices, all things being precisely done according to the conditions and circumstances for sinners on other earths, then they cannot be forgiven either!  Also, a strange irony develops since Mormons believe that a distinction in persons exists between Elohim and Yahweh, with Elohim being God the Father and Yahweh being Jesus, for the Son would be forgiving the Father of his sins in order that the Father may go on to become like his Son, who is God!  Nevertheless, that is exactly what God the human needed prior to advancing in his progression: the forgiveness of sins.  And that came about through God’s brother!  But, how did he attain it, if his Savior was unable to pay the sin debt, fully, until after his death?

7.  God Needed Forgiveness of Sin

Forgiveness in Mormonism comes at premium for those who actually attain it.  This is simply because it is something that is not freely bestowed upon people based on the grace of God.  It is something that is earned through the meritorious effort of the sinner.  The same applies to the human that would become the Mormon God.  He had to earn his forgiveness as well, if he was to be truly forgiven at all.  Yet, how and when did this happen, if it ever did?  To answer the question we will look briefly at the prerequisites set forth by Mormonism for anyone to be forgiven and conclude with the timing of forgiveness.

The prerequisite works that needed to be performed by the human God of Mormonism, before his God would individually forgive him, have been outlined by former apostle Bruce R. McConkie.  He lists them as 1.Godly sorrow for sin; 2. Abandonment of sin; 3. Confession of sin; 4. Restitution for sin; and, 5. Obedience to all law.⁷⁴   Godly sorrow, says McConkie, “includes an honest, heartfelt contrition of the soul, a contrition born of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.”⁷⁵   In other words, a deep-seated, emotional admittance of wrong-doing, or the personal manifestation of a guilty conscience, is the first step toward being forgiven.  It is a condition that God experienced as a human when his God made him feel guilty (2 Cor. 7:10). 

After his emotional episode, God the human then embarked upon the task of abandoning his sin, or the effort to demonstrate that he was truly repentant of his past sins, and agreeing not to sin again.  D&C 58:43 tells us, “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.”  Of course, confession involves not only all sins of omission, but those of commission as well,⁷⁶ with the ultimate goal of forsaking, or ceasing to sin, altogether.  In fact, the idea of someone having to continually seek repentance for sin was repulsive to the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith.  He stated, “Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day.  Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God.”⁷⁷   Spencer W. Kimball would conclude,

In our journey toward eternal life, purity must be our constant aim.  To walk and talk with God, to serve with God, to follow his example and become as a god, we must attain perfection.  In his presence there can be no guile, no wickedness, no transgression.  In numerous scriptures he has made it clear that all worldliness, evil and weakness must be dropped before we can ascend unto “the hill of the Lord.”⁷⁸

Therefore, the human to become the Mormon God ceased to sin on his way to glory.  Of course, before sin can be forgiven, it must be confessed.  McConkie say, “The sinner must open his heart to the Almighty and with godly sorrow admit the errors of his ways and plead for grace.”⁷⁹   Particularly heinous sins, though, are dealt with by LDS Church authorities, since LDS authorities are viewed with the same status as God.  So, to confess or lie to the Church leaders is tantamount to confession or lying to God.⁸⁰   And from LDS testimony, the Mormon God must not have been a murderer in his previous life, otherwise he would have not been forgiven, nor gone on to become a God.⁸¹   The problem with God not being a murderer, though, is that it excludes God from being able to forgive subsequent murderers, since as already seen, God committed sin in order to experientially know how to forgive others of their sins.  And when one takes into account James’ words, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one, he has become guilty of all” (James 2:10), then it becomes quite clear that even though God might not have committed murder in a previous life, he still could not act as a God or savior to any of his “children.”  Hence, the need for God to be a complete and total sinner, in every respect, is manifest in all its blasphemy.

The fourth prerequisite to being forgiven is restitution commensurate with the sin committed against others.  “It is to return the stolen property, to make amends for the offense committed, to repair the damage done, to compensate for hardships imposed by one’s acts.”⁸²   Of course, complete restitution may not always be possible or at all.  Nevertheless, from the forgoing one must assume that the human God of Mormonism restored all things that he stole, lied about, cheated on, damaged, or grieved, in general.⁸³   Lastly, and perhaps the most difficult of all, the eventual Mormon God had to obey all laws of his God.  McConkie states,

Complete forgiveness is reserved for those only who turn their whole hearts to the Lord and begin to keep all of his commandments—not just those commandments disobeyed in the past, but those in all fields.  “He that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven.”  (D.& C. 1:32).⁸⁴ [emphasis his].

Apparently, the Mormon God did that which no human, other than Jesus, was able to do in his state of degeneracy, and that was to perfectly obey all the laws of God.  Paradoxically speaking, though, if one is a sinner, then how can one be perfectly obedient?  Nevertheless, that is what McConkie and Mormonism propose took place with the God of Mormonism.

As for when “God” managed to fulfill all the forgiveness requirements, it was during his human lifetime.  Mormon leadership has made it quite clear that if one fails to accomplish the prerequisites necessary for forgiveness, that forgiveness will be forfeited.  According to James Talmage, “No soul is justified in postponing his efforts to repent because of this assurance of longsuffering and mercy [by God]…To procrastinate the day of repentance is to deliberately place ourselves in the power of the enemy.”⁸⁵   The Book of Mormon concurs with Talmage, et al, regarding the urgency of being repentant and forgiven before leaving this life by relaying the message of Amulek⁸⁶ in the Book of Alma (a subsection of the Book of Mormon).  He asserted,

32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.  33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.  34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God.  Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.  35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you  his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath not place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.  (Alma 34:32-35). [emphasis added]

Spencer W. Kimball makes it even clearer why the Mormon God did not wait until after he had died before receiving his God’s forgiveness.

One cannot delay repentance until the next life, the spirit world, and there prepare properly for the day of judgment while the ordinance work is done for him vicariously on earth.  It must be remembered that vicarious work for the dead is for those who could not do the work for themselves.  Men and women who live in mortality and who have heard the gospel here have had their day, their seventy years to put their lives in harmony, to perform the ordinances, to repent and to perfect their lives⁸⁷ [emphasis added].

His point is that a Mormon cannot expect to “put their lives in harmony” in the afterlife, especially since they have already had seventy years to put it in harmony while alive in this life. 

In summary, the Mormon God, as a human, needed to be forgiven.  How he managed to accomplish the necessary requirements in the allotted time defies biblical revelation, if not common sense.  But, if his superhuman achievements defy everything he revealed about the human condition and its inability to attain sinless perfection by its own effort, then it only follows that the next need would also defy the same, for while “God” needed to be forgiven, as he changed from a state of imperfection to a state of perfection, he also needed someone who was unchanging to provide such an opportunity to begin with.

8.  God Needed an Immutable God

Of all the needs that the Mormon God has, perhaps the most troubling is the idea that he needed an immutable God to assist him in his journey toward godhood.  The reason why it is so troubling is that Mormonism teaches that there is no first being that caused all other things or beings to come into existence.  As pointed out before, Joseph Smith taught that an infinite line of contingently related gods and goddesses exist.  Nevertheless, despite such contingency, and despite what others such as Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball taught, namely the finiteness of God,⁸⁸ there was no first God that was not contingent.  In other words, there never has been a time when there existed a God who immutably existed in and of himself, that brought all the other gods into existence, much less anything else.  In fact, such thinking that there ever was such a being is often attributed to Greek philosophy and its influence upon Christian theology. 

Blake Ostler, a Mormon philosopher, advocates the idea of Hellenistic influence upon Christianity by writing, “the apostasy occurs when God is conceived to have the same properties as the Platonic ideas or forms, to have properties such as metaphysical simplicity, aseity, immutability, timelessness, impassibility and incorporeality.  Now I add that in many ways the use of Greek philosophy as a vehicle to make sense of the Christian revelation was inevitable.”⁸⁹   Yet, such a conclusion is specious at best, a convoluted revision of history at worst, for as Ronald Nash observed in answering the question, “Did [Christianity] borrow any of its essential beliefs and practices either from Hellenistic philosophy or religion or from Gnosticism?  The evidence requires that this question be answered in the negative.”⁹⁰   Furthermore, when LDS philosophers such as Sterling McMurrin assert that “Mormonism has much in common with the naturalistic position of the Greeks…God is not the totality of original being and he is not the ultimate source or the creator of all being,”⁹¹ then whatever accusations of Hellenistic tainting of Christian theology begins to lose its intended punch.

Yet, an immutable God is necessary for all other beings and things to exist, much less for the Mormon God to attain the lofty heights of godhood.  Why?  Simply because if the potential exists that God may either cease to exist altogether or that he may mutate into to something other than God, then there is no objective means for other beings to relate to whereby they may maintain their identity.  Beings and things do not exist and consist in and of themselves.  They are because someone outside and apart from them willed them into existence.  But, if the one doing the willing is so unstable as to fail to maintain his existence, and somehow his being changes into that which is less than God, that which is contingent upon him will cease to exist as well.  Therefore, the Mormon God, if he ever truly hoped to attain his exaltation as a god, needs a being that will not only not change in his being, but needs to be someone who does not rely upon someone else for his existence, and in Mormonism that being does not exist.  Hence, the Mormon God cannot exist either.  Nevertheless, not only does God need an immutable God to help him “progress;” he needs an immutable God to provide for him a wife as well.

9.  God Needed To Be Married.

In the Mormon understanding of who God is, nothing is more important to the eternal welfare or wellbeing of an individual aspiring to become God than the marriage covenant.  That includes all of the aforementioned needs above.  For unless a male is married, to the right person, in the right place, by the right authority, there is no possibility that that man will ever attain to the status of God.  This is clearly spelled out in the LDS canon, Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-4, where it states,

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;  2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];  3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.  4 He many enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

LDS leadership has been consistent down through the years in upholding the necessity of celestial marriage in the temple as the means for a man to be exalted to godhood, and that those who refrain from engaging in such an ordinance are prohibited from being anything more than a servant in the celestial abode to those who managed to be married while on earth.  Joseph Fielding Smith tells us, “Marriage is the grandest, most glorious, and most exalting principle connected with the gospel.  It is that which the Lord holds in reserve for those who become his sons and daughters; all others are servants only, even if they gain salvation.  They do not become members of the household of our Father and our God, if they refuse to receive the celestial covenant of marriage.”⁹²

Commensurate with the idea of becoming a God is to have children as God did.  It is part of participating in the same activity that God participates in now.  “Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so we can become like him,” Gospel Principles declares.  “We must live this law to be able to have spirit children.”⁹³   In fact, for anyone to have children is to have God’s children, whom he sired and bore in the spirit world, and are now waiting for physical bodies to inhabit so that they may embark upon their divine journey.  Former President of the Mormon Church, Hugh B. Brown, makes this point emphatically clear when he wrote,

Parents should remember that the children born to them—their children—are also the children of God.  He is the Father of their bodies, and during the pre-earth existence he wisely made provision for eternal element and eternal spirit to be inseparably connected and receive a fulness of joy.  Latter-day Saints therefore believe that God is actually the third partner in this relationship and that bringing children into the world within the divinely sanctioned institution of marriage is part of his plan to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.⁹⁴

Despite the fact that Mormons are hesitant to mention anything about their Heavenly Mother, the mandate is clear that God needed his wife in order to complete his voyage to godhood, and without her, not only could he not become a god, neither can any subsequent male member of the Mormon Church.  The Student Manual, Achieving a Celestial Marriage, asserts that,

There is probably no decision in all of life, and perhaps in eternity, that has a more profound effect on our eternal destiny than that concerning marriage.  In the relationships of husband and wife and parent and child we begin to approach the divine calling of godhood.  Our Heavenly Father and mother live in an exalted state because they achieved a celestial marriage.  As we achieve a like marriage we shall become as they are and begin the creation of worlds for our own spirit children.⁹⁵

Former Apostle and General Authority in the Mormon Church, Bruce R. McConkie would echo such a sentiment when he wrote,

The most important things that any member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever does in this world are: 1. To marry the right person, in the right place, by the right authority; and 2. To keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony—thus assuring the obedient persons of an inheritance of exaltation in the celestial kingdom.⁹⁶

Clearly the Mormon God was married, not necessarily because he wanted to be, but, because he needed to be, lest he fail in the most important stage of becoming a god.  Yet, while marriage is considered the most important requirement for anyone, including God, to become a god, from a Christian perspective, perhaps the most important requirement that God needed to become a god was to simply deny his own revelation.

10.  God Needed to Deny His Revelation

We have already seen at the beginning of this paper the biblical pronouncements regarding the aseity of God.  God exists in and of himself and does not necessitate the involvement of someone or something external to himself to exist as he is.  He has always been God, and has never existed in any other capacity as a being.

In Mormonism, however, God must deny his own revelation in order for the Mormon view of God to come to fruition, and consistently so.  For despite all the claims by Mormon leaders down through the years who laud the Bible as the Word of God, the Bible is actually looked at as a work that is either incomplete, untrustworthy, or tainted by unscrupulous scribes out to set their own agenda.  Notice for example what the Book of Mormon has to say about the Bible:

Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.  And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.⁹⁷

Hence the Bible is the product of “the great and abominable church,” “many plain and precious thing” have been removed from it, the errors of the book have been spread far and wide, “insomuch that Satan” has great power over the many who “stumble” over it.  Robert J. Matthews reiterates the attitude by claiming, “As members of the Church seek to gain more spiritual knowledge, they do not have to settle for the inherent limitations of a Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish translation of the Bible derived from an inadequate manuscript. They have access to the best Bible that is available–the Joseph Smith Translation.”⁹⁸ [emphasis added].  Perhaps the late Bruce R. McConkie summed up the prevailing attitude of many Mormons when it comes to the Bible when he said,

One of the great heresies of modern Christendom is the unfounded assumption that the Bible contains all of the inspired teachings now extant among men.  Forseeing that Satan would darken the minds of men in this way, and knowing that other scripture would come forth in the last days, Nephi prophesied that unbelieving Christians would reject the new revelation with the cry: “A Bible! A Bible!  We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.”⁹⁹

So, according to McConkie, “unbelieving Christians” (whatever they are) whose minds have been darkened by Satan would be the ones at fault for believing that God’s revelation comes exclusively through the pages of the Bible.  It could not be those with extra-biblical material that does not jibe with what the Bible has to say about any particular subject—and in this case, God’s aseity—that could be darkened by the influence of Satan. 

The point, though, ought to be clear.  In order for God to exist as the God of Mormonism portrays him, he needs to deny what he has revealed previously about himself stemming from the pages of the Bible, which declares him to be a se.  For he cannot be both self-sufficient and independent of all things or persons for his existence, and reliant and dependent upon the things discussed in the latter part of this paper, at the same time.  The two views are totally distinct and diametrically opposed to each other.  There cannot be any compromise.

CONCLUSION

This paper has served to demonstrate the differences that exist between biblical and historical Christian theology and Mormon theology, particularly as it relates to God’s aseity or self-existence.  From the foregoing it was seen that biblical and historical Christianity advocates that God has always existed, in and of himself; that there is no one, nor anything that he relies upon for who he is, whereas the Mormon idea of God espoused a being that is totally contingent and reliant upon a variety of persons and things external to him for his existence.  In other words, the two systems of thought advocate a belief in God that is unrelated when it comes to who he is in his existence.

The reason that such a study is important is that often the subject is overlooked or not considered, and Mormons then capitalize on Christian naïveté of theological thought, and then proselytize the Christian into believing that the two are worshiping and serving the same God; it is just that the two are using slightly different wording.  Yet, if careful consideration is given to the subject, it can serve as a prime starting point of discussion with the LDS, not only in rebutting the idea that the two are talking about the same being, but the Christian may be afforded the opportunity to share with the LDS just who God is.  And if it can be shared that the two are not talking about the same God, and that the LDS god is in fact deficient as a person, as well as a god, then the Christian may well be on his way to sharing with the Mormon who the true God is, with the ultimate result being the salvation of his LDS acquaintance.

References